|
Mr. Hammond: That is democracy at three removes, because in county fire authorities people elect county councillors, who nominate members of the fire authority, who nominate members of the regional management board, who elect a chairman—and the chairman is the only person who gets near any of the sensitive information.
Richard Younger-Ross: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Actually, I think that that is four removes, which is even further. However, that is not democracy as I would like to see it undertaken. People's belief in political structures is undermined if the decisions are
Column Number: 018
taken so far away from where they can have any influence. One of the reasons the regional assemblies debate was lost was the lack of democracy or of powers being given to the assembly in question.
We have debated regional control rooms, on which I share a similar perspective to the Conservatives. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, although we accept that regional control rooms should be merged—with fewer than the 46 that we have at the moment—we do not accept that nine is the right number for England. It was proposed that Scotland should have one regional control room, but it has decided that one is too few and that it will have three, thereby going against the MacDonald report. Scotland is still making cost savings, but it is using a more resilient method than we are employing in England.
The regions are arbitrary. They were set up by the Conservatives for other reasons and are not necessarily the ideal size for fire control rooms. It would be far more sensible if the areas designed the control rooms to suit them, rather than go by arbitrary lines on the map that happen to have been drawn by a civil servant in the 1980s for other reasons.
In the south-west, the area about which I know most, there should probably be two control rooms, if not three, which would still reduce the number we already have, provide far greater resilience and overcome some of the problems that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned about staff fearing that they will lose their job and walking away to find other employment. I hope that the Minister will pick up that point. There is a risk that the management of some control rooms will become difficult as they move towards the new single control room in the region.
There is a great deal of concern among authorities about the costs. It is not good enough that the Government keep hiding behind what they have said, which is that they cannot discuss the figures because of commercial confidentiality. The figures should be made available; we ought to be able to debate the costs. There is a debate in the press and it is said that the cost savings predicted by the Minister will not be made. I find that frustrating, as I am sure other hon. Members do. We would like to test the Minister to see whether the savings will be made, but as we are not given the information, we cannot test him and we will end up with a fait accompli that is not properly tested by the processes of the House. The Minister shakes his head. If he can say how we will be able to test that before commitments are made on spending, that would be extremely useful.
Another issue is the software. I can give some assurance to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, as I have visited Strathclyde and seen the new software systems, and they work exceedingly well. I am impressed: it is a tested system and it is being built on. Of course, there is always the fear that something that works on one level will, when several more tiers are added to it, become problematic. As I understand it, there will be one centre. If a control room is too full, another control room will come into play and connect to a central control room, which will store all the maps. That will mean that the north-east can tell a fire
Column Number: 019
tender in Teignmouth where it needs to go. It sounds wonderful, but I would like to ensure that the system is seen, tested and working well before control rooms come online.
Mr. Hammond: I do not want us to become too fanciful, but a number of people have suggested to me that once we get to the stage that the hon. Gentleman is describing, there will be no logical reason why the operation cannot be outsourced altogether, perhaps to an overseas call centre. A number of people in the fire and rescue services fear that that will be the end result.
Richard Younger-Ross: The logic of what the hon. Gentleman says is right. However, I will say that, in the private meetings that the Government have held for MPs, on which I congratulate them, the Minister has said categorically that that will not be the case. However, it would allay the fears of some in the industry if the Government said at least that the control room in the south-west, which is to be one of the early ones, will be in Bristol. I imagine that it almost certainly will be there: it is the logical place for it.
In the Committee considering the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, we were constantly told that one reason why the system would work was the new technology. We were told that when people use their mobile phone to report a fire, the person in the call centre will know where that mobile phone is calling from. I have asked questions of the Minister and am assured that that is the case. The Minister nods his head, so I shall be interested if I get a different answer from him than I have had from his colleague in the past. Likewise, we were told that when people telephone from a landline, the operator in the control room will be able to see exactly where the call is coming from.
My understanding, however, is that the software is not in place for all that yet. What will happen if the software is not up and running? Will the single control room for the south-west still go ahead? I know that local knowledge is pooh-poohed by people in the industry and in control rooms and that it has been pooh-poohed by the Minister when we have debated this issue in the past.
I know from my experience of going round control rooms, however, that that local knowledge occasionally saves lives. I have heard the tapes and seen examples, and I am convinced of that. I would like an assurance that the technology that the system is based on will be in place before the first control room opens. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond on that point, because it is integral to the document that we are debating.
There are two or three other matters, but I shall try to be brief. We debated building regulations and sprinklers at length last week, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some idea of when the building regulations will be revised. It would be useful if we could have some idea of which Departments wanted sprinklers in schools or otherwise.
My final point relates to pensions for retained firefighters. The Minister also made promises about
Column Number: 020
the rights of retained firefighters in pay negotiations. As far as I am aware, those promises, too, have not been met, and it would be useful if he could update us.
The Chairman: Before I call the next speaker, I should advise the Committee that our proceedings must currently end at 4.23 pm.
4.1 pm
Dan Norris (Wansdyke) (Lab): As yesterday's tragic events showed, people sometimes lay down their lives when the fire service reacts to fires. However, will the Minister address the other important aspect of the fire service's work: preventing fires in the first place? I am thinking specifically of smoke alarms, which not only have to be put into buildings, but must be maintained and work properly.
4.2 pm
Phil Hope: I shall try to answer the points raised by hon. Members in the brief time that remains. I hope that the Committee recognises that the Opposition prayed against the order so that they could have this debate, but that that was not justified; the order should be passed and give effect to the fire and rescue national framework from 1 April 2005. None the less, the debate has certainly given us a good opportunity to look at all the issues.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned that we were having the debate, because during the passage of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, we debated how the national framework would be open to scrutiny in Parliament. Indeed, when we amended the Bill, he said:
''We agree that the Government's solution''—
doing what we are doing now—
''is better, and it is more than I dared to ask for in Committee.''—[Official Report, 21 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 442.]
I am very grateful for that. I am also grateful for the fact that he intends to pray against the provisions next year and the year after—obviously, as a member of the Opposition. That is where I suspect he will be, and I am looking forward to the next five annual groundhog days in this Committee Room, debating the national framework with the Labour party in government.
The framework sets out the Government's priorities and objectives for the fire and rescue service and what fire and rescue authorities should do to achieve them. It also sets out the support that the Government will provide. It was fully consulted on, and I shall not take hon. Members through all of it. This is the third such document to be published, and it follows the drafts in 2003 and in June 2004. It has been broadly welcomed.
I want to emphasise to hon. Members the reason for the timing of this debate. We wanted to get the order laid, and it was laid in 2004, which is why it is dated accordingly. Fire and rescue authorities asked us to do that so that they could take the directions of the national framework into account when considering their budgets for 2005–06. So we have responded positively to the fire and rescue authorities in that regard.
We have a covered a lot of territory, and I shall do my best to tackle most of the points. The hon.
Column Number: 021
Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, raised the issue of targets. First, why have we chosen 2010? Well, that represents a long-term commitment to these changes. It is a sensible time frame, and it happens to chime in with our ''Healthier Nation'' targets, which are Government-wide. We believe that these changes are stretching, but realistic, rather than in any way unambitious.
| 
