§ Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town)You took me by surprise by calling me to start the debate early, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My apologies if I was slow to rise to my feet.
I should declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of the Fire Protection Association, a not-for-profit organisation whose aim is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries and the huge costs incurred as a result of fire—an objective that I am sure all hon. Members share. I also helped to establish the all-party group on fire safety, of which I am co-chairman. In addition, I was a member of the London fire brigade for 23 years—for 13 as an operational firefighter, and for 10 on secondment as an official of the Fire Brigades Union. I can therefore claim to be familiar with the subject.
United Kingdom fire authorities, supported by the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and many private sector partners, are successfully raising public awareness of the value of fitting smoke detectors in the home. In its report "Safe as Houses", which was published by the Home Office in November 1997, the national community fire safety centre made several key recommendations, central to which was the recommendation that the primary focus of the fire service be shifted from firefighting to fire prevention. The report also recommended that community fire safety should become a statutory duty and that the prevention work of brigades and the Home Office should be united under a single umbrella in terms of programmes and objectives. That is now happening.
Notwithstanding all that, fire statistics remain a cause for concern. In 1997—the latest year for which UK figures are available—723 people died in fires and 18,600 were injured as a result of fires. Previous figures are just as worrying: in 1994, there were 641 deaths and 17,000 injuries; in 1995, 736 deaths and more than 17,000 injuries; and in 1996, 709 deaths and more than 18,000 injuries. The majority of those deaths and injuries resulted from fire in the home, which accounts for more than 60 per cent. of all building fires and more than 75 per cent. of all casualties. Someone is three times more likely to die in a fire at home as they are anywhere else. Insurance claims arising from fires totalled £615 million in 1994, £700 million in 1995, £707 million in 1996 and £739 million in 1997. Those figures do not take account of the many fires that occur in uninsured buildings. The latest total estimated cost of fire to the UK economy is £4 billion.
Fire is indiscriminate about where it strikes, as the tragic deaths of the late Member for Romsey and his wife show. Thirty per cent. of those who die in fires are over 65—the hon. Gentleman fitted that profile. However, those most at risk from fire are the less fortunate members of our society—those at the bottom end of the social scale: the very young or old, those who are physically or mentally incapacitated and who cannot help themselves, and those who are under the influence of drink or drugs account for more than 50 per cent. of all fire casualties. The politics of fire mean that people at the bottom end of the social scale are more 216WH likely to suffer injury or worse by fire than the more fortunate. As in health and education, it is possible to buy one's way out: double glazing and good insulation are far safer than paraffin heaters, poor wiring and candles.
A category of building that would benefit greatly from the introduction of residential fire sprinklers is houses in multiple occupation—HMOs. That category encompasses bedsits, shared housing, households with lodgers, purpose-built HMOs, hostels, guest and boarding houses, bed and breakfasts and self-contained converted flats. In the UK, 6.25 per cent. of the population live in HMOs, but statistics reveal that 28 per cent. of all fire deaths and 36 per cent. of all fire injuries occur in HMOs. In real terms, those percentages translate as 227 people dying and 6,240 being injured by fire each year in HMOs.
I welcome the announcement by the Home Office of the setting of targets for raising public awareness of fire safety and for reducing the number of fire deaths in residential buildings by 20 per cent. by the end of 2003. However, some would say that we should be more ambitious. The efforts of many individuals and organisations to reduce the number of fires should be applauded: those include the lobby for a fire safety Bill, the new national fire safety forum and the national smoke detector campaign. I have already mentioned the work throughout the country of the national community fire safety centre, which the Government have backed to the tune of £13 million to £14 million.
A less well-known but equally valuable tool in reducing the number of casualties and fire costs is the residential fire sprinkler. Although sprinkler systems have been installed in commercial properties for many years—the first being installed in the Theatre Royal, Drury lane in 1812—residential sprinklers are a relatively new concept in the United Kingdom.
Results from trials in the United States are encouraging. A large number of American towns and cities now require sprinklers to be fitted in new residential properties. The US Senate is considering a Bill promoting the installation of sprinklers in public and private college and university housing and dormitories.
In Scottsdale, Arizona, for example, all residential properties must have sprinklers fitted. Over a 10-year period there have been no fire deaths. During the same period, injury and property damage have been reduced by more than 80 per cent. In addition, there has been a 95 per cent. reduction in water usage for fire control.
Available figures also show that in the UK there is not one recorded case of multiple death by fire in buildings protected by sprinklers.
Recently I was fortunate enough to be invited by the Wiltshire fire brigade to view a demonstration of a domestic sprinkler installation at Westlea fire station. I understand that Ministers and local Members of Parliament have had the opportunity to witness similar demonstrations. I have also seen the video available from the Wiltshire fire authority, showing the comparison between a sprinkler-protected and a non-protected property. I shall return to that shortly. The installation at Westlea fire station has been in operation since 1990 and has been visited by hundreds of people. To date, not one demonstration has failed.
217WH On the same day, I visited a project in Studley Green, an estate in Trowbridge, Wiltshire. Studley Green was considered a sink estate, with all the social difficulties associated with large, rundown estates. There had been many costly fires there and I was told that the estate was well known to the local fire brigade.
I should make special reference to the chief fire officer of Wiltshire, Mr. John Craig, who has been actively pursuing the case for residential sprinklers for the past 10 years and is making significant progress. In 1998, Mr. Craig, who is also a member of the Residential Sprinkler Association, became aware that 212 homes were to be demolished and rebuilt on the estate. With his knowledge of the American trials, Mr. Craig suggested that the rebuilt homes should be fitted with sprinklers. Agreement was reached with the appropriate bodies—McAlpine, the builders, the local housing association and the local fire authority—which recognised that that was the first step in developing the first sprinkler-protected major housing estate in Europe.
The tenants on the estate were consulted about the project at an early stage. The proposals were met with initial scepticism and hostility because of widespread misconceptions about sprinklers. Local residents were therefore invited to witness the test that I mentioned earlier, in which two identical properties with the same furnishings inside were set alight, and the local fire brigade was notionally called.
After seven minutes, one of the properties was a torch: wind had got into the front room and the entire building was ablaze. Not surprisingly, that was the nonsprinkler-protected property. In the sprinkler-protected property, the fire was contained in one room and was extinguished when the fire service notionally turned up. The hostility and scepticism of the local residents entirely evaporated.
The hostility is simply explained by the misconceptions regarding sprinklers. People think that they will have to put up with unsightly pipework and obtrusive sprinkler heads, like those that they see in buildings such as multi-storey car parks. In reality, domestic installations have no visible pipework or sprinkler heads. The heads are installed in a fitting no larger than the average ceiling rose.
People fear that the system will be activated accidentally by cigarette smoke or burning toast, but sprinklers are activated only by high temperatures. Accidental activation does not happen. It is commonly believed that, in the event of fire, the sprinklers throughout the building are activated, causing huge amounts of water to flood the household. In fact, sprinklers use between one 25th and one 100th of the amount of water used by a single fire brigade hose. Only the sprinkler head situated directly over the fire would be activated, not the entire system.
When fire broke out at the Queen's residence at Windsor, a Minister in the previous Administration was quoted anecdotally as saying, "Thank goodness the property was not sprinklered." In fact, had sprinklers been installed, the fire would have been contained within the single area of Windsor where it started until the fire brigade arrived, and we would not have lost so many national treasures.
218WH Installation work in Studley Green is well under way, and the tenants in the protected buildings are expressing great confidence in the system. From being seen as a group of people near the bottom of the social scale, they now see themselves as being valued, because their safety is being taken seriously, and also because of the attention that the project is receiving. A commonly expressed view is that the residents now have peace of mind with regard to fire safety.
I met two of the residents. One was a lone parent with three kids, and the other was the parent of a child who was a fire-raiser. The parent of the three children told me that she slept in her bed easily. Had the building been protected by a smoke detector, her fear was that she would have had to choose which of her three children she would rescue if a fire broke out in the middle of the night. She now knows that every room in the house is protected, and that all her children can sleep in safety.
In the other family, the child had a record of arson, having burned down his previous home and damaged one of the local schools. The parents used to go round the house every night confiscating all items that could have led to combustion —matches, lighters and so on. They still do that, but they know that if the child manages to find such an item and continues in his dangerous habits, he and their home will be protected.
Despite residents' initial reservations about sprinkler installation, they are now convinced of the benefits. On a private estate being built next door, new residents are asking why their homes are not protected in the same way.
I ask the Minister to consider several points. Should the Government do more to promote the installation of residential sprinklers on target estates as part of regeneration schemes, with encouragement being available, for example, through the Housing Corporation, by way of grants to housing associations, particularly where there is a history of fires? In my area, there was a fatality only 36 hours ago, which is being investigated.
What progress is being made in the award of a British standard for residential sprinklers? That would be valued by the industry as demonstrating recognition, and would ensure that, across the country, when people install residential sprinklers, they are buying a product that has been tested to the appropriate standard.
Should the building regulations in due course require the installation of residential sprinklers for new build and regeneration schemes? The cost in the new build in Wiltshire is £1,000 per dwelling on average. The benefits are priceless. The cost of a retrospectively fitted system is about £1,500.
In conclusion, I shall quote from the paper presented by Chief Fire Officer Craig to this week's local government conference in Southampton. Referring to the first life saved by a residential sprinkler system in the UK, Mr. Craig reported:
It only recently came to light that the first activation of a domestic sprinkler system in the UK happened at Piddletrenthide Vicarage in Dorset in June 1997. The vicar's three year old son was playing with matches and set fire to a dog's bed. The bedding was filled with plastic granules. The sprinkler system operated faultlessly and quickly extinguished the fire in the utility room, raising the alarm automatically at the same time.The family were at the bottom of the garden at the time, and took a moment to get back to the house.219WH Mr. Craig continued:
The child was wet but unharmed and his father has stated that he thinks it possible that the boy could have died or, at least, suffered injury, but for the effectiveness of the sprinklers. Damage to the room was very slight. There was no damage to the rest of the house.I congratulate the Residential Sprinkler Association and Sir George Pigot, and the British Automatic Sprinkler Association and its secretary, Bernadette, on promoting a cause that I believe will be part of the future of fire safety. We are making progress in developing safer homes. I know that the Minister is personally responsible for much of the regeneration of estates that have been neglected for decades, particularly in constituencies such as mine. Residential sprinklers are a tool for the future, and I would welcome any encouragement that the Government can give to promote them.
§ The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate and on the way in which he introduced the subject. He has considerable expertise and practical experience based on many years of working in the cause of firefighting, and he introduced the debate in an exemplary manner.
My hon. Friend has given me pause for thought. His historical anecdote about the first recorded installation of a sprinkler in the Theatre Royal, Drury lane in 1812 made me reflect that if the Muscovites had been slightly quicker off the mark and up to speed, the course of world history would have changed and Moscow would not have burned when Napoleon reached it in that same year. However, such speculation will not yield practical consequences, and I shall revert immediately to the subject of our debate.
I am concerned about the number of deaths and injuries that occur each year in fires in residential accommodation. It is a serious matter, and it is important to learn lessons from fires that have occurred and to take all reasonable steps to prevent loss of life and injuries through fires.
The Department has a contract with the fire research station, which is part of the Building Research Establishment, to investigate fires in buildings, including residential accommodation, that could have implications for building regulations, to which my hon. Friend referred.
The contract with the fire research station enables us to consider amendments to the building regulations that could have a bearing on life safety. My hon. Friend knows that building regulations are made primarily to ensure the health and safety of people in and around buildings; they do not cover property protection. My hon. Friend rightly focused his remarks on the safety of people.
Guidance that will tend to satisfy the fire aspects of the building regulations is given in approved document B on fire safety. The guidance aims to ensure that buildings are as safe as can be reasonably expected while giving designers as much flexibility as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, a revised edition of approved document B was published at the beginning of this year. It will come into force on 1 July.
220WH The 2000 edition of approved document B was produced after widespread consultation and with extensive input from many people, including a working party of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. As with any amendments to regulations, the cost implications have to be calculated, and they are documented in a regulatory impact assessment.
We have progressed a long way with many life-safety issues through the 2000 edition of approved document B. For example, the latest edition suggests that all single-storey retail buildings with a floor area of 2,000 sq m or more must be provided with a sprinkler installation. It replaces current guidance, in the 1992 edition of the approved document, which suggests that a building can be of unlimited size without sprinklers being fitted. Our decision to amend the guidance was taken in response to representations from many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town. It has been warmly welcomed by those concerned with safety and the risks of fire in such structures.
It was suggested that smoke alarms, which are essential for giving early warning of fire, should be provided in new dwellings. That proposal was incorporated in the 1992 edition of approved documents. We have considerably strengthened that guidance in the 2000 edition to include the provision of smoke alarms in loft conversions in existing two-storey houses. The guidance has also been extended to cover most other non-domestic buildings. We have also updated the guidance so that it falls in line with the relevant British standards on smoke alarms.
Early warning of fire in domestic properties is an important life-safety feature, which should enable people to escape from a fire before it escalates into a threat to life. By giving guidance on smoke alarms in approved document B for dwellings and other buildings, we fully acknowledge the need to take account of life safety.
My hon. Friend referred to the Studley Green project, which had already been drawn to my attention. I know about the residential sprinkler installation project that is taking place in Studley Green in Trowbridge in Wiltshire. I understand that 212 new houses are being fitted with sprinklers. I fully support the initiative and I look forward to seeing the evidence of the outcome of the installations and any reports that may be produced as a consequence of the project. I noted my hon. Friend's comments on his visit and experience. I hope to hear many more reports and to draw the necessary conclusions.
I fully understand that more widespread installation of sprinklers in domestic property could be beneficial to safety and property protection. Although we currently have no plans to include in the building regulations the provision of sprinkler installations in residential or domestic buildings, I am aware of the growing support for the use of such systems in higher-risk residential properties, such as houses in multiple occupation, to which my hon. Friend referred. We intend to consider that in future.
221WH As with the provision of sprinklers in large single-storey retail buildings, any decision would need to take full account of a range of views and expert advice; it would also require a regulatory impact assessment. In the meantime, the Department has informally supported domestic sprinkler installations when they are considered necessary as a compensatory feature.
Sometimes the normal fire safety recommendations, especially on alterations and extensions, that approved document B provides cannot be effected in older or listed buildings. Such circumstances can arise, for example, when a loft conversion is made to a two-storey house and a protected stair cannot be provided in accordance with the guidance in approved document B. That usually arises because the existing stair leads to a ground floor living room, which is too small to accommodate a protected route to the final exit door. In the case of listed buildings, considerations of heritage and the preservation of historic buildings militate against such provisions. In such cases, Department officials suggest that the provision of a domestic sprinkler installation on the ground floor of the property may be a solution. I support that pragmatic approach.
Sprinkler installations are a useful compensatory feature in residential accommodation such as nursing homes, where the more usual passive fire precautions such as fire separation and compartmentalisation cannot be provided.
I have already referred to HMOs, and I accept that they represent a high fire safety risk. Often, that unfortunately reflects the occupancy profile that is associated with such properties. As my hon. Friend knows, fire is only one of many hazards in such accommodation where tenants are often exposed to a variety of problems that relate to the poor quality of the accommodation and, often, the management. The Government are therefore committed to introducing a 222WH mandatory licensing scheme for all HMOs. The Department also commissioned a report on fire risks in HMOs. That report recommends that the provision of sprinkler installations in HMOs should be considered. We are carefully considering that recommendation.
My hon. Friend referred to British standards. There is no British standard for domestic sprinkler systems. The Department and the Home Office have been considering the matter and working closely with the British Standards Institution to produce such a standard. The standard is being developed in two parts.
The first part deals with sprinkler systems for residential occupancies. It will make recommendations on the design, installation, components, water supplies, commissioning, maintenance and testing of fire sprinkler systems that are installed for life-safety purposes, with obvious additional benefits for property protection. The first part is due to be published in draft next month.
The second part covers components, including sprinkler heads, test methods and the specification for residential and domestic sprinklers. I understand that work on the drafting has begun and, following a proper consultation, I hope that both parts will become full British standards in due course.
I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates from my remarks that we fully recognise the importance of fire safety in all buildings, including domestic and residential properties. We have recently issued a revised edition of approved document B, and draft British standards will be published shortly. We are preparing arrangements for a mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs and I can assure my hon. Friend that the merits of residential sprinkler installations will be a proper subject for consideration in future revisions of the building regulations.
§ Sitting suspended.