Charging
71. A Fire Authority currently has the power to charge
for work that their Fire Service does which is not related to
fire or other emergencies.[91]
Use of this power is inconsistent across the country. For example,
Greater Manchester Fire Service told us: "We have a policy
for recovering costs wherever possible which I think is right,
firstly to drive down unnecessary calls and ask people to go and
seek help from other agencies. Wherever we use certain of our
equipment on special service calls where there is no risk of fire
and no risk to life, we actually recover our costs then."[92]
72. The White Paper proposes that Fire Authorities
retain this ability: "This power will continue, and we will
consult more widely if there is any proposal to extend it."[93]
Opinion is divided over the extension of the power to charge.
Some witnesses told us that once the Fire Service has a statutory
duty to respond to a wider range of incidents, there will be greater
need [and ability] for the Service to be able to charge for responding
to some types of incident, particularly incidents where costs
covered by recovered through insurance:
"The LGA believes that in general the service
should not charge for core activities, which would mean that in
future charging would not be applicable to a wider range of incidents.
The exception would be road traffic accidents, where we have supported
an examination of the feasibility of recovering costs from insurance
companies."[94]
"NHS hospitals giving treatment to a road
accident casualty have the power to charge under the Road Traffic
(NHS Charges) Act 1999 if an injured person makes an insurance
claim arising from the accident. The amounts payable are fixed
by regulations under the Act. We believe that, where the public
now expects the fire service to attend and provide assistance
at such accidents, we should be able to levy a charge in a similar
way as the NHS hospitals. Indeed, it might be appropriate and
economic for one body to collect the charges recovered by both
sectors."[95]
73. In addition to charging for response, some witnesses
suggest extension of the power to charge for 'non-response' activities,
such as the provision of advice on risk assessment. The White
Paper's proposed simplification of fire safety legislation, through
a Regulatory Reform Order, will require building owners or occupiers
to take responsibility for carrying out fire risk assessments
and taking any necessary action to minimise the risks identified
during those assessments. This will apply to any premises used
as places of work and/or to which the public has access. Government
is keen for building owners/occupiers to complete risk assessments
"in house" to promote ownership, limit financial implications
and develop in-house knowledge through appropriate training. However,
some people are likely to employ advisors and contractors to advise,
supply and fit fire safety systems and equipment. The demand for
such advisors is therefore anticipated to increase substantially
from Spring 2004 when the Regulatory Reform Order is likely to
come before Parliament. Fire Authorities will be unable to enter
this market because under the Fire Services Act 1947 Fire Authorities
are precluded from charging for services, except where specifically
authorised.
74. The new Order will expect Fire Authorities to
inspect premises to ensure fire safety risks have been identified
and any necessary action taken. The London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority believes that Authorities should be able to
charge for this activity:
"This regime will, in our estimation, far
outstrip the current workload under the fire certification process.
This presents a major resourcing issue that must be addressed
if our enforcement activity is to be anywhere near the level needed
to fully/properly protect Londoners. We believe that provision
of powers to charge for providing advice on risk assessment to
help building owners/occupiers meet their responsibilities under
the reformed fire safety legislation is fully justified. Currently
we are allowed to recover part of the costs of activities such
as fire certification and petroleum licensing and approximately
£700,000 was raised by this means in 2000; this helps resource
the fire prevention work we do (being the equivalent of some 25
firefighters). The principle of making charges is well established
elsewhere. For example, applicants for building control permissions,
liquor licences and petroleum licenses currently pay fees. LFEPA
accepts that the concept of free advice is deeply rooted in the
fire service ethic and has come to be expected by the public and
business. But circumstances are changing rapidly and the range
and reach of fire safety regulatory control is set to be greater
than at any time in the past. More specifically: self-regulation
is strengthening the concept of "do-it-yourself" "buying-in"
professional skills where necessary. This means that safety is
at last becoming accepted as an essential component of business
activity that carries an overhead like anything else. This principle
already applies in relation to general health and safety legislation:
which operates on the same risk based self-compliance regime which
is now proposed for fire safety legislation. In these circumstances,
we believe that powers to charge for providing advice to building
owners/occupiers in how the meet their new responsibilities becomes
a practical and reasonable way to help support the expanding duties
of fire authorities."[96]
75. However, the Association of British Insurers
argues that the business sector should be included in Fire Services
statutory community fire safety work:
"Insurers are anxious that terms such as
Community Fire Safety should include business and the voluntary
sector, rather than the narrower definition that has been used
to date in many parts of the country. Around 8 in 10 large fire
losses occur in businesses with less than £100 million annual
turnover. It is unlikely that many of these businesses have in-house
risk management expertise. This has implications for the promotion
of fire prevention in businesses, particularly as regulatory reform
leads to the new risk based approach to statutory inspections."[97]
76. Government is visibly reluctant to come to any
view on the issue of charging. In oral evidence the Minister commented:
"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."[98]
He added:
"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."[99]
77. We believe there needs to be
more research conducted on the potential for Fire Authorities
to charge for activities of the Fire Service. As the statutory
role of the Service expands, we expect Government to support Authorities
as they seek to recoup costs. The NHS can reclaim costs from insurers
for treatment of Road Traffic Accident victims. It is possible
this scheme could be extended to allow Fire Authorities to do
the same. In relation to non-response work, we agree with the
Minister that care must be taken not to inhibit action which improves
fire safety. However, the Fire Service contains a wealth of knowledge
and expertise and it makes sense for Fire Services to provide
advice on risk assessed fire safety. Government should undertake
consultation to explore whether the Fire Service should charge
for this activity.
81 
