Lords Debate - Regulatory Reform Bill

The following extract from official House of Lords proceedings on 13 February 2001 covers an amendment to the regulatory reform bill proposed by the Conservative front bench. FSDG advocated the amendment and expect the government to uphold the reassurances given by Lord McIntosh:

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 3, line 3, after ("remove") insert ("or reduce").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to speak to Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. I do so with some trepidation because it relates to fire safety, although I am using that as an example for the protection of life safety. I have tabled the amendments in response to considerable consultation with outside bodies and concerns expressed to us about some of the implications with regard to regulatory reform. Concern has been expressed that in trying to reduce regulations we might also reduce safety.

Any watering down of regulations protecting life safety is a delicate matter. Proper concern, for example, for small businesses hampered by red tape, should not outweigh the need to maintain an appropriate level of fire safety for employees and the general public. It is possible that regulatory reform procedures could remove antiquated and disused statutes, facilitating modernisation, consolidation and rationalisation of fire safety standards. That must be good.

However, the Fire Safety Development Group in particular worries that the provision could be extended to cut back on fire safety demands. The amendments are intended to ensure continuity and improvement in public safety and ensure that they remain a core principle of good regulation. Many in the fire community believe that the amendments are essential for the Bill to achieve its objectives. They would be consistent with principles promoted in Section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, stating that existing health and safety law cannot be replaced unless substituted by legislation which maintains or improves upon present standards. The 1974 Act was a measure taken to rationalise and consolidate safety law.

(13 Feb 2001 : Column 188)

Furthermore, the Better Regulation Task Force accepts the need,

"to safeguard health and safety or protect citizens from harming themselves".

I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it may assist the noble Baroness to know that, in my experience, when such issues come before the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee it interprets the word "remove" as meaning not only to remove absolutely but to remove to some degree or in some part. Therefore, while I entirely sympathise with the noble Baroness's objective, I am not sure that the amendment is necessary.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the thrust of both amendments and to the thinking behind them. Perhaps, with the permission of the Fire Brigades Union, I may continue to use fire safety as an example. I am happy to do so. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right about Amendment No. 22. The point is not merely that the word "remove" will be interpreted by the committee as including any lesser part but also that the word "any" is significant. An order may not reduce the level of necessary protection and the Bill already achieves the purposes intended in Amendment No. 22.

I must give the same reply in respect of Amendment No. 39. As it stands, Clause 6 allows for consideration of,

"whether the existing law affected by the proposals affords any necessary protection and, if so, how that protection is to be continued".

The amendment would add "or improved, and ensured", and that must be desirable.

I deal first with "ensured". The word "continued" in Clause 6(2)(d) already covers this in legal and legislative terms and there is no need to add the word. The word "improved" is interesting. It is intended to cover those instances when necessary protection is increased. That is not necessary. This part of the Bill deals specifically with the "necessary protection" test; namely, how existing protection is being maintained. It would not be appropriate to dilute that by including other material which was not part of the test. That is not to say that any increase in protection should not be discussed. The point is already covered by paragraph (i) at the bottom of the page. Clearly, the words,

"any benefits ... which are expected to flow from the implementation of the proposals",

include improvement in protection.

I hope that in this case too the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, recognises that, however well-meaning the amendments, the Bill already covers the points which they raise.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his reassurance in relation to the customary response of the Delegated Powers and

(13 Feb 2001 : Column 189)

Deregulation Committee to such terminology. The Minister is aware that these are in a sense probing amendments to the extent that we seek reassurance. I believe that I heard words of reassurance in the Minister's response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn …[extract ends]

The bill passed into law on 10 April 2001. A regulatory reform (fire safety) order is soon expected. Further information can be found at Burning Issues.

Commons Debate - Fire Deaths

Here follows a transcript of an adjournment debate in the Commons on Friday, 28 July 2000. Jim Fitzpatrick MP spoke on the subject of Fire Deaths, to which Home Office Minister Mike O' Brien responded.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town): In opening this Adjournment debate on Government targets for the reduction of fire deaths, injuries and costs, I must declare an interest, as I am a non-executive director the Fire Protection Association, a not-for-profit organisation whose aim is to reduce deaths and injuries by fire, as well as the huge costs incurred as a result of fire, which are estimated to be between £4 million and £7 million to the UK. I am sure that that objective is shared by all parliamentary colleagues. I am also co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and I was a member of the London fire brigade for 23 years, 13 as an operational fire fighter and 10 as a fire brigade union official, so it could be said that I should be have some familiarity with the subject.

I should like to express my delight at having secured this debate and at having the opportunity to be the last Back-Bench Member to speak in this Session under Madam Speaker's stewardship. I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is responsible for fire matters, was equally delighted when he saw the subject on today's Order Paper. I did think of apologising but, given the good publicity that the Minister has recently had for catching criminals, I thought that he should get some good press for putting out fires.

I congratulate the Minister and his Department on several recent fire-related initiatives, including the Home Office fire and emergency planning directorate and the national community fire safety centre, which was established in September 1998 and operates within Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate. The centre's aim is to drive forward recommendations in the report of the community fire safety task force called "Safe as Houses" and develop a co-ordinated sustained national strategy to deliver fire safety awareness and education. The centre contributes directly to the Home Secretary's key aims, namely to reduce accidental fire-related deaths in the home by 20 per cent. over the next five years, and reduce the overall number of fires.

The centre is working with the fire service, its representative organisations and the wider fire industry to implement a programme of action. Before I speak about that programme, I should like to pay tribute to the recently retired general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Mr. Ken Cameron. He held that position for 20 years, and is a professional, diligent and genuine individual who did his best for his members in the fire service. It was my ambition to follow him one day, but I find myself in this place instead, and am proud to represent Poplar and Canning Town. I offer my best wishes to Mr. Cameron's successor, Andy Gilchrist.

The centre's programme includes developing and evaluating a programme of national fire safety publicity campaigns to meet specific domestic fire risks and trends. I know that we shall a see a series of hard-hitting national television advertisements this autumn that were trailed in Yorkshire to promote the message of fire safety and fire awareness. The centre provides a toolbox of community fire safety programmes and resources which can be used by brigades. It has developed a strong unifying fire safety branding for all national fire safety initiatives, as well as for individual brigade use. It has established partnerships and networks of national and community-based organisations, agencies and Government Departments to target, in particular, the hard-to-reach groups in the community. It is also researching and developing opportunities for the provision of curriculum-based fire safety education in schools.

I wish to refer to a number of other important matters. One initiative being explored recently with the Association of British Insurers is the promotion of a smoke detector campaign. I applaud the work of Mr. Chris Mounsey of the ABI and Mr. Jonathan O'Neill, managing director of the Fire Protection Association. The one year that there was a clear dip in fire deaths was at the height of the smoke detector installation campaign in the early 1990s. However, the working party that looked at the issue identified early on that there was clear evidence that most smoke detectors in homes did not work due to dead or removed batteries or poor maintenance. Batteries are removed because of nuisance alarms or to be used in remote controls for televisions or other domestic appliances. There is also clear evidence of poor maintenance and badly-sited fire detectors. I urge all those who have a detector to check it.

There is an initiative in Northern Ireland called "Thumbs Up, It's Friday" which encourages people to check their smoke detector on a Friday. This is very much in keeping with the peace process, with people from both communities being encouraged to give a thumbs up to the fire brigade, rather than attack them when they are trying to put out blazes caused by civil disturbance. There is also a European initiative to promote an annual day in the European calendar for people to check their smoke detector batteries. Research undertaken by the Institute of Child Health shows that fire detector giveaway schemes do not appear to be the solution, and hard-wired or ten-year battery-operated fire detectors may be a way forward.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on her Fire Safety (Houses in Multiple Occupation) Bill. She is attempting to make it a requirement to install smoke detectors in HMOs. These are categorised as bedsits, shared housing, households with lodgers, purpose-built HMOs, such as hostels, guest and boarding houses, bed-and-breakfasts and self-converted flats. Only 6.25 per cent. of the UK population live in HMOs, but 28 per cent. of all fire deaths and 36 per cent. of all fires occur in these dwellings. In real terms, this means that around 230 people died and over 600 were injured last year in HMOs. That is unacceptable.

The Government have moved the goalposts in other areas. In commercial buildings from 1 July this year, new regulations mean that single-storey buildings of over 2,000 sq m will require sprinklers. That is welcome both to those protected in those buildings and to fire fighters. In a debate in Westminster Hall on 8 March, I referred to residential sprinklers for domestic purposes, which are a tool for the future. I quoted the experience of Scottsdale, Arizona, where every building was sprinklered. The reductions over the past 10 years have been dramatic. Property damage is down 80 per cent., water damage is down by 95 per cent. and not a single life has been lost in the whole town.

There is a clear lack of understanding among people in Britain about sprinklers. It was reported at the time of the fire at Windsor castle that a senior Minister said, "Thank goodness the building was not sprinklered." That indicates a lack of awareness that sprinkler heads are only activated in the area of fire and not throughout a whole building when a fire occurs. Sprinklers would have considerably reduced the damage to the nation's heritage and the Queen's property.

As a result of fires in the United Kingdom, for the last three years for which figures are available, there were 736 deaths and over 17,000 injuries in 1995, 709 deaths and 18,000 injuries in 1996, and 723 deaths and more than 18,600 injuries in 1997. It must remembered that such injuries are not like football injuries--broken limbs that should heal. Fire injuries more often than not mean that the victim is scarred for life.

The Government's target of reducing deaths and injuries by 20 per cent. has been criticised as being too modest. It is argued that that is tantamount to saying that we are prepared to accept about 500 people a year being killed by fires. I understand the feelings of those who say that the targets are not as ambitious as they might be, but I agree with the Government that we need to get the figures going in the right direction, then keep driving them down.

The majority of deaths and injuries are a result of fires in the home, which account for more than 60 per cent. of all building fires and more than 75 per cent. of all casualties. One is three times more likely to die in a fire at home than anywhere else.

Insurance claims in the UK as a result of fire were £615 million in 1994, £700 million in 1995, £707 million in 1996 and £739 million in 1997. Those figures do not take into account the high number of fires that occur in uninsured buildings or the environmental and other hidden costs. There seems to be clear agreement across organisations that more detailed and reliable data collection systems are needed to demonstrate how much fire is costing the United Kingdom.

Those most at risk from fire are members of society at the bottom of the social scale. More than 50 per cent. of all fire casualties are the very young or the old, those who are physically or mentally incapacitated and cannot help themselves, and those under the influence of drink or drugs. These are the politics of fire. One is more likely to suffer injury or worse by fire if one is at the bottom of the social scale.

Among those involved in trying to help to meet Government targets, I should mention Dr. Rosemary Everton, Professor of Fire at Lancaster university, who has contributed a great deal and who, I know, has been seriously ill recently. We all wish her well soon. Others who have made a significant contribution are London's Chief Fire Officer, Mr. Brian Robinson, who was last year's president of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, and this year's president, Mr. Malcolm Eastwood.

Another organisation that plays an important role in the UK fire service is the national training college at Moreton-in-Marsh. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could give some indication of its future role and structure, in view of the speculation in recent years and the consultation that has taken place about the role that the college should play, nationally and internationally.

Fire safety week takes place this year between 23 and 30 September, with a launch at Oxford on Monday 25 October, coinciding with the Labour party conference. We are trying through European agencies to establish a European fire safety day. Friday the 13th is considered in Europe, as it is in this country, a bad luck day, so it would seem appropriate for that to be a fire safety day in October.

With reference to the comprehensive spending review and local authority fire brigade funding, the Prime Minister said yesterday, launching the NHS national plan:

With the strength of the economy, we can either put more money into our essential public services or not.

I do not believe that there is a more essential service than the fire service. I know that the thrust of Government policy is to improve fire prevention, but after 20 years of cuts and continuing pressure from the pensions budget, which will consume up to 25 per cent. of some fire brigade budgets by next year, it is time to make a greater investment in local authority fire brigades through the SSA formula.

Fire fighters are rightly held in high regard by the British public because of their sacrifice, bravery and professionalism. Fire fighters welcome better fire prevention, but they need better resourcing. I would welcome the Minister's views.

There have been some welcome developments, with the re-forming of the Fire Protection Association, bringing together all the key players in central and local government, the private sector and insurances businesses. That is undoubtedly a sign of joined-up thinking. The formation of the Fire Industry Confederation which has brought together private sector fire protection bodies is also a positive move. Indeed, it initiated the report of the fire safety framework group as a prompt for and suggested programme of the new national fire safety board, which is being set up by the Minister. Brendon Gately of the FIC had much to do with that. I understand that the new national board has its inaugural meeting on 3 August. Perhaps my hon. Friend might update the House on its progress, his vision for its future and the role that it might play.

What is the prospect for a fire safety Bill to update, modernise and rationalise legislation across the spectrum that covers fire? Generally, we get new fire laws only after a tragedy because of the demonstration of a gap in public protection. There is an agreed and clear need to improve fire protection legislation. I hope that we can make progress in that area.

I fear that there is an opportunity that we may be about to miss. That is to use the excellent Government initiative called the home energy efficiency scheme. Following the successful passage last Friday of a private Member's Bill, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)--he and I happen to be the co-chair of the fire safety all-party group--it is clear that the Government are committing hundreds of millions of pounds to help the most vulnerable citizens in our society, who are unable to keep their homes warm, by providing a variety of options including insulation. There are plans also to improve the security of their homes. There is a great opportunity to install smoke detectors at the same time, with 10-year batteries or hard wire.

I wish to reinforce what I said at the beginning of my remarks, and that is to applaud the Minister and all the members of his team on building on the work of his predecessor. He has set ambitious targets, but I believe that they can be met, and should be exceeded. Were the whole House present, I am sure that it would wish him every success.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) for initiating the debate. These are important matters, and he brings to the subject unrivalled knowledge and practical experience of the fire service.

The fire service is rightly held in high regard by the public, not only for its outstanding bravery and commitment but also for its effectiveness and professionalism. It has been described by the Audit Commission as one of the highest performing public services. It sustains and improves that performance year on year, particularly in its prompt attendance at fires. Unlike people in some other parts of the world, all of us, wherever we live, can rely on the fire brigade to come to put out a fire in our home if we need it to do so. We owe a great deal of gratitude to generations of firefighters, who have stood by and waited for that call, and who in responding to it have often saved lives in the process.

The Government value and invest in public services such as the fire service. Since we took office, we have agreed revenue and capital settlements for the fire service which demonstrate an understanding of its needs that was sadly lacking during our predecessors' last years in office. Last week, as part of the spending review, we announced a 5 per cent. increase in revenue funding in 2001-02, and 4 per cent. increases in each of the two following years. On Wednesday I was particularly pleased to announce for 2001-02 a 67 per cent. increase in provision for credit approvals to almost £60 million, to help meet the service's pressing capital needs. We will sustain that sort of investment over the next three years.

In return, it is entirely right that the public should expect the service to continue to work to improve its efficiency, and to use these additional resources well. I believe that the latest settlement provides the resources and confidence to carry forward the programme of modernisation on which the Government and the fire service are already jointly embarked.

My hon. Friend referred to the fire service college. Today, I have answered a written question from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on the future of the college following the prior options review. We intend to draw on the skills of both the public and the private sector. Fire service interests have canvassed the option of a public service consortium. We will give them a chance to develop that idea, but we are also open to the possibility of a public-private partnership and to including the private sector. Either way, together with the Ministry of Defence, we are drawing up an operational specification of the fire service's central training requirements. I have asked that that be done straight away; it will be done during the summer. We shall then look for partners in the public or the private sector in the autumn. The fire service college is important, and we want to safeguard its work in future.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town has already stressed, combating the ravages of fire matters. The Government have firmly gripped that challenge, and good progress has been made; we want to ensure that that progress continues. It is the result of collaboration between all sectors of the fire service, including the trade unions.

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Ken Cameron, the retired general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union. Ken has a strong commitment to trade unionism and an equally strong commitment to ensuring that we have a fire safety agenda in this country. He contributed greatly in both respects when serving as the FBU's general secretary. I also wish his successor, Andy Gilchrist, all the best in his new job.

The constructive relationship that has developed between the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, the FBU and the fire authorities is enormously important, especially in creating the sort of partnership spirit that the fire community has come to embody. My hon. Friend has done a great deal to help to promote the sense of a shared vision of how to proceed. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend's contribution as chair of the fire safety framework group, which draws together several fire interests, and has produced proposals for a fire safety strategy, which will provide an invaluable foundation for future work. That initiative is wholly consistent with the thrust of the Government's policy to make fire safety and fire prevention the future priority of the service, and to build new relationships so that all who contribute to policy making are involved from the start in developing such policies.

I take pride in the Home Office national community fire safety centre, which we set up and funded. With brigades, it has run major safety campaigns on chip-pan fires, smoke alarms and escape plans. I welcome the establishment of the fire safety advisory board, which will meet for the first time next week and draws together a wide range of interests. I am also pleased that the new arson control forum will meet in the autumn. It is to our credit that we have introduced the Fire Precautions (Workplace) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, and that despite the difficulties of finding time in the legislative programme for a Bill, we are pursuing regulatory reform to secure the much needed rationalisation and consolidation of fire safety law. I hope that we shall be able to introduce such measures in the not-too-distant future.

The fire service has waited a long time for a fire safety Bill, and patience is wearing thin, but I hope we shall be able to make progress and that they will not have to wait much longer. I cannot promise to introduce a Bill in the near future, but we shall pursue the regulatory options as a way in which to take forward much of that agenda. That will be done broadly in line with what the fire service community would wish to support.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly focused on targets. If there is one thing that characterises the Government it is that we not only invest resources in public services, but clearly specify the service improvements and reforms that the public can expect in return. We are concerned with measuring what public services can deliver, improving efficiency and focusing on results.

We have set the fire service, and ourselves, specific targets to improve fire service efficiency by 2 per cent. a year, to reduce the predicted upward trend in the number of fires by March 2002, and to reduce fire-related deaths in the home by 20 per cent. by March 2003. In addition, I share my hon. Friend's wish not to overlook the economic as well as the human cost of fires, as well as his wish to drive down injuries as well as deaths.

I am glad that our targets are well on their way to being met. Fire service efficiency is improving, and the recent revenue and capital settlements will give that added impetus. The increase in the number of fires is much lower than projected, although we have been helped in part by our rather wet English summers. The number of injuries is falling; it is 4 per cent. lower in the year to September 1999 than it was in the preceding year. The best news of all is that accidental fire deaths in the home are falling faster than the quite ambitious target that we set. For the year to September 1999 the provisional figure for deaths is 319; in 1997 it was more than 400. Thus progress is being made.

My hon. Friend suggested that the targets that we set had been criticised by some as lacking in ambition. The important thing about setting targets is that they should be realistic and achievable within a defined period. Laudable but unrealistic targets are the surest guarantee of demoralising the organisations that have been set them. We need to maintain the high morale that exists in the fire service by ensuring that it realistically believes that it can achieve the targets that we have set. Morale will improve as a result of achieving those targets. There is no point in setting a target that, although desirable in the long term, causes greater problems than it resolves because the fire service fails to achieve it.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we set targets--and that we set the right targets. I also very much agree with what he said about sprinklers and hard-wire alarms with 10-year batteries. We must give full attention to all those things because they are important elements in a broader fire safety strategy. A number of fire service community organisations will consider them, and we hope to say more about them in due course.

My hon. Friend deserves congratulations for his work in this area, and I congratulate him on today's debate. I assure him, however, that there is no room for complacency, which is why it is important to keep reinforcing the key fire safety messages, and to continue to invest in the research that he urges into the total cost of fire to the economies of England and Wales. There is cause for optimism. We can win, and we are winning. We are determined to continue to do so, and with my hon. Friend's help, and the help of his former colleagues in the fire service and those who work in fire authorities and the fire industry, I hope that we can further reduce deaths and injuries, as well as reducing the number of fires that take place in this country.

Fire Prevention Bill

The Fire Prevention Bill proposed by Peter Pike MP failed to progress through Parliament during the 1999/2000 Session. A Private Member's Bill, it attracted opposition from several MPs on regulatory grounds.

The Bill was designed to reduce the number of preventable domestic fires by extending duties on fire authorities in Great Britain in respect of fire prevention. The Bill sought to amend section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which sets out the framework for the provision of fire services in Great Britain. The new duty would have obliged fire authorities to make arrangements by way of education, information and publicity to encourage fire protection and the prevention of death or injury as a result of fire.

Fire Safety Advisory Board

Government Response to Arson Scoping Study

On March 29 2000 the Government issued its response to the Arson Scoping Study. For the text of the response given by Mike O'Brien, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, please follow this link to the arson page.