Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420-439)
20 DECEMBER 2003
RT HON
NICK RAYNSFORD
MP, MR CLIVE
NORRIS AND
SIR GRAHAM
MELDRUM
Q420 Mr Cummings: So you do not think
that the Integrated Risk Management Plans will produce no change
at all in fact?
Mr Raynsford: No, quite the opposite.
I think they will produce a much better distribution of responses
to meet risks and I think they will contribute to reducing the
number of fires, the number of fatalities and the number of serious
injuries caused by fires.
Q421 Chairman: So you are committed
to the fire authorities being able to set standards locally?
Mr Raynsford: Yes.
Q422 Chairman: But, on the one hand,
we have got the Integrated Risk Management Plans which the insurance
companies are going to look at very closely, so they are going
to be applying pressure to the local fire authority to reach uniform
standards across the country, and you have also got this problem
of different levels of funding that are brought in and you have
got the Health & Safety Executive demanding certain standards
of training. Is there really much scope for the local fire authority
to set its own standards?
Mr Raynsford: Yes, I think there
is considerable scope and I think the insurance industry recognises
very much that the losses associated with fires which might have
been prevented are a very, very considerable sum indeed and there
is scope for real savings if the preventative programme is carried
forward in the way that the White Paper envisages. Clearly putting
out a fire after it has taken place is not going to be as satisfactory
an outcome as stopping it from happening in the first place.
Q423 Chairman: Do you think the insurance
companies are going to be looking at this fire prevention role
and taking action against fire authorities if they have not been
pursuing that prevention role when it comes to individual claims?
Mr Raynsford: I have not had discussions
myself with the insurance industry, so I could not comment on
that. My colleagues might be able to.
Sir Graham Meldrum: I think in
relation to the insurance concerns which have been expressed to
yourselves and others, the overall package of Integrated Risk
Management does provide adequate cover to all buildings within
the community and I think that their concerns will be allayed
when they see the level of cover which has been provided within
the Integrated Risk Management Planning which is taking place.
Q424 Chairman: But the question I
have put is as to whether there will be differences between one
local authority, one fire authority and another and if there is,
then surely that is of concern to the insurance industry?
Sir Graham Meldrum: There certainly
will be differences and we would expect to see that. That really
is the whole purpose. Whereas in the past the insurance industry
would have seen A risk, B risk, C risk, the same everywhere in
the country, not taking into consideration all the local factors
which could in certain instances, especially now where, say, an
insurance company is insuring buildings that are in remote parts
of greenfield sites and they are not getting the same level of
cover as they would have got in an inner city, they will get better
cover under the new system.
Q425 Chris Mole: I wondered whether
the Minister just might dwell for a moment longer on the capacity
of fire authorities. When they are implementing IRMPs, they are
going to come under a lot of pressure from local communities,
local newspapers and the like. What do you see as the imperative
that they are going to have to see modernisation through on the
ground against those forces which are very considerable for fire
authorities?
Mr Raynsford: A number of factors.
They have to have a clear vision of the kind of service they want
to operate and how they can be more effective in prevention, in
stopping fires from happening in the first place. They have got
to communicate that message through the consultation process which
is built into the preparation of IRMPs so that local communities,
which perfectly naturally tend to want to preserve existing arrangements,
particularly where they have got a neighbouring fire station and
they will not want to see that changed, those communities need
to understand that some change is necessary if you are to respond
to today's risks rather than continue to meet the kind of risks
that were regarded as being the standards in the 1940s. Now, thirdly,
they have got to have sufficient backing from the centre, from
their professional institute, CACFOA, from the Inspectorate and
from our own modernisation team within ODPM to be able to put
forward their case where it is a convincing case and, if they
have evidence that they are wrong or that there is better practice
elsewhere, to be able to take that on board and change, so we
see an important role for the national institutions and indeed
for ourselves in helping to inform the process. However, we do,
as I stressed earlier, want to see ownership by individual fire
brigades for their risk management planning because we do feel,
in just the same way as devolving responsibility and power to
local government, that it is right that people locally should
be in a position to take key decisions about how their service
impacts on their community.
Q426 Chris Mole: So, as the Member
of Parliament for Greenwich, you will be completely behind the
London fire authority in any closures they make in your constituency?
Mr Raynsford: I have great respect
for the London fire authority, LFEPA, the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority, I think it is one of the best in the country
and I have very good and constructive relationships with them
and will obviously continue to talk to them about how they believe
it is right to respond to today's risks.
Q427 Mr Betts: Well, we are all signed
up to modernisation now, are we not? The FBU said they were, the
Chief Fire Officers, the LGA, and I think it is accepted now that
it is not simply a question of measuring how quickly you can get
the fire engine out of the fire station.
Mr Raynsford: Yes.
Q428 Mr Betts: It is much more about
prevention and prevention by the Fire Service.
Mr Raynsford: Absolutely.
Q429 Mr Betts: So the first thing
the Government does in this process is to take the Building Regulations,
having put them together with the Fire Service in the same Department,
to divorce them and send them off somewhere else. Is that a very
good sign of an integrated service?
Mr Raynsford: No, it is not the
case at all. Building Regulations are a part of our Department's
responsibility.
Q430 Mr Betts: But they are not as
integrated as they were a few weeks ago or a few months ago?
Mr Raynsford: Yes, certainly they
are. I personally was the Minister responsible for the most significant
change in terms of sprinkler standards three years ago when we
extended the provision of sprinklers to cover non-comparted buildings
of 2,000 square metres where previously the standard had been
4,000 square metres. That was a decision that we took. We were
not at that stage responsible for the Fire Service. We now have
responsibility for the Fire Service as well as Building Regulations
and I think that is an entirely happy and appropriate link.
Q431 Mr Betts: And in terms of departmental
working, the Building Regulations have to be integrated now into
the whole approach?
Mr Raynsford: Absolutely, yes.
Q432 Mr Betts: And, therefore, the
issue of sprinklers, are we going to see some requirements that
sprinklers should be mandatory in certain types of buildings,
maybe commercial premises, maybe HMOs?
Mr Raynsford: We are just coming
to the end of a very detailed research programme relating to sprinklers
in residential properties. I referred to the work we did earlier
on sprinklers in commercial premises where we made a very significant
change in the standards just three years ago and we are now completing
the research because there needs to be an evidence base for work
in this because there are some quite difficult technical issues
which must be taken on board before decisions are taken. We certainly
see potential contributions sprinklers can make for fire prevention
and suppression in a number of circumstances. We want those decisions
to be evidence based and we have already announced that there
will be a review of Part B of the Building Regulations next year
and that will allow that work to be taken forward.
Q433 Mr Betts: So any change is going
to come as a part of that process rather than as part of the Housing
Bill which might be coming in the next parliamentary session?
Mr Raynsford: The Housing Bill,
which may or may not be coming, will include provisions for the
new housing health and safety rating system to replace the previous
standards and that may well have some sort of bearing on this,
but it is the Building Regulations that are the critical issue
in relation to requirements for the installation of sprinklers.
Q434 Chairman: But would you not
agree that it would be very foolish for anyone putting up new
accommodation for the elderly or for people with learning difficulties
not to have sprinklers in them because they would make a huge
difference to the safety of the people in those buildings?
Mr Raynsford: As I said, I think
any decision on sprinklers must be taken on a proper evidence
base and I did mention some of the complexities. One of the complexities
is ensuring that the water supply is provided in a way that does
not expose people to the risk of, for example, legionnaires disease
if there was an inadequately maintained supply of water feeding
through a sprinkler system. That is a genuine anxiety which has
been raised and obviously if you are talking about a population
of elderly people, there is particular risk there, so there are
technical issues which must be addressed. Those are being looked
at at the moment through the research programme and we expect
to be taking decisions in the coming year in the light of that
evidence, but I accept entirely that there is a potential role
for sprinklers in certain circumstances and you have highlighted
some circumstances where that might be appropriate and there are
almost certainly others. I am conscious of the number of arson
attacks on schools where very considerable damage has been caused.
I am told that the cost of the installation of a sprinkler system
could probably be recovered in something less than five years
or around five years as a result of reduced insurance premiums.
That is clearly a factor which needs to be taken into account
and we need to talk to and are already talking to our colleagues
in DfES about this issue, but a lot of these issues are being
considered and we are going to be making progress, I hope.
Q435 Chairman: When?
Mr Raynsford: I said next year
is the year when we are initiating this review of Part B of the
Building Regulations.
Q436 Chairman: Yes, that is the review,
but when are they actually going to be in operation, the new Regulations?
Mr Raynsford: Well, all of these
matters have to go through a process. There has to be firstly
a consideration by the relevant Building Regulations advisory
professional group, there often has to be a regulation impact
assessment because if there is a new regulatory burden being imposed,
that is required. We then have to consider the evidence that comes
through that process and then take a decision. I am keen that
we make good, quick progress, but I do not want to short-circuit
the proper way of taking decisions on these issues.
Q437 Christine Russell: Minister,
the Bain Review quite clearly emphasised that the Fire Service
should have specific responsibilities, but then if you read the
White Paper, it seems to be much vaguer and says that the future
of the Fire Service is to have a role that encompasses everything
from environmental disasters through to cats stuck up trees. Do
you think there is a need for perhaps a little bit more definition
and clarity as to exactly what the role of the Fire Service is
going to be in the future?
Mr Raynsford: Well, our proposals
set out in the White Paper and indeed proposals which will inform
legislation if we are able to introduce legislation in the next
session are very much based on the recommendations of the Bain
Report and Sir George himself recognises that we have followed
very closely his recommendations and he is clearly very pleased
by that. There are issues in terms of borderline definitions and,
if I can say so, this cats up trees issue does tend to feature
rather prominently when in reality it is a tiny, tiny, micro proportion
of any work of the Fire and Rescue Service. Animal rescue does
feature, but predominantly this is rescuing cattle caught by flooding
and other circumstances like that, not just the odd domestic pet
up a tree. Our approach is to modernise the definition so that
it is no longer based just on a duty in relation to fire and otherwise
discretionary powers in relation to other emergencies, such as
road traffic accidents and terrorist attacks which we know fire
authorities are already engaged in preparations for dealing with,
but which is not properly reflected in legislation, so we want
the new legislation to reflect today's realities and we are proposing
that that remit should follow very closely the recommendations
of the Bain Review.
Q438 Christine Russell: Can I ask
about charging because the White Paper seems to be a bit vague
about charging. Nowadays people have to pay for their Building
Regs permission, they have to pay for their licensing, but I wonder
if they have to pay for advice for fire prevention.
Mr Raynsford: Well, this is one
of the very few areas where we probably have not fully gone along
with the Bain Review recommendations. Bain suggested that there
was scope for a very substantial increase in revenue through charging.
There are complex issues here and there are risks of deterring
people from taking necessary safety measures if they decide that
the cost is prohibitive and our wish is that each fire authority
should consider carefully where there is a genuine and legitimate
case for a charge that will not inhibit action to improve fire
safety, but not pursue charging schemes that might have an adverse
impact on that more important, wider objective.
Q439 Christine Russell: Will that
lead to inconsistencies though if each individual fire authority
is doing that? Should there not be some general guidance from
your Department as to what is permissible to charge for?
Mr Raynsford: There are already
quite significant differences between fire authorities. We want
those issues to be explored in a more rigorous way. We want fire
authorities to learn from the experience of their neighbours and
other fire authorities and we do want this to develop in a pragmatic
way in which the scope for charges is not removed or prevented,
but where our primary objective remains on preventing fires and
that there are not any artificial changes introduced that could
inhibit that objective.
| 
