HC Deb 05 July 1991 vol 194 cc604-11

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 5, at end insert— ("( ) Before giving a direction under subsection (1) above, a local authority (other than the Council of the Isles of Scilly) shall consult the fire authority for the area in which the dwelling is or is to he situated.")

Mr. Bellingham

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the tribute that he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who, as he rightly said, has had to return to his constituency he has entrusted to me the task of moving the Lords amendments.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

Has he gone back to his constituency because he is worried that he will lose his deposit at the next general election?

Mr. Bellingham

No, he has gone back because he is an extremely assiduous and hard-working Member. He has returned to honour a very long-standing engagement. That remark from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was completely unnecessary.

Amendment No. 2 relates to consulting the local fire authority. Clause 2 relates to exemptions. We all agree that there must be some exceptions. For example, when refurbishing historic homes or other buildings of considerable importance to our heritage it would be out of place to have smoke detectors on a Grinling Gibbons ceiling. Those exceptions and exemptions must be kept to a bare minimum.

We are talking about lives being at stake. On average every year 700 people die in homes as a result of tires in which smoke is involved. In addition, 10,000 people are injured in such incidents every year. Those figures are horrendous. People will recall that appalling disaster when the Piper Alpha platform caught fire. One hundred and sixty-seven people died in that tragedy, but every year 700 people die in their homes as a result of fires. I believe that many of those lives could be saved if those homes had smoke detectors.

In that context, and as we are talking about consulting the fire authorities, I am in order if—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Chair will decide what is and what is not in order. 1 take this opportunity to remind him and the House that I also have a duty to protect the rights of other hon. Members whose Bills await us and are on the Order Paper. I very much hope that the House will debate the Lords amendment and not the generality of clause 2.

Mr. Bellingham

I apologise for trying to usurp your position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will forgive me for that impertinence.

The Norfolk fire service has devised several extremely important initiatives. One of those, its smoke detector campaign, has been running for two and a half years. As a result, 47 per cent. of all dwellings in Norfolk now have smoke detectors. That is 15 per cent. above the national average. In the last calendar year, there were 667 fires and 801 chimney fires in Norfolk. The Norfolk fire service has told me that those figures would have been much worse without its smoke detector campaign, which has increased the number of smoke detectors to an extremely high level. That must not go unrecorded, because it is crucial.

It is important that local authorities produce schemes to install smoke detectors on council estates. Norwich city council has carried out a pilot scheme, which involves a team of officers from the fire service meeting the occupiers of the homes in question to tell them about safety issues. I am informed that one councillor in Norwich, Andy Paynes, carried out a poll which produced the staggering result that since the pilot scheme began, the number of smoke detectors installed in the area has increased by 22 per cent. I am urging my local authority, King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, to introduce a similar scheme. I know that the central area manager, Mr. Simon Beales, will be extremely sympathetic to my suggestion.

The Norfolk fire brigade is right up there in the vanguard and has recently introduced a community fire safety programme. In due course, it will involve every full-time and retained fireman in Norfolk. That shows the conscientiousness, dedication and commitment of the Norfolk fire brigade. Its campaigns have been extremely successful. I urge other fire services to come up with similar campaigns. The Norfolk fire brigade is continually producing newer and better leaflets that are sent out to householders, developers and to the wardens of different housing complexes. They urge people to spend just a small amount of money installing a smoke detector.

As I said, exemptions should be a matter for the fire authority as well as the local authority. That is why I was slightly concerned and surprised that when my hon. Friend the Member for York was piloting the Bill in its early stages, he did not spot the need to involve the fire authorities. That is why their Lordships tabled the amendment, which insists that the fire authority is consulted.

The House may ask why the amendment provides an exemption for the Isles of Scilly. The fact that their Lordships took special note of the Isles of Scilly may be slightly surprising because the amendment is straightforward, except for the categorical reference to "other than the Council of the Isles of Scilly".

I shall try to cast some light on why that exemption has been made. The council of the Isles of Scilly is a remarkable and long-established example of what many people today would regard as a model for local government in the rest of the country. It is a unitary authority with a single tier. The writ of Cornwall county council does not run in the islands—and nor do the services of Cornwall's county fire brigade. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the chief officer of the Cornish fire service also serves as the chief officer of the fire brigade of the council of the Isles of Scilly, although they are separate roles. When dealing with matters in Cornwall, for example, the chief officer uses the writing paper of the county fire service, but when dealing with matters relating to the Isles of Scilly, he uses the paper of the council of the Isles of Scilly. That is a classic Chinese wall.

The question is whether the inhabitants of the Scilly isles will be disadvantaged by the exemption. If an owner or a builder of a new house on the islands has reason to seek exemption from the requirement to install a smoke detector in the property, he would, under the Bill, have to seek permission from the officers of the council of the Isles of Scilly. Those officers will not be provided with any extra help to ensure that they reach proper decisions about whether to grant an exemption. On the fact of it, builders on the Isles of Scilly might find it harder to obtain exemption. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that.

Exemption could become an important issue on the Isles of Scilly. It would be difficult to conceive a reason why a new house on the isles should be exempted, but the House will know that very few houses are allowed to be built on the islands. Planning laws are, rightly, extremely strict and little new housing has been authorised on the islands over the past 20 years or so. The House will recall that a former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, used to have a property on the Isles of Scilly and regularly retired there during parliamentary recesses. It is fair to say that Lord Wilson helped to put the Scilly isles on the map. It is unfortunate that he did not have time to contribute to the debates that took place in another place during its consideration of the Bill.

There have been a number of conversions of agricultural buildings on the Isles of Scilly and some of the properties are listed. That raises the question of implementation. Should the installation of smoke detectors in such properties be allowed? It is still not properly defined when the repair on extension of a building will bring it within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that. For those who are engaged on conversions of the sort that are under way on Tresco, the issue remains outstanding.

Could the officers of the council of the Isles of Scilly consult the fire fighters? Each island has a system of retained fireman. Even the smallest island, Bryher—it is only 1.25 miles by 1.25 miles with a population of 76—has access to its own fire service. I am told, however, that house fires are extremely rare and there has not been one in living memory. Perhaps all the houses on the island have been fitted with smoke detectors already.

St. Mary's, the island on which Lord Wilson used to spend his holidays, has a population of 1,600. That population increases substantially in the summer. Like the other islands, it relies on part-time retained fire crews. It is worth saying that such crews are crucial. I have told the House that the Norfolk fire brigade is highly professional and well respected. It relies, however, to a large extent on retained part-time firemen. Those men adopt the highest possible standards of professionalism, training and expertise and they have a commitment and devotion to serving their local community. I pay tribute to the work that is done throughout the country by retained part-time firemen.

There is no doubt that the senior retained men could advise on suitability for exemption, but that would raise a further problem. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the decision whether to exempt will rest with district councils' building inspectors. They will seek the advice of the fire brigade, which will be under the control of the county council. Thus, the advice will come properly from a separate and independent body. On the Isles of Scilly, however, if the council sought the advice of the chief fire officer, wearing the hat or using the notepaper of the Isles of Scilly, it would be seeking advice from itself. That would give rise to accusations of partiality. That is something which those who demand unitary authorities throughout England and Wales might wish to consider. It is worth saying that the debate about the structure of local government will rumble on an on. In the context of the Bill, however, unitary authorities lead to problems when those representing a certain function seek advice and authorisation from another authority. It is an important matter which should be borne in mind.

The only way to avoid the problem would be to summon an independent fire officer from the mainland and from a different force or fire brigade. That, however, would be costly and we must bear in mind the fact that it would add to the cost of new homes on the Isles of Scilly. New homes are needed on the islands for local people, including many in rural areas. It goes without saying that costs are inflated by the distances involved. The sea journey from Penzance to the islands is very expensive and the service operates only from April to early November. The skybus which flies from Land's End operates only in the summer. The only way that a fire officer could visit the islands in the winter would be by helicopter. I understand that the service runs four times a week. Transport between the islands is easier, through the good services offered by the St. Mary's Boatmen's Association.

2 pm

The cost of getting a fire officer from the mainland to the Scilly isles is prohibitive, and there would be a number of important implications for the ratepayers. The independent fire officer might have to spend a few days on the islands because he could not carry out his role in just a morning or an afternoon. It would not be possible to fly from Penzance to St. Mary's, cross to Bryher by boat, and then get back to the air base at St. Mary's in time for the return flight on the same day, even if the fire officer had only one visit to make. Rough weather might intervene and trap the fire inspector on Bryher for several days. Of course, he would not lack creature comforts as I understand that the services offered by local hostelries are superb. I am trying to explain the implications of the additional costs that would be involved; the extra costs involved in island living are already accepted. It would be an economic nonsense to install testing facilities on all five islands.

Will the amendment have an adverse effect on tourism, which is the mainstay of the economy—although 10 years ago, it was daffodils—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman, but even he will recognise that he is going too far. He must keep his remarks closer to the amendment.

Mr. Bellingham

I am sorry that you feel that I have strayed too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Lords amendment would specifically exempt the Scilly isles and the House must be made aware of the reason.

I hope that I have managed to explain the background to the position in the Scilly isles, which have a special case. That is why the other place decided to exempt them from the provision that requires the fire service to be consulted. On balance, I think that their Lordships were right. I am aware that a number of them lobbied a great deal about the special circumstances of the Scilly isles.

Ensuring that the fire authority is consulted is at the core of the Bill. It has the experts. I have already mentioned the Norfolk fire service, which has a superb record of informing the public and presenting the case for smoke detectors. The fire service has the professionals and the experts and they need to be consulted. I commend the amendment to the House.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

I welcome the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who raised two specific issues. The first is whether fire officers should be consulted when existing dwellings or those about to be constructed are to be given exemptions. The second issue is whether the Scilly isles should be exempted.

It is slightly anomalous that the fire service should be consulted when a local authority is considering whether to grant an exemption, but not consulted on whether or where a smoke alarm should be placed. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the fire service has a body of experts who can best advise on the provision of fire appliances and on fire prevention and protection units. It seems odd to draw that distinction. On the one hand, a local authority is deemed to be the right body to determine that the correct number of smoke alarms have been fitted properly, and in the right place, and will serve to give sufficient early warning of a fire. On the other hand, the authority is not deemed competent to decide whether a new or reconstituted dwelling should be exempted. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West can enlighten me as to why that distinction has been made. It does not seem logical that a local authority should have the power to act by itself in certain circumstances, but in others cannot be trusted to reach a decision without the intervention of the local fire service.

I was intrigued by the reference to the Scilly Isles. It seems astonishing to exempt them, as I am not aware that the Scillies are less able to provide a fire service check than the many other islands offshore to the United Kingdom mainland. Is there anything special about those isles, as against the Orkneys or Outer Hebrides to the extent that the Scillies alone should be given exemption from what is deemed to be a necessary safeguard in the rest of the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West described at length the population of the Scilly isles and said that, in general, they do not have a fire service of adequate strength to undertake the checks required. However, he added that each and every one of the islands —even the smallest—has a resident fire officer. Is there any reason why those officers should not be considered lit and proper persons to undertake the checks required?

As my hon. Friend rightly said, there are few new buildings in the Scillies and the chances of any of them being properly exempted from the provision seems remote. It is a pity that the promoter of the Bill cannot be present, although I fully understand the reason, as I would have enjoyed the opportunity of examining him on precisely how many buildings would fall into the category specifically exempted by the Bill. I will be extremely surprised if at any time in the next five years more than a handful of buildings qualify for the exemption. Is it necessary, therefore, to make such an exemption in respect of the Scilly isles? If the safeguards are thought to be so important for the rest of the United Kingdom, why are they not considered equally important for the Scilly isles?

My hon. Friend mentioned added expense, and there would be additional costs involved in taking over to the isles an officer of the Cornwall fire service, which I understand is the one affiliated to the Scilly isles, to investigate an application for exemption. However, it would be no more expensive than flying someone over to the Mull or Isla, or any of the western isles, where the same criteria must apply. Despite my hon. Friend's admirable introduction to the amendment, I see no reason why the Scillies should he given the exemption that the House is asked to approve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West also raised the question of tourism. I am sure that I would be hauled up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I started talking about daffodils, but the tourist industry is surely the mainstay of the isles' income. The tourists who visit them must be able to expect their safety to be safeguarded there, as in any other part of the United Kingdom. I fail to comprehend why a guest house in the Scillies should be exempted on the basis that the local authority thinks that it should not be required to fit smoke alarms, whereas one in Cornwall will require the consent of the Cornish fire service before it can obtain exemption. We should be wary of legislating for different standards in different parts of the country—the more so when there is no obvious reason why one part should be regarded as different from the others.

I do not intend to block the amendment. The Lords have considered it and they think it appropriate, but I agree to it with great reservations. I see no good reason for exemption for the Isles of Scilly, although the Minister may be able to provide an explanation.

Mr. Stern

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) I found that the introduction to the Lords amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) gave rise to one or two doubts.

In theory we are all against unnecessary legislation and I wonder how necessary this amendment is. It would provide an exemption from the requirement to put smoke detectors in new dwellings. I should have thought that any local authority faced with a request for such an exemption would automatically consult the local fire authority, so do we really need a legislative requirement to do so? Surely the same clause to which the amendment refers provides the opportunity for local authorities to do this. If they refuse an application for exemption there is a right of appeal and, inevitably, the evidence that would be called for during that appeal would be given by the local fire authority. I am not sure whether there is a need to include a legislative provision to this end. I hope that one of my hon. Friends will be able to reassure me on that point.

In many parts of the country there will be unitary authorities. In my part of the world it is likely that either the city of Bristol or Avon county council will cease to exist as a local authority in five years' time. So why do we need a provision stipulating that one part of a local authority must consult another to achieve the aim of the Bill? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, I have no intention of blocking the amendment, but it leaves me worried.

Mr. Yeo

This has been a helpful debate in which important issues have been aired. The introduction to the amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) was a classic of its kind: he explained the matter most clearly. He also took the opportunity to describe the excellent work of the Norfolk fire service, which I commend. It has already had some success with a higher than average rate of installations of smoke detectors.

My hon. Friend asked important questions about the Scilly isles. The amendment deals with exceptions to the general run of things. It is expected that after the passage of the Bill almost all new dwellings will be covered by the requirement to install smoke detectors, so this aspect of the Bill deals with only a small number of cases. I recently saw the structure plan for the isles of Scilly—it is something of an anomaly that it has to have one, given its very small population. Without breaking any confidences I think that I can say that under that structure plan it does not appear that the Bill will have a huge impact, because the number of new dwellings to be built in the Scilly isles in the next few years is relatively small, so it is possible that there will be no exceptions of the sort dealt with by the clause.

The issues were further illuminated by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). It might be best if we monitor the progress of the legislation in the Isles of Scilly by getting my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) to keep an eye on the situation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West will ask him to do that.

The nub of the matter is that the local authority and the fire authority are one and the same body on the Isles of Scilly. That is unique. It does not apply to the parts of western Scotland that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. That fact is the explanation for the amendment. The amendment does not extend its requirements to the Isles of Scilly because the local authority and the fire authority are the same body.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

I am grateful for that explanation. I accept that that is the difference between the Isles of Scilly and the outer isles around Scotland—one of which I was not aware. However, that in itself does not seem to be a good reason for the exemption. First, as my hon. Friend said, this is unlikely to have any effect on the Isles of Scilly. Secondly, although it is one and the same authority on the Isles of Scilly, there is a specialist fire service officer there who must be perfectly capable of making the sort of decisions that fire authorities in other parts of the country have to make. It is something of an insult to the specialist fire service officer on the Isles of Scilly that that power should be removed from him.

2.15 pm
Mr. Yeo

It may be some time since the affairs of the Isles of Scilly have been discussed in such detail in the House. It is possible, therefore, that the attention of the population of the Isles of Scilly will be drawn to our proceedings. I hope that, on the ground, common sense will prevail. If there is the need for a Chinese wall to be erected, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West, I am sure that the authority is capable of erecting one. In practice, therefore, I hope that the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster will not prove to be a real anxiety, if the situation unfolds as he suggested.

Amendment No. 2 allows the appropriate local authority to dispense with or relax the requirement to fit smoke detectors. There are unlikely to be many situations in which the power will need to be used. The conversion of an historic house into a dwelling is a possible example, but when such a situation does arise it seems sensible to require the building control authority to consult the fire authority before deciding whether to give a direction under clause 2. The amendment will ensure that consultation takes place. It would remove any chance of a local authority deciding, for one reason or another, to cut corners. It would have to consult another body before this dispensation could be granted.

Against that background, the amendment commands the full support of the Government. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Back to