Written evidence submitted by The Fire
Brigade Union Parliamentary Group
1. The Fire Brigade Union Parliamentary Group
was established in 2005 and comprises a range of MPs who regularly
meet with officials from the union to ensure that the concerns
of their members are addressed in and by Parliament.
2. We note the terms of the Committee's current
inquiry into the "outstanding legislative measures required
to implement effective flood and water management policies in
England and Wales."
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. Recommendation 39 of the Pitt Review clearly
stated the urgent need for the creation of a statutory duty to
require fire and rescue services to respond to floods. The previous
government passed up an opportunity to create this duty in primary
legislation, the Flood & Water Management Act 2010 but
there remains sufficient scope to amend the Act through secondary
regulations to create a statutory duty.
4. This submission is made in tacit support
of the FBU's own response to the Committee's call for written
evidence.
Which of the key issues covered by the consultation
into the draft Flood and Water Management Bill and by the Walker
and Cave reviews should be taken forward as legislative priorities
5. The FBU Group believes that the most startling
omission from the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 is the absence
of a statutory duty on the fire and rescue services to respond
to flooding emergencies. This would have been in line with Recommendation
39 of the Pitt Review which stated:
6. "The Government should urgently put
in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue,
with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned
as necessary by a statutory duty." (p.190)
7. Despite the efforts of FBU Group MPs and
supportive Peers to amend the Flood & Water Management Bill
to reflect Pitt's urgent recommendation of statutory duty, the
previous government decided not to accept these amendments.
8. Pitt's emphasis on the urgency of the need
for a statutory duty was reinforced by the need for clarity in
this area of emergency work. Indeed, a statutory duty, in Pitt's
view and our own, represented the "best means" to achieve
clarity over which emergency service should, and is best equipped,
to respond to flooding emergencies.
9. Of course, as has been repeatedly proven
during the flooding emergencies before and since the Pitt Review,
this is not a question of whether or not the Fire Service will
respond to flooding emergencies—they always will—more
a question of whether they are equipped to provide the
efficient, reliable and effective response to serious flooding
that the public need and expect. Repeated experience of working
with inappropriate equipment, inadequate resources and a lack
of training for flooding emergencies starkly illustrates the need
for statutory duty to provide the clarity Pitt sought and the
additional funding the Fire Service needs to procure the right
equipment and training to provide the necessary national capability.
10. The previous government cited the Fire
and Rescue Services Act 2004 as providing the sufficient powers
for fire and rescue authorities to respond to floods.
11. This legislation, however, only refers to
"other eventualities"—essentially those
emergencies that are not fires or road traffic accidents. Perhaps
more significantly, major floods are not specified as a core function
of the fire and rescue service and, therefore, this legislation
cannot be regarded as sufficient in terms of enacting Pitt's original
recommendation on statutory duty.
12. Similarly, the Civil Contingencies Act
2004 was also cited by the last government as already providing
the necessary powers for fire and rescue authorities to respond
to floods. This legislation does indeed place duties on fire and
rescue to respond to emergencies. Once again, however, flooding
is not specified in the Act.
13. As the law stands, fire and rescue authorities
have to plan for floods and have the power to respond but they
do not have a duty to respond. This raises serious concerns
over the coherence of the current laws governing the provision
of rescue services. This legal confusion has been identified by
the Chief Fire Officers' Association as an operational problem.
14. Finally, the consequences of the current
lack of clarity can be fatal, as the death of Hull resident Mike
Barnett tragically proved during the 2007 floods in that city.
Indeed, the coroner at the inquest into Mr Barnett's death identified
this gap in rescue provision as a major factor in this.
15. It is likely that serious flooding episodes
will increase in number in the coming years, not least due to
the existence of climate change. As such, we urge the committee
to revisit this ongoing problem with national capability levels
and contribute to closing this dangerous absence of a statutory
duty.
Which further Policies are required to ensure
Flood and Water Management delivers optimum Social, Economic and
Environmental outcomes
16. The Defra Minister overseeing the passage
of the Flood & Water Management Bill through the Commons,
Huw Irranca-Davies, stated during the Report stage debate[8]
that the government had put in place a "fully funded national
capability for flood rescue". He went on to say that,
"In the current spending review, we have made available
up to £2 million to enhance our flood rescue capability."
17. The FBU Group understand that none of that
£2 million has been spent to improve training or equipment
for firefighters to respond to floods. It is somewhat representative
of the ad hoc way successive governments have viewed the emergency
response to major floods but it is entirely out of kilter with
the needs of a modern fire and rescue service which is properly
equipped to meet the entirety of the emergency challenges that
the 21st Century will present us with.
18. We are concerned that fire and rescue authorities,
during this period of pressure from central government to enact
excessive cuts to public spending, will not prioritise work that
is not on a statutory footing. It is highly likely that the ongoing
absence of a statutory duty will lead to fire and rescue authorities
mothballing, disposing, downgrade or even selling existing assets,
such as boats, hovercraft and other specialist equipment, that
are so important when responding to flooding emergencies.
6 October 2010
8 Hansard Col. 225, 2nd February 2010 Back
| 
