§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mackay.]
2.31 pm§ Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the important matter of the future of the 999 service. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the few hon. Members present will soon realise why the Minister who will reply to the debate is a Trade and Industry Minister rather than a colleague from the Department of Health or from the Home Office with responsibility for the ambulance, fire or police services.
I am glad to have been granted this debate and to feel that I have, in some senses, dragged the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I have yet to receive even an acknowledgment of the letter I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade on 28 October. I know that he has been busy, but it is rather long to wait for an acknowledgment.
Most people pass through life without having to dial 999 and I am glad to be one of them. After the caller has dialled 999, the call is answered almost instantaneously by a British Telecom operator who finds out which emergency service is needed, and confirms the number and location of the caller if that is not shown automatically on the computer.
The operator then passes the call to the relevant emergency service and stays on the line to reconnect or to assist if necessary. In the recent tragic difficulty with the London ambulance service computers, the problems occurred after the calls had passed through the BT system. There are now proposals to reorganise the front-line service provided by BT, which is why a Department of Trade and Industry Minister is here to answer the debate this afternoon.
Our 999 call-handling system is the envy of the world, as it is efficient and cost effective. The operators serve the public well and deserve our thanks. Despite that, and for no particularly good reason, the whole system is being considered for radical change. At present, those highly skilled and trained operators spend most of their time dealing with other more mundane telephone inquiries received on other numbers. However, when a 999 call comes through, it is answered immediately. If necessary, an operator will abandon a non-urgent inquiry.
That work pattern provides great flexibility. When there are peaks and troughs or very busy times in respect of the number of 999 calls, they can be handled without over-stretching the service. By working in that way, operators do not spend all their working days and nights dealing with the immensely stressful business of handling the personal tragedies behind every call.
Operators also build up a knowledge of the local area and establish contacts with local emergency services. They have a detailed knowledge of the kind of incidents and the stressful state that people are in when they dial 999.
The Office of Telecommunications—Oftel—has decided to review that system. I hope that the Minister will tell us today when the report commissioned by Oftel from Touche Ross will be published, as it is the next stage in the move to change the system. At the moment there are some 50 centres with approximately 6,000 staff and they handle all 999 calls in the way that I have described.
Proposals are being considered to create a dedicated call-handling agency with as few as 150 staff working at 1161 any one time based in just three centres around the country. It is proposed that those centres will be Bury St. Edmunds, Newport Gwent and Motherwell in Scotland.
The nearest centre to London would be Bury St. Edmunds, which is 70 miles away. If that centre was overflowing, calls would be diverted to Scotland or to Wales. I must correct an early-day motion which received a large number of signatures. In that, we stated that there were 70 centres and not 50. British Telecom is making such savage cuts in the number of centres that, when one thinks that one has the correct number in an early-day motion, that number has changed.
I am concerned about Oftel's involvement in the matter. In preparing the review, Oftel has failed sufficiently to consult, or listen to the voices of, those who work in the 999 service. Drawing a parallel, most fair-minded hon. Members would concede that if the London ambulance service had listened earlier to the experts in the service and the unions, the recent crisis could have been prevented. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) would agree about that, because he devoted a great deal of work to drawing attention to the problems of ambulance services. I hope that Oftel will learn from that and will listen to the warnings and constructive advice offered by the Union of Communication Workers.
It seems that the emergency services are generally quite happy with the current system. The satisfaction of the police, fire, ambulance, coastguard and mountain rescue services is shared by their respective unions and associations. That is a rare show of unanimity and it should be built on, not ignored.
The Fire Brigades Union has taken great interest in the matter and its representatives will be joining those of the Union of Communication Workers and other concerned people to lobby Parliament on 8 December. They have some positive advice to offer. Even at this late stage—although the Minister will probably say that this is an early stage—I hope that the Government will listen to us with an open mind.
Before seeking to alter radically the status quo, should not there first be concrete and demonstrable evidence that there is a real problem—that the service provided is of poor quality or poor value for money? As far as I know, no such evidence exists. If there is such evidence, why is it not being made public and why have we not seen it? This proposal looks like many of the proposals being introduced by the Government—almost change for change's sake. The cliché, "If it is not broken, why fix it?" is apt. To put it another way, if the calls are being connected, why break the calls?
There is a lack of tried and tested technology available to implement such changes. I am not a Luddite, nor are most Labour Members. I do not have the confidence, after recent events, to be happy to see the introduction of more computers to replace people to deal with emergencies. The prospect of people dialling 999 and being answered by an answering machine is real, as a slimmed-down service would face severe difficulties when having to react at a time of peak usage, which can easily be contained at present.
There are other risks. The security implications surrounding such a change are worth considering. Recently one of the centres in Liverpool was knocked out for about six hours by an arson attack. If that were to happen to one of only three centres, I am not convinced that the remaining two could cope. If we had two national 1162 emergencies, such as an air crash and a rail disaster, on one day at different ends of the country, I do not believe that only two centres could cope.
It is interesting that none of the proposals will apply to Northern Ireland, largely because of the security risks. If it is good enough for the Northern Ireland system not to be changed because people's lives would be put at risk, why are we contemplating its introduction in the mainland? Do we want to concentrate so vital a service into such a small number of locations and present so tangible a target to terrorists?
If the Government and Oftel are so worried about the relatively modest cost of supporting this excellent service falling so heavily on British Telecom, I am sure that there would be support throughout for proposals to make other network operators pay a bigger share of the costs involved. I hope that this constructive idea to tackle what is perhaps the real motive behind the changes will be accepted by the Minister. I must warn the Minister that this issue will receive full support from not only Labour Members. We have support from the Liberal Democrats—the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Simon Hughes) was not able to be here today. Many sleeping Conservative Members are also concerned about this—[Interruption.] They are asleep, so they cannot be here. Nevertheless, the issue affects the lives of people in the United Kingdom.
I warn the Minister that if he and the Government are prepared to push through changes that are designed mainly to save a little money somewhere, and if the changes put our services in jeopardy, his Government will not be easily forgiven. I hope that the Minister, as a result of this debate, will bring the debate properly into the public arena where it belongs, because we do not want the changes to be pushed through without people understanding and knowing what has happened.
I hope that the Minister will agree to take on board the positive points that I and my colleagues—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) will say a few words—have made in addition to the points made by the Union of Communications Workers and other trade unions which represent those who work in the service. I believe that the Government have failed to consult sufficiently. We must begin the proceses of consultation, because I am sure that if people understand what is proposed they will totally reject the idea.
§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) for giving me the opportunity to say a few words in support of the case which she made so well. Like her, I am sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers. For that reason, but also because of my concern for the needs of everyone in Britain who depends on the emergency services, I am grateful for the opportunity to support my hon. Friend's argument.
I shall put four points to the Minister. First, we must recognise that the telephone connection part of the 999 service works well. Recently, one of my constituents desperately needed an ambulance. He phoned 999. He was answered instantly by the telephone operators. They handled his call with superb efficiency. It was when the call was passed to the ambulance service that the problems 1163 arose. In the end, he had to wait for three and a half minutes before he was connected to anyone at the ambulance service.
My constituent specified that he had no complaint whatever about the way in which the telephone service operated. His complaint was against the ambulance service. So we must recognise that the 999 service operated at present by British Telecom employees works superbly; there is no need whatever to change it.
Secondly, the review body established by Oftel which came up with the proposal to create a new call-handling agency had an interesting composition. I asked the Minister a parliamentary question about it some weeks ago and received an answer which spelt out who sat on the review body. The Cable Television Association, Telecom Securicor Cellular Radio Ltd. and Racal-Vodac Ltd. had seats on the review body, but no one who represented people working in the service played any part whatever.
To include no representative of any of the telephone employees who operate the 999 service in the review process seems the wrong way of going about sensibly examining how the service should change, if at all. It is the people who work day by day in the service who know the real problems and know where the service can be improved.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall mentioned the potential risk of disaster or even terrorist attack at one of only three points of handling calls. That could be a real problem. To boil down 50 points of contact to just three immediately puts those three points of contact in greater danger at the same time as it reduces the flexibility which is part and parcel of the system at present.
The fourth point, which the Minister should perhaps take into account to an even greater extent than any of the other arguments, is that at present the staff who work now on the 999 service are British Telecom employees with an enormous range of skills and experience and a fantastic amount of dedication. The proposal of the Oftel review body for a call-handling agency will tear all up that experience and dedication. It will remove it for virtually no benefit. If the proposal goes ahead, it will destroy what is working well and will consign an enormous amount of skill to the dustbin. I urge the Minister very seriously to reconsider this matter and to keep the 999 service as it is. It is serving the public well and efficiently, and is greatly valued by the public in return.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh)I thank the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for their interesting and thoughtful contributions.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss what I regard as a subject of considerable importance. I fully appreciate hon. Members' concerns about the future arrangements for the handling of emergency calls.
All of us have an interest in ensuring that the current excellent standard of the service is maintained. After all, we do not know when we will need to make use of it ourselves. But I hope that I can correct some of the misunderstandings that have arisen over the plans to introduce new procedures for the initial handling of calls.
1164 I shall confine myself to the initial handling of calls, rather than the wider issue of the emergency services in general, which is a subject for my colleagues in the Home Office.
The Office of Telecommunications leads on the review of arrangements for the implementation of a call-handling agency which will take incoming 999 calls and pass them on to the emergency authorities. I know that the Director General of Telecommunications will take a keen interest in the views expressed today.
The handling of 999 calls is essentially a two-stage process—first, the receipt and onward transmission of the call by a telecommunications operator and, secondly, its subsequent handling by an emergency authority. I want to emphasise that the present review is concerned only with the first stage of that process.
Hon. Members have suggested today that there is no need to implement changes to that part of the service, as it functions perfectly well as it is. I certainly agree that the current system, in which British Telecom acts as the contact point for all incoming calls, has indeed performed well, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made clear.
Figures suggest that most calls are connected to the appropriate emergency authority within about 25 seconds. The BT operators cope admirably with the stresses and demands which both routine and 999 calls place upon them. However, it has become increasingly apparent to all parties concerned, including the emergency authorities themselves, that the continuation of that system is simply not appropriate now that the shape of the telecommunications industry is changing.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)That is a non-sequitur.
§ Mr. LeighAs a consequence of the entry of competitors to BT, the United Kingdom telecommunications infrastructure will increasingly become a set of inter-connected networks, rather than a single network administered by BT. There will be a corresponding need for a central system of handling emergency calls which may arise on any one of the networks. That is a real problem, I advise the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
Since 1984, Mercury Communications has been permitted to run a telecommunications network in competition with BT. Last year, the Government announced that they would permit others to come forward to run additional networks. Already, more than 40 companies have applied to be able to do so. Meanwhile, cable television companies and the mobile telephony companies—Cellnet, Vodafone, Hutchison Microtel and Mercury Personal Communications—are either already providing, or will shortly begin providing, extensive telephony services. That new competition has been widely welcomed for the benefits that it has brought in terms of increased choice, innovative products and services, and lower prices, but clearly it also raises questions about the current system of emergency call handling.
§ Mr. SpearingThis is a matter of great public importance. Will the Minister tell us why the conditions for the competitors, irrespective of their merits, did not include some method whereby a 999 call on any instrument went to the existing 50 or 70 centres? Surely, unless those conditions exist, the Government are not doing their duty.
§ Mr. LeighApparently, it is not technically possible to do that in all cases. Mercury, for instance, has its own emergency centre. It copes very well, but it was felt that, given the increase in competition and the likelihood of smaller operators entering the market, it would be advisable to retain the efficiency of a central call-handling agency.
§ Mr. LeighThe hon. Lady has not understood what I have been saying. Competition is a fact: BT no longer has a monopoly of telecommunications services in this country, and there is no longer a single central telephone network. Now that competition is there, with all the benefits that it brings to consumers, it is essential that we ensure efficiency by creating a central call-handling agency. That is what the Director General of Telecommunications has decided to do.
It was an early awareness of the problem—as long ago as 1989—that prompted the then Director General of Telecommunications, Sir Bryan Carsberg, to set up a review group to examine the 999 emergency service. His aim was to ensure that standards in the 999 service would be maintained as the telecommunications industry's structure changed. The group's membership included all the organisations with an interest in emergency calls, including representatives from the Office of Telecommunications, the telecommunications network operators, relevant Government Departments and the emergency authorities themselves. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised that point.
The group reaches the conclusion that a call-handling agency should be established. That conclusion enjoyed the support of all the organisations represented on the group. The proposed new agency would take account of the emergence of new telecommunications operators, and would avoid unacceptable variations in the standard of performance. It would also save wasteful duplication of effort, and allow the emergency authorities to receive calls from a single source.
It was considered important, however, that a change such as the one envisaged should not take place without the fullest consultation of other parties with an interest. A consultative paper was therefore produced, and was circulated widely. The findings of the feasibility study were approved by nearly all the respondents to the consultation. The consensus reached was that, by routing all calls through a single source, the agency would provide a highly effective service.
Once that clear and overwhelming conclusion had been made, it fell to the director general to consider how the proposals could be implemented in practice and, in particular, how the benefits I have outlined could be achieved. He therefore commissioned consultants Touche Ross to carry out a validation study and prepare an implementation plan. This further detailed research will take into account the number and staffing of the proposed agency offices, and will consider how the service will be funded and managed. It will also look at the best ways in 1166 which to use the latest available technology. I understand from the director general that Touche Ross will soon be in a position to report to him—in late January, it is hoped.
I replied on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade to the letter from the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and the reply was sent to her yesterday; I apologise for the fact that she has not yet received it. I must tell her that until the findings have been reported, neither the director general nor I can anticipate them. I emphasise, however, that the director general has set Touche Ross strict criteria, which it must meet in any proposals. Any new scheme must at least equal, and preferably improve on, the standard currently reached by the service—which, as I said earlier, is acknowledged to be very high.
Some of the speculation about the future of the service —both outside the House and here today—has been erroneous, and I hope that I shall have time to answer some of the points that have been made. We have heard horror stories that thousands of emergency callers will be placed in call-queuing systems—or worse still, be put through to an answer machine. Let me make it clear that such a possibility is simply not being contemplated. It would hardly be consistent with the director general's stated intentions.
It has been said that the system will be swamped by the volume of calls, and that was implied today. That is not true. I can assure the House that the system will have the capacity to deal with the number of emergency calls that are made. Although the call-handling agency will have fewer operators to call upon than BT currently has nationwide, the key point is that it will be dedicated purely to answering emergency calls.
It is argued that that will not address the problem of a major emergency, in which BT currently calls upon extra staff to support the 999 staff. The new system is likely to provide better support in such a case, because each call-handling agency office will be able to call on the other offices, thus avoiding the current problem where a local BT exchange can be swamped by calls during a purely local emergency.
The final decision on the number and the location of the call-handling agency offices has not yet been decided, but the arrangements will be required to ensure that there is adequate coverage for all regions of the country. Let me assure the House, then, that the call-handling agency will not be implemented in a haphazard or precipitate fashion. Oftel's consideration of the issue since 1989 has been careful and measured.
This prudent approach will continue, once the consultant's report has been received. When the Touche Ross report is available it will be published, and there will be a further period of discussion and comment. It is not intended that the call-handling agency will be brought into action until 1995 at the earliest. There will, therefore, be plenty of time in the run-up to the change to ensure that the system functions effectively and that current standards of service will be protected and, where possible, improved upon.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.