Jim is a Patron of the National Fire
Sprinkler Network (NFSN), a coalition of
partners from across the fire safety and
political communities whose core purpose
is to promote the use of fire sprinklers
for life, safety, the protection of property
and the environment.
The NFSN campaign for the greater use of
fire sprinklers through changes in legislation,
Building Regulations and Guidance. They
also aim to educate and inform the general
public opinion formers and decision makers
including government about the effectiveness
and best value of fire sprinklers.
Jim also serves as the Non-Executive Director
of the Fire Protection Association Limited
(FPA), the UK’s national fire safety
organisation, promoting the fire safety
message to industry, commerce and the wider
public. The FPA provides authoritative advice
and information on all aspects of fire safety
and fire safety management and offers a
range of services to business and industry
as well as the community at large. In his
role as Non-Executive Director, Jim provides
advice and information on matters and proceeding
in Parliament, which might affect the interests
of the association. He also acts as Chairman
of the FPA Advisory Council.
Currently the NFSN is waiting for changes
to building regulations to be announced
which will result in fire sprinklers being
mandatory in more schools, care homes and
other vulnerable properties. Jim recently
facilitated an agreement between the fire
sprinkler industry and the water companies
to ensure that fitted fire sprinklers would
get adequate water pressure from the mains
supply.
In addition, Jim serves on the All Party
Parliamentary Fire Safety Group as Hon.
Treasurer. The purpose of this group is
to meet and discuss topical fire safety
issues with appropriate specialists in this
field. Jim participated in the Committee
scrutiny of the Fire and Rescue Services
Bill, which was passed in the Commons in
February 2004. and is presently going through
the Lords.
The aim of this Bill is to make community
fire safety and prevention a key responsibility
of the Fire Service - taking forward the
modernisation of that service.
There follows a series of extracts from
the discussion in Parliament of the Fire
and Rescue Services Bill [26 Jan 2004]
Jim Knight: I wonder whether my
right hon. Friend would like to comment
on the speech made by Baroness Andrews in
the other place on 7 January, in which she
said that "we have not given, and we
do not intend to give, general guidance
on installing sprinklers in new schools.
The building regulations do not require
it and we do not intend to change them."—[Official
Report, House of Lords, 7 January 2004;
Vol. 656, c. 168.]. How is the dialogue
going between my right hon. Friend's Department
and the Department for Education and Skills?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend the
Minister with responsibility for fire safety
has been in contact with colleagues in the
Department for Education and Skills, and
his review of the building regulations will,
of course, include premises such as schools.
It will not be limited to domestic properties.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the
hon. Gentleman, but I mentioned those issues
a moment ago. Conservative and, indeed,
Liberal Democrat Members are extremely familiar
with the nature of the assurances that have
been given by the Government in their seven
years in office. The Minister has stood
at the Dispatch Box, introducing a Bill
that includes sweeping powers of intervention
and huge centralising measures. He says
that the Government are never going to use
them— they are simply reserve powers
that they need for a rainy day. The truth
is, we just do not trust them to use those
powers only in the limited areas that the
Minister has tried to suggest to the House.
When we read the supporting documents, it
becomes clear, as the hon. Member for Kingston
and Surbiton rightly said, that the regionalisation
of the service extends far beyond anti-terrorist
activities.
Jim Knight: Is it not the case that
the things that the hon. Member Kingston
and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned are things
where an economy of scale could be achieved?
That would be welcomed by council tax payers,
who are now being given separately itemised
precepts for fire authorities. Operational
decisions, by contrast, can be perfectly
adequately organised on a divisional basis
by divisional commanders within a regional
structure.
Mr. Hammond: I am not sure that
the hon. Gentleman is right. If the structure
of fire brigades is emaciated following
the withdrawal of functions to the regional
tier, the brigades themselves may wither
and the case for merging them will become
unstoppable. I suspect that that is the
Minister's medium-term intention.
Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend
is right. I do not want to misquote the
Select Committee, but the main body of the
report or one of the evidence statements
draws attention to the history of projected
savings, and the fact that they are less
than those originally predicted at the time
that the amalgamation of local government
units takes place.
Mr. Davey: ….Derek Chadbon
tells me that for some retained firefighters
the new deal, of which the Minister is so
proud, will mean a reduction of 10.45 per
cent. in pay. The Government should be worried
about that problem, but it appears nowhere
on the agenda and the Minister did not mention
it.
The Minister and the Government must pay
much greater attention to the needs and
demands of retained firefighters, who should
be at the heart of modernising the fire
service in many parts of the country.
The Minister and the Government must pay
much greater attention to the needs and
demands of retained firefighters, who should
be at the heart of modernising the fire
service in many parts of the country.
Jim Knight: I am interested to know
what the hon. Gentleman proposes including
in the Bill to deal with the matter. Does
he believe that legislation is the answer
to everything? I acknowledge that the Minister
did not say much about retained firefighters
in his opening remarks, but he was introducing
a Bill. What legislation should the Government
pass to deal with the problems that the
hon. Gentleman identifies?
Mr. Davey: I refer the hon. Gentleman
to the Select Committee report. One of its
seven proposals for dealing with retained
firefighters' problems requires legislation,
namely, entitlement to paid leave. Existing
legislation provides for that for councillors,
magistrates and school governors but not
retained firefighters. The Government could
introduce that if they chose.
Richard Younger-Ross: What the hon.
Gentleman is saying about why it is difficult
to have retained fire officers in rural
areas is exactly right. Is not the logic
of his comments that we require full-time
fire stations in rural areas and retained
officers and stations in more urban and
suburban areas?
Mr. Drew: That is a neat suggestion,
but I am not sure how the full-time firefighters
in Stroud would like the idea of being replaced
completely by their retained colleagues,
although there is a retained firefighters
pump at that station.
Jim Knight: My hon. Friend makes
good points about retained firefighters
and the problems in rural areas arising
from people living and working in different
places. Does he agree that that underlines
the importance of an approach based on fire
safety and risk management? In some rural
villages in my constituency there are high
concentrations of second homes and many
of the residents commute out, so the villages
have very few people in them during the
day, with the result that at night, when
the retained firefighters come home, the
risk is different. In addition, installing
sprinklers in thatched buildings, which
have been the subject of some serious fires
in Dorset, would be a positive step to take
when the Government review building regulations.
Mr. Drew: All those are laudable
aims, which I hope will play a part in the
review.
Jim Knight: I draw the attention
of the House to my entry in the Register
of Members' Interests as a director of the
Fire Protection Association and chair of
the fire protection council. I am also a
patron of the National Fire Sprinkler Network
and, as a fellow officer of the all-party
group on fire safety, it is a pleasure to
follow the hon. Member for Southend, West
(Mr. Amess).
I very much welcome the Bill. If it had
not been for 9/11, the ensuing civil contingencies
and the strike, it may not have been introduced
and it would have been difficult to secure
parliamentary time to discuss the issues
that it covers.
However, it is overdue for many other reasons
as a replacement for the Fire Services Act
1947. It is fitting that we are finally
putting into statutory form the duty of
fire and rescue services to undertake fire
safety functions, attend road traffic accidents
and perform other emergency tasks that we
expect them to perform but which they have
been undertaking on a discretionary basis.
It is, however, important that the Bill
is more than an update of the 1947 Act,
and, equally, that it should be more than
a reaction to both 9/11 and the fire dispute.
Modernisation of fire and rescue services
should be genuine, and the emphasis on fire
safety and prevention is a welcome modernisation
that all hon. Members should support.
The Bill is straightforward, but I shall
address two issues. The first, regionalisation,
has been discussed at great length by some
Members this evening. I reject the alarmism
of the Opposition parties about centralisation,
which is appropriate given the changing
nature of both the threat to this country
and civil contingency requirements—the
Secretary of State should have reserved
powers to direct our emergency services
as appropriate. It is important that the
House keeps a watchful on how those powers
are used, so it is appropriate that the
Bill says that the Secretary of State should
regularly report to the House. I remain
comfortable with those powers given the
context of the debate and Government policy
on, for example, integrated risk management
planning, which is all about taking a much
more localised view of risk and what response
is appropriate from the fire and rescue
services.
I support regionalisation in principle.
I was a strong and passionate advocate of
regional government in the Committee examining
the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act
2003. Many of the members of that Committee
have popped up in this debate, such as my
right hon. Friend the Minister for Local
Government, Regional Governance and Fire
and the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton
(Mr. Davey) and for Runnymede and Weybridge
(Mr. Hammond). They were the front-line
stars of that debate, and it was with some
regret that I heard some of the same arguments
being regurgitated over and over again this
afternoon.
I support regionalisation in principle
because it provides greater flexibility
of response to major attacks, which we must
be prepared for, and allows flexible planned
responses across fire authority areas. The
population is strung out around the edge
of my county, Dorset, which is thinly populated
in the middle. That means it is therefore
appropriate that we have strong relationships
with Somerset and Wiltshire, which border
Dorset. It is equally true that we need
a strong relationship with Hampshire, which
is not in the south-west region, and I welcome
the provisions that require fire and rescue
services to develop their relationships
with other authorities. The Bill does not
specify that an iron curtain will fall around
each region, and it is clear that relationships
should extend across borders where that
is appropriate.
The House should acknowledge the economies
of scale that are achievable through regionalisation.
I am sure that the level of council tax
concerns every hon. Member, and we all get
our ears bent about it by our constituents.
In many constituencies, the precept for
fire authorities will be identified separately
for the first time this year, and I am sure
that our constituents expect us to do what
we can to achieve economies of scale through
policies such as regionalisation to decrease
precepts. There have already been discussions
about regional procurement in the south-west,
and it is appropriate that they should take
place in a strategic context, which is possible
only through a regional management board
structure.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Given the hon.
Gentleman's enthusiasm for a south-west
regional fire authority, does he think that
his constituents in South Dorset would pay
a higher or lower precept if their fire
authority remained as Dorset fire authority
rather than becoming part of a south-west
regional fire authority?
Jim Knight: That is clearly a key
question. I suspect that the cost may rise
as the new system is implemented, but I
am confident—otherwise I would not
stand up and advocate it—that there
would be significant savings over the medium
and long terms. I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman will have seen the table in the
Select Committee report listing the different
costs of regional control rooms. My right
hon. Friend the Minister referred to the
contrast between the unit cost of £18
in the London control room and some £136
in the Isle of Wight. We must examine possible
savings very carefully and go forward on
that basis.
I shall voice some of my concerns about
regional control rooms shortly, but, over
the medium and long term, I think that we
can look forward to savings.
I have concerns about the implementation
of regionalisation, and especially the introduction
of regional control rooms. I have spoken
to the control staff who operate the Dorset
control room and to members of the Fire
Brigades Union about their concerns in Dorset.
Following my discussions with my right hon.
Friend the Minister, I have been able to
alleviate many of their anxieties, but there
was considerable concern about the loss
of local knowledge through the introduction
of regional control rooms. As I understand
it, the new software that is coming on stream,
combined with the European directive on
mobile telecommunications networks, means
that it will be possible to pinpoint highly
accurately where a call is coming from,
even if it is coming from a mobile phone.
I was concerned that only a cell would be
identified, but I have been reassured by
my right hon. Friend the Minister that that
will not be so.
That leads me to concern about how the
software is implemented. Dorset introduced
extremely up-to-date software for its control
room and it took it three years to iron
out all the problems in that software. Given
the importance of the reliability of that
software, I ask my right hon. Friend the
Minister to give us some reassurance on
how that reliability will be tested and
how the software will be implemented to
ensure, given the tight time frame, that
the operation can be carried out reliably.
I am concerned also about integrated risk-management
plans. We must ensure that a regional control
room can account for the mosaic of such
plans that will make up the region. We must
ensure also that the software, the operators
or however the response is co-ordinated
in that control room can account for different
approaches, and certainly operate across
borders of fire authorities even if such
authorities have not been formed.
I have in mind especially automated fire
alarms, which have become a significant
problem, given the number of false alarms
that are causing a real drain on fire authorities.
In Oxfordshire, Somerset and elsewhere there
is discussion about not responding to automated
fire alarms, which I find a most disturbing
prospect. If we have different authorities
within a region sharing a regional control
room, each with a different policy on, for
example, automated fire alarms, there is
potential for some confusion. That is one
area in which I would like to see the Government
be more prescriptive about what policy is
required. It convinces me that we should
accelerate the process that leads towards
regional fire authorities, much against
the wishes of the Conservative party.
Richard Younger-Ross: I have heard
from the fire authority in my area that
it, too, has concern about automatic fire
alarms. I have also heard talk about non-
response. The authority's proposal is that
there should be a £250 charge for
repeat offences. That is not for the first
time or the second time, but when a call
is made three or four times. At least the
authority could recoup some of its cost
for call-out.
Jim Knight: I, too, have heard the
notion of charging for attendance. One of
the groups that works with the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister and reports to
my right hon. Friend the Minister has a
task-and-finish group that is considering
automated fire alarms. It is chaired by
Ken Knight, the commissioner for fire and
emergency planning, London fire brigade.
I have had discussions with him about the
approach that should be taken.
Much can be learned from the issue of burglar
alarms. The police had a problem with many
false alarms some years ago. The burglar
alarm industry got together with the police
authorities and chief constables to agree
to a protocol and a resolution of the problem.
That involves the regular maintenance of
burglar alarms and an agreement whereby
the police will attend the premises as long
as the alarm is regularly maintained by
an accredited maintenance engineer. Something
similar could be worked out for automated
fire alarms.
The hon. Gentleman should not forget that
one of the main offenders in respect of
false alarms from AFAs is the national health
service. Some people say it is all down
to nurses making toast. That can be overplayed,
but there are simple ways of dealing with
the problem—first, by checking the
siting of the smoke alarm and making sure
it is not located too close to a toaster,
and secondly, by replacing the smoke alarm
with a heat detector-based alarm system,
so that instead of the smoke activating
the alarm, the heat caused by a fire would
activate it, in the same way as a sprinkler
works.
That leads me neatly to the next issue
on which I wanted to comment, and one that
has not been touched on at all, I am happy
to say: water supply. That may not seem
a contentious issue. I am pleased to see
that among the responsibilities of water
companies is the responsibility to provide
a water supply, to provide it at nil cost
for emergencies, to provide it through fire
hydrants and to provide it at adequate pressure.
I know my right hon. Friend the Minister
is aware of a problem concerning water supply
for sprinklers. In some areas there is insufficient
pressure in the water system to allow the
sprinkler system to work effectively. That
is a major stumbling block to spreading
the use of sprinklers, with the fire death
savings that could be made as a result.
As has been said, no one has ever died
in this country in a fire in a building
with a sprinkler system that has been properly
maintained. I listened carefully to the
hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess),
but as long as such a system is properly
maintained, it is more than 99 per cent.
reliable. We should grasp any opportunity
that the Bill provides to make sure that
fire sprinklers work properly and safely.
Some two and a half years ago I convened
a meeting between members of the National
Fire Sprinkler Network and Water UK to facilitate
a discussion about the problems of pressure
in the water supply. We thought we had reached
an agreement but, sadly, Water UK seems
to have backed off from that agreement because
of concerns about people taking water supply
illegally out of a sprinkler system to avoid
paying the bill from their water meter,
and all sorts of spurious reasons which,
to me, do not stack up, given that when
a sprinkler is activated, a loud noise alarm
goes off outside the house. If someone wanted
to fill their kettle from their fire sprinkler,
they would not do so at risk of a loud noise
and a light going on outside. I ask the
Government to speak to the water industry,
see whether a voluntary agreement is imminent,
and if not, take powers in the Bill to ensure
that the supply of water for sprinklers
can be arranged.
In summary - I would like to allow others
to contribute to the debate; I do not want
to hog the limelight, as others may have
done - I welcome the Bill. I will make every
effort to ease its progress, as I am asked
to do, but I would be grateful if my right
hon. Friend the Minister and the Under-Secretary,
my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil
Hope), would respond to the points that
I have raised.
