The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Bellingham,
Mr. Henry
(North-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Betts,
Mr. Clive
(Sheffield, Attercliffe)
(Lab)
Dhanda,
Mr. Parmjit
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Communities and Local
Government)Goldsworthy,
Julia
(Falmouth and Camborne)
(LD)
Hurd,
Mr. Nick
(Ruislip-Northwood)
(Con)
Kilfoyle,
Mr. Peter
(Liverpool, Walton)
(Lab)
Miller,
Andrew
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
Mole,
Chris
(Ipswich)
(Lab)
Reed,
Mr. Jamie
(Copeland)
(Lab)
Rogerson,
Dan
(North Cornwall)
(LD)
Sharma,
Mr. Virendra
(Ealing, Southall)
(Lab)
Stringer,
Graham
(Manchester, Blackley)
(Lab)
Turner,
Mr. Andrew
(Isle of Wight)
(Con)
Viggers,
Sir Peter
(Gosport)
(Con)
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Wilson,
Mr. Rob
(Reading, East)
(Con)
Richard Ward, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The following also
attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118:
Jackson,
Mr. Stewart
(Peterborough)
(Con)
Fifth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday
15 July
2008
[Mr.
Joe Benton
in the
Chair]
Fire and Rescue Services (National Framework) (England) Order 2008
10.30
am
Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the Fire and Rescue Services (National
Framework) (England) Order 2008 (S.I., 2008, No.
1370).
It
is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Benton, as I have done on a number of occasions. I move the motion
because Opposition Members feel strongly about the regionalisation of
the fire service and about regional control centres. We feel that the
order takes away local autonomy. I speak from experience of my local
fire station, where there is substantial camaraderie within the fire
service, a strong connection with local communities and a strong
connection at the county and the area command levels.
My
concernthe concern that has been put to me by many
constituentsis that if we move to regional control centres, a
great deal of that localism will be lost, the service will become far
too remote and power will be taken away from area commanders. Although
in some ways economies of scale and some efficiency can be achieved
through regional control centres, many of the excellent practices in
the fire service will be lost. That is why Opposition Memberson
the specific point of regional control centres, the Liberal Democrats
are on our side of the argumentwe feel that the Government have
got this wrong. Some good can come out of it, but that will be
overridden by the damage that will be done, particularly to morale in
the fire service, which is already delicate. That is why we oppose the
concept of regional control centres and why we are praying against the
order.
Nevertheless,
we have looked at the framework carefully, and there is much in it that
we support. We certainly support the three-year duration, and there are
aspects on cross-border arrangements that meet with our approval. We
also agree with the implementation of the electronic incident reporting
system, and we approve of the spirit of the equality and diversity
strategy, although we have some reservations about the details. We
accept much of the rest of the framework, but we cannot support
regional control centres, and that is why we oppose the statutory
instrument.
10.33
am
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship once again, Mr. Benton. We are
discussing a matter of great interest to my constituents in Cornwall,
in the far part of what the Government call the south-west. As the hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk said, regional control centres remain
controversial, and I will consider them later.
I should
first say that all the officers in my local fire service do a fantastic
job. On Saturday, by happy coincidence, I attended the open day for
Bodmin fire station, where the officers were reaching out into the
community, talking about the work that they do and explaining to
everyone what fire and rescue services are in the modern setting. They
have a huge number of roles, including the prevention of injury and
accidents, and they do a vast amount of work in responding to other
forms of emergency. There is now a more formal role for them in road
traffic collisions, industrial accidents and, as we saw recently,
flooding. One of the appliances, which is provided under the national
framework and based in Cornwall, was sent to Tewkesbury to help with
the pumping operations. That was a useful reminder to me of how
committed firefighters are, including, of course, the retained
firefighters. They will deliver what is in the framework, and they must
not be
forgotten.
Last
summer, a terrible fire at the Penhallow hotel in Newquay in my
constituency tragically resulted in loss of life. There was much
discussion at the time about whether retained firefighters deliver in
the same way as whole-time firefighters. That is unfortunate, because
they complement each other very well. I look forward to hearing more
from the Government about how they will develop the retained service
and support local authorities in doing
that.
The
explanatory notes describe the framework as guidance to the authorities
that will deliver the plan. Paragraph 10 of the introduction to the
framework speaks of the reduction in usage of the words
must and should, which I am sure is
welcome. However, I notice that those words still appear quite a lot.
Although it is made clear that the framework is an opportunity to offer
guidance, I am still concerned that it is restrictive and that it
dictates to fire and rescue authorities what they should be doing. As
the hon. Gentleman said, there is a tension with the idea of localism.
Rather than offering best practice and support, there is still a
we know best attitude, with people being told the way
to do
things.
The
Liberal Democrats welcome the consultation on the framework. Sadly, the
word consultation has been devalued. Given that the consultation on
post office closures in my constituency is being launched, I fear that
it is about to be devalued even further in North Cornwall. The
Government claim to have changed the framework considerably, as a
result of the consultation. It is right to focus on the vexed question
of regional control centres, because there is still a feeling that they
will be remote. The retained firefighters whom I have spoken to welcome
investment in technology, such as global positioning systems. If they
are given the right tools, their job will be made easier. I understand
that such investment has been provided in other parts of the UK, such
as Scotland, without having regional control centres. I am sure that
the Minister will correct me if he disagrees with that
point.
I
believe that regional control centres are unlikely to deliver
efficiencies. The Fire Brigades Union shares those concerns and is
awaiting the Departments publication of the business case on
how much efficiency will be delivered by the regional control centres.
I share the FBUs expectation that that will reveal that the
efficiencies are not materialising in the way that was predicted. This
change is against the wishes of those in the service and
against the wishes of local people. I am interested to hear what
representations the Minister has received about this aspect of the
framework. The Department has continued down the path of instructing
people to prepare for the change. Does he believe that the forecast
savings are likely to be revised downwards when the business case is
revealed and
published?
Sadly,
because of the inclusion of regional control centres and the idea that
Whitehall knows best in telling fire and rescue authorities what they
should be doing in their local areas, even though those areas are often
very different, my party does not support the
order.
10.38
am
Mr.
Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): There is an
end-of-term feeling, Mr. Benton: the shadow Fire Minister is
not on the list of members of the Committee. However, we live in
interesting times. We are honest in admitting that there was a slight
organisational difficulty, notwithstanding the talent and
loquaciousness of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West
Norfolk.
We
agree with a significant amount of the national framework. We agree
that the move from the two-year to the three-year time scale is
appropriate and helpful. It will enable fire and rescue services to
plan more effectively. We welcome the focus on outcomes rather than
processes. We are broadly supportive of the more emollient language, as
befits the Fire Minister. It is less prescriptive and target-driven
than the language in previous documents, which sought to control the
operational work of fire and rescue authorities and services by diktat.
Who can disagree with the strong focus on reducing fire-related deaths?
However, the Fire Brigades Union makes the important point that we are
not judging like for like when we compare the number of fire-related
deaths in 1958 with the latest figures available. The Minister might
want to touch on
that.
We
have a number of concerns and questions for the Minister. A degree of
centralised planning and control is appropriate in some areas, such as
in the incident recording system, as mentioned by my hon. Friend. We
welcome the move towards the implementation of that by 31 March 2009.
But there are a number of key issues, one of which is tied up with the
governance of regional management boards. The Local Government
Association published its response to the consultation document in
February 2008, and
said:
The
LGA would not want to see a more formal or increased role for RMBs than
that which currently
exists.
I
would concur with that.
As the
Minister will know, the FBU expressed concern in its response to the
consultation that regional management boards were another layer of
bureaucracy, applied only to fire and rescue authorities, and that they
would involve an additional cost burden and provide no facility that
fire and rescue authorities and fire and rescue services could not
perform without them. Perhaps the Minister will clarify his view of the
future of regional management boards and their relationship with
authorities and fire and rescue services. Will he reassure the
Committee that the establishment and operation of regional management
will not necessarily lead to a regional fire service model and
structure?
We
welcome integrated risk management plans as a real vehicle and catalyst
for devolving authority and autonomy down to the local level of fire
and rescue
services. We agree with the Government that, if that happens, we will be
focusing on local need. That is very important. However, given the
Ministers specific reference in his foreword that we are
operating in a tighter fiscal climate in this
comprehensive spending review period, it is natural that key
stakeholders will be concerned about the financial ramifications of
integrated risk management plans as they are operated
locally.
Paragraph
4.4 of the document
states:
Fire
and Rescue Authorities working through Regional Management Boards must
review the opportunities to deliver greater efficiencies through closer
joint working or sharing of functions at regional or sub-regional level
and take action to implement those
efficiencies.
That
is somewhat Orwellian language. As we have seen from the circumstances
in the Humberside fire and rescue service, which we debated in
Westminster Hall in March, the integration of that integrated risk
management plan inevitably led to the closure of retained and full-time
fire stations and consequent job losses. That is obviously an important
issue, and the Minister might want to touch on it.
We also
concur with the FBUs view that integrated risk management plans
should be published and consulted on annually, to improve
accountability and transparency. The costs of contingency and
resilience planning should be made known and explicit, so that we can
be made aware of the resources committed to them. Perhaps the Minister
might touch on the substantive issue.
On the
question of resilience in chapter 2 of the national framework, the case
is obliquely made again for regional control centres. The Minister has
particular sensitivities in his region and constituency. On several
occasions in the House, we have debated the sensitivities involving the
transfer from the private finance initiative funded, tri-service centre
at Quedgeley to Blackbrook business park in Taunton. The Minister may
quote the various supportive independent or Conservative councillors,
but the general consensus established in the south-west, from Cornwall
to north Gloucestershire and further, is one of strong opposition to
those proposals. No doubt, the Minister will body swerve debating the
south-west regional control centre, but he may wish to debate the wider
issue.
On fire
control centres, the Minister issued a letter last week to hon. Members
headed Regional Benefits of the New National Fire Control
Network. We are yet to be provided with substantive evidence
that, as he made clear last summer during the floods, existing fire
control structures were so over burdened that they had to receive
details of 999 calls by fax. If he can give us details today of where,
when and how often that happened, the Committee will be reassured.
Using fax machines because of a very significant but, we hope, one-off
circumstance is not the intellectual evidential basis for imposing
regional control centres. I think that he would concede that
point.
Finally, my
hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk is a pugnacious
character; I am more inclined to listen to the Ministers
answers before we make a decision on whether to divide the Committee
and vote against the statutory instrument. If the statutory instrument
was only about regional control centres, there would be no question but
that we would oppose it, because we have been consistently against it,
and it is over budget and hugely behind schedule. However, it would be
unwise
to disregard all the good work that has been done and is chronicled in
the national framework document. I look forward to hearing the
Ministers views and hope that he can answer some of our
concerns, specifically on fire control centres, but also on some of the
other areas identified in the framework
document.
10.48
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Parmjit Dhanda): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. I
shall try not to detain colleagues for very longthat is a
popular thing to say at the
outset.
There
are four key aspects of the framework that hon. Members would be voting
against, if they chose to. The framework has really good stakeholder
support. It is not my creature; it was shaped by the fire and rescue
service with strong buy-in, including from the Chief Fire Officers
Association, the Local Government Association, fire and rescue
authorities, and employee representatives, including the trade
unions.
The
hon. Member for North Cornwall talked about the need for a more local
and less centralised fire and rescue service. I agree with him. When I
became the Minister responsible for the fire and rescue service, I made
it clear that there were no plans for a regional fire service. I like
the autonomy of local fire and rescue authorities and services. When
they choose to come together to work with each other to do more, so
much the better. I saw that in Warwick after the tragic deaths of the
four firefighters and during the incidences of flooding up and down the
land. We have also seen that through policy changes such as IROs and
IRNPs. Reshaping the role of firefighters and what they do to make them
more outward looking, so they are not in their stations waiting for a
fire or major road accident, but are in the community installing in
smoke alarms and talking to children in schools, has led to fewer
deaths from fire than at any stage since
1959.
I
wish to talk about two other key measures in the framework. The first
is about equality and diversity, which I have made a priority. I was
interested by the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West
NorfolkI invite him to intervene. I would be disappointed if
any hon. Member wanted to vote against such a thing, which they would
be doing if they voted against the
framework.
I
was appalled when I found out that only 3 per cent. of operational
firefighters are women, and I was equally appalled to learn that only 3
per cent. come from a black or minority ethnic background. I have
worked with stakeholders, including the trade unions, to bring in more
challenging targets. Those will be on recruitment, rather than being
process-driven, because we do not want to change who is in the work
force already. We do not want to push people outpeople who join
the fire service tend to want to stay there. On recruitment, we have
said that 15 per cent. of people should be women, and that the fire and
rescue service should ensure that there is parity with the local
working population of people from a BME background. I pushed the fire
and rescue services even further on this.
Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Will the Minister
indicate what has happened on that front in the Isle of Wight, where
almost the majority of people from BME backgrounds are hospital
workers?