§ Ms Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)I am grateful for this timely opportunity to raise important issues relating to the fire service.
No doubt the Minister was among the many Members of Parliament approached yesterday by a large lobby organised by the Fire Brigades Union and attended by many firefighters and ambulance and emergency rescue staff. I am grateful to him for representing the Minister of State, Earl Ferrers. He and I are much more used to corresponding regularly on immigration matters: I would guess that he receives more letters and representations from Members of Parliament than any other member of the Government. I am glad that he has been able to drag himself away from pressing matters in his office; no doubt they are even more pressing than usual this morning.
I wish to concentrate largely on the turmoil surrounding the threat to the firefighters' pay review formula, agreed after the damaging strike of 1977. However, I shall also press the Minister on some of the technical issues that I raised in an Adjournment debate on the emergency services in London some 18 months ago. I hope that he will be able to demonstrate that some progress has been made, although I must admit to a certain scepticism which I hope that he will be able to overturn.
The 1977 fire service strike evokes in all of us powerful memories of service men and women providing a vital emergency service, and of "green goddesses" on the streets of our towns and cities. The current dispute has brought us lively television footage of that period, dubbed with assurances that, if necessary, the Army fire tenders will be taken out of their mothballs and made ready for action.
The 1977 dispute was resolved by the adoption of a nationally agreed pay formula: that complex formula, based on the upper quarter of the average manual worker's pay, was agreed fully by the employers and union negotiators. It had the tacit support of the Government of the day, and has remained in place ever since. It has cross-party support in fire authorities up and down the country; indeed, the Home Office working party report produced in 1990 and signed by Earl Ferrers went further by explicitly recognising that the fire service and the public had been well served by the formula.
Since 1977, the pay year has run from November to November, following shortly after the annual publication of the Government's new earnings survey. For each of the past 15 years, the annual pay round has been settled amicably and speedily by application of the formula. I understand that industrial relations involving pay in this vital public service have remained second to none. Surely the Minister agrees that the morale of members of a service that is called routinely to deal with life-threatening situations is of paramount and obvious importance.
Last year, the formula resulted in a pay rise of about 4.9 per cent., which is readily comparable to the increases paid to other sectors. In fact, that comparability is built into the formula. I hope the Minister will accept that, because the formula is—by definition—time-lagged by a year, any pay freeze imposed by the Government will affect firefighters' pay twice over. Should the pay freeze be lifted next year 1065 and the formula reintroduced, firefighters will still receive a rise of only 1.5 per cent. or less, as it will be based on current public sector pay round settlements.
Where a comparable worker may have received, say, a 5 per cent. rise last year, 1.5 per cent. this year and—who knows?—3.5 per cent. next year, a firefighter will have received approximately 4.9 per cent. last year, 1.5 per cent. this year and 1.5 per cent. again next year. With the reimposition of the lagged formula, they will therefore be hit twice. Cannot the Minister accept that the easy and fair way out is simply to leave the pay formula in place and therefore let firefighters make their contribution to the Government's pay squeeze next year rather than this year?
I shall not trouble to ask the Minister whether the Government plan to impose a pay freeze next year, as we have not yet managed to get a straight answer from his Cabinet colleagues, but perhaps I should try to seek an unguarded response from him as by the time the debate is over his new boss may feel differently about pay freezes than his present boss, who will be responsible for them. I hope that, if the new Chancellor has learnt anything from his responsibility as Home Secretary, it will be the dedicated and valuable work of firefighters.
Are the Government seriously prepared to jeopardise the smooth running of this emergency service just to force down an independently worked out pay settlement from an expected level of between 2.5 and 3 per cent.? All this is being done merely so that the Government can impose their collective muscle on workers a year earlier than would otherwise happen automatically.
I shall not allow the Minister off the hook lightly with a bland assurance that it is not for the Government to intervene in the independent pay negotiations between employer and employee. The Minister seeks to give a straight answer to a straight question, and I hope that he will continue that habit this afternoon.
We all know perfectly well that the imposition of a 1.5 per cent. limit to the pay element of the standard spending assessment completely ties the hands of employers. A refusal fully to fund the independent pay formula rise in the SSA is effectively an edict from the Home Office that the formula must be abandoned.
That attack on the pay formula has already damaged morale. The damage must be placed in the context of the increasing demands that are being placed each year on an already overstretched service. Calls rose by 64 per cent. in the 1980s, but staffing rose by only 2.5 per cent. Without digressing too far, I say only that, for whatever reason and doubtless against the advice of fire inspectors, the House is a firefighters' nightmare. As a royal palace, and so exempt from health and safety regulations, it is a terrible accident waiting to happen.
Up and down the country, fire stations are being closed for reasons more to do with making cuts than with efficiently continuing the service assessed as being needed. In places, minimum standards of fire cover are arguably no longer being maintained. For example, the 890-bed Norwich hospital, formerly served at first call by three fire engines and a high-rise ladder, now looks set to be downgraded to be covered by only one fire engine.
I understand that the Public Accounts Committee found our record for fire deaths per head of population to be the worst of any of our partner countries in the 1066 European Community. That appalling slip in such a critical league table is evidence that Britain has lost its place as a world leader in fire service cover, not because of a lack of commitment, courage or innovation by firefighters and fire authorities, but simply because of a lack of cash.
I invite the Minister to tell me what progress has been made since I last raised certain issues in late 1991. I have given the Minister prior notice of my questions and I hope that he will be able to respond. First, what progress does he envisage making towards the adoption of the urban C risk category, tailored to the specific needs of a modern inner city? Secondly, will he make the welcome announcement of an exemption from the SSA of the increased revenue spending required by unavoidable pension liabilities? That would recognise the fact that the services provided in, for example, London may otherwise be cut by £2 million in real terms to cope with the 6 per cent. rise in pension costs for former officers.
Thirdly, when will the Government get around to amending the Fire Services Act 1947, which restricts the fire service's duties to firefighting? We all accept that firefighters have so many other essential calls on their time, as I outlined earlier. At this point, I pay tribute to the firefighters in Northern Ireland, especially in light of the recent terrible bombings in Belfast, Portadown and Magherafelt. Anyone who saw the firefighters being interviewed would also want to pay tribute to their dedication in dealing with the many difficulties they face. They often work in the areas in which they live and have to deal with incidents which greatly affect their part of the community.
I also applaud the region's Fire Brigades Union, which is able to bring together people from both sides of the community to fight the terrible atrocities. I of course pay tribute to firefighters in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially in view of the recent increase in terrorism. I hope that the Minister will join me in paying that tribute to them, not only for their commitment to saving property and life and for their dedication, but for the respect that they have accorded to the pay formula.
In 1991, the service received more than 1 million calls. The incidents involved the loss of 861 lives, including those of two firefighters. Insurance costs for the damage involved exceeded £1 billion. Over and above the individual misery, it is estimated that the cash cost of treating a child with severe burns can be more than £200,000. Does not the Minister realise that the contrived savings which the Government are trying to make cost more in cash and human suffering than we should be prepared to pay? Our firefighters deserve more. They have the full support of the people of this country, but they need the full support of the Government.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle)With the leave of the House, I shall speak again. As the House may be aware, I spoke earlier and shall be seeking leave to speak yet again before the day is over.
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) for her opening remarks. I must also point out that it is not for me to speculate on any rumours that may be flying around the Westminster and Whitehall grapevine about changes 1067 in ministerial responsibility, but before the day is through we shall no doubt learn whether her assessment of the situation is correct.
I shall try to address some of the points that the hon. Lady raised, but it gives me considerable pleasure to be able to respond to a debate on a subject which the hon. Lady has addressed before, and I know that she takes considerable interest in the work of the fire service. Hon. Members will know that the fire service is not a subject on which I normally address the House, but it is well respected in the community.
A few weeks ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary addressed a meeting of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association and made some remarks about the fire service. It was a private meeting and his speech was not widely reported, but it would riot be inappropriate to repeat to the House what he said on that occasion. He said:
It goes without saying that the Government, like the general public, has a high regard for what the fire service does and the professionalism and bravery which we associate almost as a matter of course with the men and women in it: in particular when they undertake fire fighting duties or expose themselves to danger in other kinds of emergency. They, and you, do a good job of which we can feel justifiably proud.".I should like to take this opportunity to endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend and the praise offered by the hon. Lady. I should like to acid my endorsement to what she said about the fire fighting services in Northern Ireland.The fire service also has a good productivity record, as the Fire Brigades Union has not been slow to point out. In the period between 1980 and 1991, the number of fire calls attended by the fire service increased by 23 per cent., the number of false alarms to which the fire service has to respond increased by 109 per cent. and the number of special service calls, which include road accidents and a whole range of other non-fire situations, as the hon. Lady suggested, increased by no less than 128 per cent. All that was achieved with an increase of only 2.5 per cent. in the numbers of personnel. It is a powerful and eloquent statement of the achievements in productivity.
There are, of course, reasons why the fire service has been able to achieve those apparent increases in productivity. The primary reason is that the disposition of fire service resources throughout the country is determined according to nationally recommended standards of fire cover which are determined by the risk presented by each part of the country. In other words, the same number of fire appliances may be needed in an area where there are two calls or 10 calls a day, but even if that is so, the work load on the firefighters has obviously increased during the period; we acknowledge that.
The fire service is local authority service financed by central and local government, and, like other public services, it cannot be immune from change or from the need to ensure that it delivers its services in a most efficient and cost-effective way. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear on several occasions that he does not intend to recommend that standards of fire cover should be reduced, but that does not exempt the fire service from the need to examine itself and to consider, like all public services, whether the service which it delivers is being delivered in the most cost-effective manner and to the greatest benefit of the community at large.
1068 HM inspectors of fire service who advise the Secretary of State on matters of efficiency of the fire service are very conscious when they inspect brigades of the need to ensure that brigades are delivering their services efficiently and economically.
There are a number of current issues of concern to members of the fire service which I should like to mention in responding to the hon. Lady. She mentioned pay and pensions, and I shall respond to both those subjects, but there are other issues too, and it would be helpful to touch on one or two of them to make sure that the Government have absolutely no hidden agenda for the fire service.
One example is the effect of the current review on the organisation of local government in England and Wales on the fire service. There are fears that the reorganisation of local government areas will lead to wholesale reorganisation of the fire service in England and Wales.
My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that he does not consider that the current review of local government is a suitable vehicle for any general reorganisation of the fire service in England, and he has made it clear to the Local Government Commission that he does not expect local government reorganisation to lead to any fragmentation of the fire service.
If some of the existing counties are broken up, it may be necessary to resort to combination schemes to maintain the size of existing fire brigades, and there may be one or two cases in which some further reorganisation is necessary because of significant changes in the structure of local government in particular areas. But apart from that, we see no good case for reviewing the organisation of the fire service in England until the process of local government reorganisation is complete and the building blocks of the new local authority structure are clear. The position in Wales is slightly different, but I do not think that it would be helpful for me to reiterate the arguments set out in the White Paper on Welsh local government reorganisation, with which I know that the House will be familiar.
I know that the level of finance available for the fire service is a matter of concern to chief officers and to elected members of the fire authorities both in the metropolitan areas and in the counties. But public expenditure is under pressure, and the fire service cannot expect to be exempted from that pressure. We know that, in some county areas, expenditure on the fire service has in some places exceeded the fire service element of the standard spending assessment. However, I think that we can say that there were fairly realistic settlements in 1991–92 and 1992–93, which helped to narrow the gap.
In the current financial year, fire authorities have been provided with an overall increase of 3.1 per cent. over last year, a reflection of what can be afforded by central Government, and an amount in line with the increase in the support for local authority expenditure generally. There are pressures on the financing of the fire service, but they are no greater than those being experienced by other local or central government services.
The hon. Lady raised the subject of fire service pay. Hon. Members will know that the Government have decided that there should be a limit on public sector pay in the current pay round and that pay rises for those working in central and local government—and indeed for hon. Members—should be contained within a maximum of 1.5 per cent. We have told all public sector employers that we expect them to have regard to that maximum in reaching 1069 any settlements in the current pay round, and funding for all services, including the fire service, has been determined on that basis for the current financial year.
For the past 15 years, fire service pay has been determined according to a formula contained in an agreement between the firefighters and their employers, which links the pay of a qualified firefighter with five years' service to that of the upper quartile of manual workers' earnings.
The Fire Brigades Union has asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to give an assurance that its pay agreement will be honoured. I can only repeat to the House what my right hon. and learned Friend said to the union when its representatives came to see him on 17 March. If the Government's pay policy is to be applied fairly, there can be no case for making an exception for firefighters, any more than for police officers, doctors, nurses, or any other category of personnel.
§ Ms HoeyThe Minister says that everyone should be treated fairly, but does he not agree that, in a sense, the members of the Fire Brigades Union would not be being treated fairly, because they would suffer doubly? If we return to the national agreement next year—presumably the Government would like that to happen—again, firefighters will not be in the same position as everyone else.
§ Mr. WardleAs the hon. Lady said, that is because of the timing of the pay round. I shall deal with timing in a moment.
It is not the Home Secretary who determines fire service pay: the pay agreement is a matter between the firefighters and their employers. As the hon. Lady said, the next fire service pay settlement will be in November. The employers have wisely said that it is too early at this stage to say whether the firefighters' pay formula will produce a figure higher or lower than 1.5 per cent. in the current pay round. The House would not expect me to speculate on what may not be the effect of applying the pay formula in 1994.
The Government have said that the objective of the 1.5 per cent. limit on public sector pay will be defeated if there is a series of catching-up settlements next year. How that will impact on the fire service in 1994 or, indeed, on any other public service can at this stage be no more than a matter for speculation. The hon. Lady talked about straight speaking. I shall not enter into such speculation.
For the fire service to be considering industrial action now on the application of its pay formula in 1994 is both premature and irresponsible. It is quite unrealistic to expect local authority employers to commit themselves to pay levels in 1994 when no decisions have been taken on the level of public sector funding for any central or local government services for the next financial year.
In my view, the union is asking for an impossible commitment from fire authority employers. It is plainly stirring up its members, for what must be political motives, to convince them that they are being singled out, unfairly treated or compared unfairly with other public sector employees. That simply is not the case.
I hope that the union does not resort to industrial action, of which there has been some talk. Firefighters are well paid. It is quite right that they should be well paid for 1070 the job that they do. I hope that their sense of responsibility will remain with them if they are asked to consider industrial action at some point in the coming months.
The hon. Lady mentioned fire service pensions. There is increasing pressure on the fire authorities caused by fire service pension liabilities. The fire service pension scheme, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is responsible, is not ungenerous, because it recognises, as if should, that the physical demands of firefighting will not permit firefighters to serve as long as is the case in some other professions, and that there are risks of injury or even death for which the scheme must provide. The firefighters' pension scheme is very similar to the pensions scheme for the police and the problems associated with the increasing pressures on the scheme are very similar.
We have no immediate plans to examine or to revise the firefighters' pension scheme. The scheme for the police will undoubtedly have been looked at in the course of the current review of police responsibilities and rewards which is being carried out by Sir Patrick Sheehy. The Sheehy inquiry is not looking at fire service pensions, but we shall need to look at any recommendations that Sheehy makes on police pensions if it appears that those recommendations, if accepted, could also be relevant to the fire service. At this stage, it would be wrong to speculate on whether there will be any such recommendations, what they will be and whether they will be relevant to the fire service scheme. We shall have to wait and see.
The hon. Lady mentioned special services, and also asked whether the Fire Services Act 1947 might be amended so that fire authorities have a duty to respond to special service calls. At present, they may at their discretion respond to such calls and they may charge the recipient for doing so, but they have no duty to respond to calls other than fire calls. We have no proposals to change the statutory basis on which special services are provided.
The hon. Lady also referred to the urban C risk category and to a new definition for that. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has put to the Home Office proposals for the division of the existing C fire risk category into urban C and rural C, with enhanced initial responses in terms of weight and speed of attack. The proposals arise from concern about loss of life and injuries in property fires in areas of C risk, taken together with the fact that the national fire cover standards recommend an initial attendance of only one appliance at fires in areas of C risk.
We have, of course, given careful consideration to the proposal, and we have looked at both the incidence of injuries and fatalities in fires in areas of C risk and the actual practices of fire brigades in responding to fires in those areas. The association's proposal would entail substantial additional resources for the fire services in England and Wales. Fire cover standards were reviewed in 1985 by the joint committee on standards of fire cover, and we have no proposals to conduct any further review.
I know that the Fire Brigades Union has also attempted to link the issue of pay with closure or downgrading of fire stations. Let me make it absolutely clear that a fire authority wishing to close or downgrade a fire station must seek the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend. It is his practice to grant approval only when he is satisfied that national fire cover standards will be maintained. The national standards were agreed in the Central Fire 1071 Brigades Advisory Council, on which fire authorities and fire service employees are represented. However tight the pressures this year, all authorities in England and Wales have been able to set budgets that allow them to comply with the national standards.
I have been able to speak on only some aspects of the fire service in this debate, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the subject. We regard the fire service highly, and we wish to see it maintained as an effective and professional organisation.