| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in that situation, I suspect it would be difficult for anyone other than someone who fits the kind of specification spelled out by the Government to be appointed. These things tend to happen when someone has in mind a particular person and writes the person spec in order to achieve the right outcome, with all the processes gone through.
I am still not wholly clear that this situation should be so completely distinct from other fire authorities, but I do not intend to pursue the point today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Combined authorities under the Fire Services Act 1947]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 19:
"(iii) the use of sprinklers, misters and other devices as effective means of preventing and restricting the spread of fires"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that the role of sprinklers in fire prevention is given the prominence that we and others believe it deserves when fire authorities are carrying out their responsibilities under the Act in promoting fire safety.
Like many others, particularly local government, we believe that the promotion of the use of sprinklers will support the new prevention powers provided in the Bill. Local authorities in particular remain concerned about the lack of promotion of sprinklers in schools and also in domestic properties. Perhaps we need to reflect on domestic properties in other legislation and in another place, but it is worth noting how strongly the House of Commons ODPM Select Committee recommended that building regulations be changed to encourage and ensure an increased use of sprinklers in domestic properties.
In Committee, we had a long debate on schools and I have not changed my mind. As the Government want to expand provision in schools—we heard their recent Statement on education—it is even more important when putting more money into new schools to ensure that they are protected by sprinklers. Every year in the United Kingdom 2,000 schools are damaged by fire, and 70 per cent of those are started deliberately. That costs hundreds of millions of pounds each year.
The common perception is that most fires which are deliberately started in schools occur outside school time at weekends and so on, but in fact a third of them take place when pupils are in school. I think it is true to say that, thus far, there have been no fatalities from school fires. However, if more are started during
12 Jul 2004 : Column 1061
school time—I hope that that is not the case—obviously the provision of sprinklers will be important.
The cornerstone of the reform programme currently under way in the Bill is a move away from an over-dependence on intervention once fires have started to an approach that is focused far more on preventing fires in the first place. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. This is an important matter. It is possible that this is not the right way to insert such a provision into the Bill, but I think that we need to send a clear message that sprinklers are important in terms of the building programmes that we would all like to see in schools in future.
The White Paper talks of regularly reviewing the changing trends and new developments in building design. It mentions that the Government were going to look carefully at this issue and carry out research on the role of sprinklers in residential premises. It would be helpful if, in replying, the Minister could give an indication of where the Government are in relation to that matter. It is an important part of what we are doing today.
Perhaps if I tell the Minister that I was one of the people who voted for him recently, that will encourage him to give me a favourable reply. It is always nice to vote on the winning side. Perhaps I shall receive an encouraging reply, even if he is not prepared to accept the amendment in its present form. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 20, which is grouped with Amendment No. 19. I recognise the similarity between our amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I support much of what she has just said. However, it may be worth reminding ourselves of the issues touched on by both amendments.
Both amendments seek to encourage the use of modern technology to reduce the number of fire deaths by promoting the use of sprinklers and other such devices. Here, we have a relatively simple technique that would be hugely effective in reducing the instances of fire and resulting deaths. It must be given all the serious attention that it can be afforded.
As I mentioned in Committee, the numbers of fires and fire deaths continue to fall year on year. That is a welcome development. However, one death is still one too many, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree.
Our amendment would encourage the promotion of sprinklers in new-build schools and care homes. Arguably, those two cases, more than others, need such protection. The annual cost of fire damage in schools is around £100 million—the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, mentioned that in some detail—with one in 15 schools suffering from a fire in any given year. Sprinklers would be a very simple, effective and relatively cost-efficient method of protecting school property.
12 Jul 2004 : Column 1062
Our amendment does not seek to impose sprinklers on a mandatory basis—far from it; it merely encourages a fire authority to promote their use whenever possible. The number of lives saved and the protection of property would be substantial.
Quite rightly, this is one area that has attracted considerable cross-party support. The Minister detailed some of the work that his department has undertaken on this issue, and I should also like to hear answers to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The Minister mentioned his desire to consider this matter in the context of his department's review of building regulations. That is a very important area to look at and I welcome that commitment.
However, I urge the Minister to go one step further by considering the inclusion of this or the Liberal Democrat amendment in the Bill. I remind him that we are seeking not to make such a provision mandatory but merely to give fire authorities the opportunity, upon request, to promote the use of such technologies. I cannot see how the Minister could possibly be opposed to such a development and I hope that he will be able to give us a good answer today.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am certainly not opposed to the spirit of the amendment, and I agree with virtually every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. I hope that I can give a positive response. I am not sure that it will go much further than what was said in Committee, but I think that the Committee response was fairly positive, particularly when afterwards I read some of the other documentation.
We accept that fire suppression systems should play a major role. There is no question about that. As the noble Baroness said, it is a question of fire prevention rather than fire-fighting. The fire service itself makes it clear that it wants to spend its time preventing fires in the first place. Therefore, we do not rule out fire suppression systems on the basis of cost without examining evidence. A risk assessment needs to be carried out on the specification and installation of appropriate suppression systems. These are highly technical and complex issues, and it is not as straightforward as simply fitting sprinklers, as might be thought to be the case. Of course, the technology is developing very fast; it is not standing still.
So far as concerns new buildings, we think that the matter is best dealt with through building regulations. Following the recent terrible fire at the Rosepark nursing home in Glasgow, the protection of vulnerable people in care homes has been at the forefront of all our minds, particularly those looking at this system.
The issue is raised again in Amendment No. 20. Recent research by the Building Research Establishment suggests that there may be a role for fire suppression systems in providing additional fire protection in care homes, whether for children, the elderly or disabled people. Residents in higher risk houses in multiple occupation and tall blocks of flats
12 Jul 2004 : Column 1063
might also benefit. We shall examine this positively in more detail as part of our current review of Part B of the building regulations, which deals with fire safety in new and substantially altered buildings. Amendment No. 20 also refers to fire suppression systems in new schools. I was briefed on this matter by two officials this morning. I picked up one of the papers this morning and saw that at the weekend a school had been severely damaged. Therefore, such fires are common. There is a real problem here and we have every right to be concerned. It is no good simply to say, "We're not doing anything because three-quarters of the fires are started outside school hours". That is not good enough because there is still no school for the kids on the Monday, even if the fire occurred at the weekend and no one was injured. That is no argument. Obviously safety is important, and the lost course work and the disruption to the work of the school must be taken into account.
However, the figure for insured losses from school fires has fallen. I understand that it fell by about a quarter last year to an estimated £75 million. We take the matter very seriously. I do not believe that in most cases the possible insurance saving from the installation of a sprinkler system would be a sufficient reason for following that route. Fire risk is normally only one component of the total premium, and many schools are insured as one of a group of schools. In addition, a fire suppression system in one building will not make an appreciable difference to the overall risk or, indeed, to the premium. Therefore, fire suppression systems must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
A new fire safety guidance document for schools, Building Bulletin 100, is being prepared by the Department for Education and Skills at present in close co-operation with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It will cover risk assessment and allow a variety of fire engineering solutions to meet the assessed risk. The guidance will be subject to public consultation later this year and it will be included in the review of Part B of the building regulations. Therefore, work is under way this year, and I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in both Houses at the appropriate time later in the year.
We are about to commission research to examine what design constraints are relevant to domestic fire suppression systems and to identify the potential for systems which are effective in a domestic setting but which can be produced and installed at lower cost. That will inform a cost-benefit analysis of systems at various levels.
We would argue that, whatever the level of research—this is not an unimportant point—it will remain vitally important to have effective smoke alarms. A fire suppression system is one thing but a smoke alarm is another. It gives those extra vital few minutes to increase the chance of escape. As I mentioned in Committee when I referred to my own experience of visiting the Fire Service College—on my own rather than the "state visit" with a group of
12 Jul 2004 : Column 1064
Ministers—when I was able to don the equipment and the gear, it is the smoke that kills. That is why a smoke alarm is vital to give those extra few minutes.
We take this issue extremely seriously. The matter is actively being dealt with via building regulations. This is not pie in the sky and a promise for the future. The issue will be dealt with in building regulations, but it has to be dealt with on a risk basis in a technical way with a proper benefit analysis. Obviously, public safety is crucial in the buildings I mentioned where people are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and children, and those living in a care-type home who do have total control over their circumstances. It behoves us to ensure that there are the maximum safety measures.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |