Firefighters (Hansard, 6 July 1988)

§ Ms. Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West)

The subject of this debate arises because of the changes in the social security legislation, which came into force in April this year and take the earnings of retained firefighters into consideration when assessing benefit entitlement.

In correspondence, the Minister, whom I thank for being here—I realise that he has had a busy day—offered as the main reason the fact that not taking such earnings into account would be a disincentive for unemployed retained firefighters to seek work. With due respect, I suggest that that ignores the fact that in areas such as mine we have the dual problem of a comparatively large number of retained firefighters in a rural area and still a large number of unemployed people.

I accept that unemployment is changing, but it is difficult in our area to calculate what those changes are, because all my constituency is covered by travel-to-work areas. Moreover, the Government have made several changes to the way in which unemployment figures are calculated. Recent studies by Durham university show that the total number of jobs available has not increased during the past few years. We are losing some and gaining others. There is therefore still a large problem with unemployment.

Firefighters join the service not to avoid work but to offer themselves for a highly dangerous and important public service. Constituents who have come to see me have looked for work. Some were previously in work but have been made redundant. They have offered themselves for firefighting when they are needed, but if work were available, they would take it. Paid work, however, is still a precious commodity in our area.

Local residents are outraged that the Government seem to have such scant regard for the service of these men. Commitment to public service is an important issue today, and I believe that the Government are beginning to put out the message that they do not value it. That would be very unfortunate. I do not believe that that is the view of the Minister or of the Government, and I am offering the Minister an opportunity to demonstrate that there is a commitment to public service.

I am not sure that the Minister needs reminding that a previous Secretary of State wrote in 1982: I am happy to confirm that work as a part-time fireman does not affect entitlement to unemployment benefit. Similarly, any payment from employment as a part-time fireman in a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Act is disregarded in the assessment for supplementary benefit entitlement. I believe that that commitment is not written on tablets of stone for ever more, but it was recognised that this is a public service which ought to be recognised and that those involved should not be penalised by having their benefit affected.

Retained firefighters who are unemployed are on call 24 hours a day, and they are meant to be on call every day of the year. That in itself is an amazing act of public service. They are prepared to be tied to a narrow locality to be available in case of a fire.

I understand that to date there has been only one resignation in Durham county. I congratulate the firemen 1168 on that, because it demonstrates their commitment to service. In Durham much of the population is now located in somewhat scattered villages. Therefore, the importance of the local fire station and the local fire service cannot be overestimated. As I have said, retained firefighters are expected to respond on a 24-hour basis and within four minutes of a fire call so the location of the stations is crucial.

In Durham, there are about 170 retained firemen, of whom 20 per cent. are unemployed. The distribution of those firefighters is not necessarily even. Some stations are affected more than others. Of the two stations affected in my constituency, one, in Langley Park, has five retained firefighters who are unemployed and the other, in Crook, has four retained firefighters who are unemployed. Those men represent over 50 per cent. of the force in those stations. I hope that the Minister can understand the concern in those communities about the potential effect of the changes in the legislation.

As I have said, those firefighters have remained loyal to date, but they are looking to the Government for concessions. There are rumours—I emphasise that they are only rumours—that the Government are to re-examine things after six months. Some of those men are waiting for that.

There is also the hope that the Government will be prepared to redesignate the retainer fee as bounty. I understand that bounty payments have been allowed for other public services—for example, for the Territorial Army—and I understand that some sort of concession has also been made to lifeboatmen. If that is so—as I have said, I do not have written evidence of it, although I have been told about it—I hope that the Government can reconsider the designation in respect of firefighters.

One member of the service in Durham was recently paid his retainer fee and hoped that the Department of Health and Social Security would treat it as bounty. I understand that bounty is excluded under the legislation. However, the local office decided that it was not bounty and therefore that man's benefit has been affected for the next 26 weeks. He feels that throughout that period he will be working for nothing. It is also clear that different DHSS offices are interpreting the rules differently. I hope that the Minister can clear up some of the uncertainties and anxieties prompted by the rumours and different stories.

However, the main concern is the potential effect on recruitment. The fire service has made particular efforts and has produced leaflets to try to recruit more people and to retain more firemen. It is clear that the shortage is partly due to local authorities and local fire authorities not being able to afford to employ the number of full-time firemen which I confess I wish that they were employing, because that would be the answer to the problem. However, in Durham a large percentage of our firefighters are in the retained sector. It is important that we can continue to recruit. I understand that nationally the recruitment is normally from one large establishment. In a rural area, there are not the large workplaces that would enable that more fruitful recruitment to take place.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to think again. I hope that he will recognise the worth of the service that these people give to their local communities, the esteem in which those local communities hold them and the particular problems in rural areas, which still have high unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer tonight, we shall look for an answer in the future. I hope 1169 that the Minister can clear up the uncertainties and ensure that unemployed people feel that there is a role for them in public service and ensure, by changing the regulations, that the commitment involved is fully recognised by the Government.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo)

I very much appreciate the opening generous remarks by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). I congratulate her on obtaining this debate and on speaking so lucidly about the problems that she sees from her constituency experience. The Government share her high regard for the work carried out by the fire service as a whole. It is a matter of record that its firefighters have repeatedly performed heroically in the face of danger and at great personal risk to themselves, for the benefit and safety of others. I have the utmost regard for them and their work.

The hon. Lady referred specifically to the position of the retained firefighters under the new income support scheme. Of course, officers should apply the new rules consistently and, if the hon. Lady has any examples of where that is not occurring, I shall be pleased to look into the matter for her.

Retained firefighters are part-time firemen who voluntarily carry out their duties, often in addition to their normal full-time jobs. There are about 14,500, and only a small proportion are thought to be unemployed. We do not have any national figures, but if Durham is an indication the numbers of unemployed is likely to be under 12 per cent., and a considerably lower number may receive income support. I take the hon. Lady's point that in particular fire stations the proportion may be higher.

The Government have always recognised the valuable role that retained firefighters have in our society and we continue to reflect that in the new income support scheme. Because they are special, we are now helping them in five distinct ways—help which, apart from transitional protection, is not generally available to other claimants.

First, we are giving them the higher £15 a week disregard on their earnings instead of the standard £5 a week available to most other claimants. The £15 concession is normally available only to the more vulnerable groups—lone parents, people entitled to the disability premium and couples under 60 receiving benefit for two years or more. Retained firefighters, including fit single people, will get the £15 disregard automatically without having to satisfy any of those conditions.

Secondly, we are treating the long-service bounty paid to retained firefighters as capital, not as income. Other people who receive a bounty from their employers will normally have it counted as though it were earnings. In the year it is received the long-service bounty is worth between £10 and £18 a week for basic grade firefighters, depending on the length of service, and even higher amounts are paid to higher ranks. In practice, that means that for some retained firefighters up to £33 a week can be received in certain years without affecting their level of income support. I think the hon. Lady will agree that that is a 1170 significant concession in an income-related scheme, where many claimants are unable to work and therefore do not have the benefit of any earnings disregard.

Thirdly, those retained firefighters who were receiving supplementary benefit, but whose income support is less because their earnings are above £15 a week, will have their previous benefit protected at the point of change to income support by transitional additions. That ensures that existing recipients will not lose benefit because of the new rules.

Fourthly, we ignore the whole of their part-time earnings for unemployment benefit purposes. That has not changed. Since unemployment benefit is usually payable for the first year of unemployment and a person can requalify if he works 16 hours or more for just 13 weeks, this is a very generous concession for unemployed retained firefighters. Furthermore, because unemployment benefit is often paid at a higher rate than income support, many part-time firemen, if they find suitable employment before their unemployment benefit has been exhausted, will be completely unaffected by the new income support rules.

Fifthly, their employment as retained firefighters is not normally considered to affect their availability for other work. As the hon. Lady will know, the condition that unemployed people should be available for suitable work is a prerequisite for their receiving unemployment benefit and income support. This is yet another demonstration of the Government's willingness to help retained firefighters.

These in summary are the five ways in which we provide special help: we are disregarding the first £15 of their earnings in income support; we are treating their long-service bounty payments as capital; we are providing transitional protection to ensure that those on benefit under the old rules do not lose out; we are fully disregarding their earnings for unemployment benefit purposes; and we are ignoring their hours of work when deciding whether they satisfy the availability conditions for receiving benefit.

The hon. Lady is concerned about why we have moved from a total disregard of firefighters' earnings applying to supplementary benefit. The total disregard was first introduced in 1968. It does not go back further than that. At that time firefighters' earnings were not high enough to affect the amount of the benefit that they were receiving, but their earnings have increased considerably since then. For example, on current rates of pay, a firefighter on the lowest rate who attends a drill night and is required for turnout once a week would receive earnings of just under £30. The information we have available is that retained firefighters earn around £43 a week on average. Clearly, some will earn more than that figure and perhaps well in excess of their income support entitlement.

Let me give the House an example. Let us consider a single person earning £43 a week, with an income support entitlement of £33.40. By disregarding all his earnings he would be 125 per cent. better off than his unemployed counterpart. I do not believe that that can be right. It would be irresponsible of us, in a scheme that is supported wholly out of public funds, to give an open-ended disregard of earnings, regardless of how much those earnings might be. If we had done that, we would have been criticised.

We must also consider the other consequences if, as the hon. Lady has suggested, we were to disregard all the earnings of retained firefighters. There is evidence to suggest that the complete disregard that existed under the 1171 old scheme was acting as a disincentive for some full-time firemen to remain in their jobs because they were better off on benefits and earnings as retained firefighters. Furthermore, there was a definite risk of creating a disincentive for people seeking full-time work, particularly in areas where the proportion of low-paid jobs is higher than average. It must be remembered that income support is payable to unemployed people on the condition that they are available for, and willing to accept, full-time work.

Nor do I think that we can afford to ignore the effects that a complete disregard under income support might have on full-time firemen with low earnings who claim the other income-related benefits, namely, family credit and housing benefit. Under family credit there are no disregards on earnings, while in housing benefit the first £5, or £10 if one of a couple, of any full-time earnings are ignored. Those rules would clearly favour the retained firefighter and serve to narrow, or even remove, the financial differentials between part-time and full-time firemen. Such a move would also be counter-productive to the Government's policy of encouraging people to be self-reliant.

Like the hon. Lady, I should be very concerned if the income support regulations had an adverse effect on the retention and recruitment of firefighters. That is why we are liaising with the Home Office, which is monitoring the effect of the change in the treatment of earnings, the results of which are likely to be known at the end of the year. I suspect that that is why the six-month proposal has come into play. The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales is fully aware of these monitoring arrangements.

1172 Finally, the hon. Lady may be interested to learn about the latest position relating to personnel in Durham. She is right to say that there is a retained establishment of 270, of whom 32 are otherwise employed. She is also right to say that one man has resigned, giving the new rules as the reason, but I understand that he has since applied to be reinstated.

We have had responses from other local authorities. I am pleased to say that no difficulties have been reported from Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Clwyd, Buckinghamshire, Dyfed, 'West Glamorgan, Gwent, Gwynedd, Hereford and Worcestershire, Powys, Shropshire, Staffordshire, West Midlands, Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Wiltshire and Leicestershire, but for the sake of completeness I ought to mention that three local authorities have expressed various degrees of concern about the problem.

In conclusion, I assure the hon. Lady that the decision to discontinue the total disregard was not taken lightly—but we believe that it was justified—that we are monitoring the position and that, so far, we are unaware of widespread adverse effects on the retention and recruitment of retained firefighters.

I have pleasure in saying again that there can be no doubt of the value that we place upon the services of retained firefighters. That is why, for those who are unemployed, we have made the special provisions that I set out in my reply. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the chance to spell out those special conditions. I hope that she will ponder on what I have said to her, just as I shall ponder on what she has told the House this evening.