Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Spellar

Tuesday 12th March 2024 General Committees

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to fire stations typically in sparsely populated rural areas, whereas in urban areas firefighters tend to be on regular salaries. The purpose of the regulations is to make sure we do not have to rely on good-will decisions with quite a high threshold and no guarantee that firefighters on strike, who would normally be at the fire station and particularly in busy urban stations, would necessarily be there. If the house of anyone here or of any of their constituents were on fire and it was a strike day, they would want to know that their house would not burn down. We are trying with the regulations to strike a reasonable balance between the right of firefighters to go on strike and the right of the public not to suffer serious damage and threat to life. By the way, many other European countries, such as Portugal, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands and others, do strike that balance in a variety of different sectors—I am not talking just about fire—and have legislation that is fully compatible with the European convention on human rights and strikes precisely that reasonable, proportionate balance: that is what we are seeking to do here.

Just to return to the points that I was making, I have talked a little bit about control rooms, and I was just explaining, before taking the intervention, that decisions on the number of staff required to fulfil those control room functions will be for individual fire and rescue authorities to take on a bespoke, case by case basis. The reason for that is that the way that different fire and rescue authorities and fire and rescue services organise their control rooms differs, and it is quite difficult to have a single national level that would be appropriate for all of them.

When it comes to the emergency response element, we decided to set the minimum service level on a national basis across England—because these regulations apply to England; we will consider Wales and Scotland subsequently. It will be set at 73% of appliances. Just to be precise, when I say “appliances”, I mean fire engines and other fire and rescue service vehicles, so that is 73% of the level of those that would be available if the strike action were not taking place. Individual fire and rescue authorities will be able to determine the number of staff required to safely crew and oversee those appliances.

The decision to set this aspect of the minimum service level at 73% was based on detailed modelling, which is summarised in our consultation response. The modelling calculates the proportion of days over the past five years on which demand would have exceeded the number of appliances required to meet an MSL. The model identified 73% as the threshold at which every fire and rescue service would have had enough appliances to meet emergency demand—I stress “emergency demand”—on more than 97% of the days in that five-year period. In the interests of public safety, we therefore consider 73% to be the most appropriate point at which to set this aspect of the minimum service level.

Many fire and rescue services also host national resilience assets, which form an important part of any response to major and significant incidents, such as a major building collapse or wildfire. I consider it of the utmost importance that fire and rescue services can maintain those capabilities and keep the public safe. That is why the minimum service level for the national resilience assets is set so that they are also capable of being deployed, as if the strikes were not taking place, in response to emergency demand.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

In this very detailed study that the Minister is talking about, how many incidents did they identify where this had actually been a problem?

[Chris Philp]

Well, it is set out in the consultation response. But, if the right hon. Gentleman is asking about how many strikes there have been—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Well, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should restate his question; I was not quite following it.

[John Spellar]

In the course of industrial action, how many incidents have there been where there had been a serious impact as a result of the strike?

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the past—about 10 years ago and, again, about 10 years before that—very considerable military assets were deployed in order to provide cover when there was a large-scale fire strike.

[Chris Philp]

I will in just a moment. It is worth saying that the assets that are possessed by the military today are not the same; their number of firefighting appliances is lower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. So, whereas—

[John Spellar]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will happily give way again in a minute, if the right hon. Gentleman wants, after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, but the point is that the military assets available 10 or 20 years ago, such as the green goddess fire engines, for example, are not available today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for a characteristically excellent intervention. First, I do, of course, echo and share the tribute that she paid to the brave firefighters up and down the country, who put themselves in the line of danger every day to keep the rest of us safe. I think the whole Committee, on both sides, would echo that sentiment.

The examples that my hon. Friend gave about loss of life during previous fire strikes eloquently and powerfully answer the intervention made by the right hon. Member for Warley. They illustrate that, even when we had far more extensive military firefighting assets available—which we do not any more—none the less, life was still lost. What we are talking about here is ensuring that life and property—because both are important—are protected, even when a strike takes place.

The Committee knows this, but, just for clarity, we are not proposing, of course, to ban strikes. That is not what is being proposed here. We are simply setting out, in this area, as in others, a minimum level of cover that must be provided, even during a strike, to make sure that the public are kept safe and to avoid the tragic fatalities that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover just set out to the Committee a moment ago.

[John Spellar]

Can I just point out that there is a great difference between “during” and “as a consequence of”? In other words, there is a difference between a death during a strike and as a consequence of that action.

[Chris Philp]

Well, it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover can set out further particulars of the incidents that she referred to, but it would seem to me to be deeply concerning when a reduction in strike cover occurs and fatalities follow; that is something that should properly concern all of us. When it comes to something as serious as fire, where life and property are at risk, I think it is proper that Parliament ensures that we have done everything we can to make sure that the public are kept safe, even during strike action. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty were we not to do so.

Just to complete the point that I was making a moment ago about the 73% level and the assets relating to national resilience, as with other provisions in the regulations, fire and rescue authorities will consult with trade unions and determine the number of staff required to meet the minimum service level should strike action occur. Of course, I hope that the Fire Brigades Union and other unions engage constructively with that process when the time comes.

The third and final element of the minimum service level is to provide cover for urgent fire safety issues. The regulations set out that fire and rescue services will be expected to have staff available to rectify any emerging issues that pose an imminent risk to life and would normally require a same-day response. That might be, for example, where a significant fire safety issue is uncovered in a block of residential flats that necessitates same-day attention.

Individual fire and rescue authorities will be able to determine individually how much cover will be required for that purpose. We think that that is likely to be minimal because we accept that it is reasonable that routine fire safety work, routine inspections and routine visits do not happen if there is a strike. Those are not essential activities; they are not essential for public safety—apart from in the emergency situation that I just described—so we accept and understand that those activities would not happen on the day of a strike.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Spellar

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his ideas. I assure him that proper impact assessments will be done. We know that horse-racing is a vital sport for the people who work in the industry. It supports many jobs, it provides leisure activities for many people, and it is a significant source of national pride and prestige. Nothing in the Gambling Act review, I hope, will do anything to undermine the financial condition of that great sport or its place at the heart of our national life.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the register. I caution the Minister that the civil service always underestimates the extent of potential for fraud and the black market. Whether with tobacco smuggling, excise fraud, VAT fraud, self-employment scams or covid scams, it is continually surprised by what happens. Before he brings out the gambling White Paper, will he talk to the racing and gaming industry to ensure that his proposals do not fuel the black market and organised crime?

Horse Racing

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Spellar

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

I thank the hon. Members who have joined this evening’s Adjournment debate.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) for securing and initiating this debate and, indeed, for advocating on behalf of his local industry with such passion and evident tenacity, which I look forward to experiencing again. I am informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), that not only is he willing to accept that invitation to Newmarket but he has already scheduled a trip to Newmarket next week, when he will be meeting members of the horse racing fraternity and, I hope, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. Diary permitting, I would be delighted to follow in his footsteps at a later time.

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital contribution of racing to the economy not just in his constituency, where Newmarket and its supporting infrastructure is such a significant employer, but throughout the United Kingdom. As he rightly says, horse racing is the second largest sport in the UK by attendance, employment and annual revenue. According to its governing body, the British Horseracing Authority, racing is worth over £4 billion per annum to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure, much of which is focused on rural areas.

More than 20,000 people are directly employed across 59 licensed racecourses, hundreds of training yards and thousands of breeding operations. As my right hon. Friend said, tens of thousands of additional jobs are supported in the wider rural economy through the supply chain and all the sectors he outlined during his excellent speech. I also agree entirely with the points he made about horse racing’s contribution to the UK’s soft power. Clearly, people from around the world come to the UK to participate and watch our fantastic horse racing meets, and to invest here in stud farms and horse racing yards directly as well. So racing significantly adds to the UK’s international prestige and our global leadership in this industry is something we should cherish and certainly be preserving.

The horse-race betting levy, the topic of my right hon. Friend’s speech, was of course introduced more than 50 years ago, in the 1960s, when the betting industry was somewhat deregulated and placing bets away from racecourses was permitted. At the time, there were fears that people would leave the racecourses and bet on the high street, and the levy was introduced to try to mitigate that risk. Thankfully, over those past 50 or 60 years racing has proved enduringly popular, despite the concerns articulated back in the 1960s. Nothing better illustrates its enduring popularity than the vibrancy of its recovery as we have returned to normal after covid and restrictions on flagship meetings were removed. I understand that attendance at the recent Qatar Goodwood festival this year was close to the figures in 2019, which is fantastic news. Racing was the first sport to return, behind closed doors, after the first national lockdown—I wonder whether my right hon. Friend’s hand may have been behind that move, in some way, in June last year. I am pleased that horse racing has continued without interruption since then. The fact that it has been able to return so swiftly is thanks in no small part to the British Horseracing Authority to incorporate covid measures into the already meticulous protocols.

[John Spellar]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. He referred to the outdated view that the interests of bookmakers on the high street, regulated and onshore, were somehow in conflict with those of the racecourses. Should we not, as the right hon. Member for West Suffolk indicated, actually see them in a symbiotic relationship, as part of the same ecosystem, supporting each other?

[Chris Philp]

I was referring to the fears articulated during the 1960s, which of course have subsequently proven not to have come to pass, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The horse racing levy is a direct expression of the symbiosis that he refers to: the support that that two industries give one another. The one would certainly be weaker without the other, so I entirely agree with what he just said.

I also wish to reflect on the support that has been provided to racing during the pandemic, which my right hon. Friend referred to. Of course, horse racing has benefited from the economy-wide support that all businesses have received—the rates relief and the support on jobs, through things such as the furlough scheme, which have been provided by the taxpayer. In addition, the horse racing industry, by way of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and The Racing Foundation has also received £28 million in terms of cash flow and hardship support, and £20 million of levy funds were aimed at supporting racecourses, with £8 million from the foundation supporting individuals in the sector. So the sector has received substantial support not only generally, but specifically. Since then, the HBLB has agreed to make additional contributions to prize money until the end of December, which will help to mitigate the lower amounts made available by courses due to covid—this partly addresses the concern that my right hon. Friend raised a little earlier.

As my right hon. Friend said, racecourses are also accessing support through the sports survival package, organised by the sport Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire, where a £21.5 million loan has been made to the HBLB to enable it to provide extra. The HBLB has earmarked £15 million of that to be distributed via prize money this year, 2021, keeping a further £6.5 million in reserve for 2022. Of course, it has not been a one-way street, because horse racing has given back. It has donated £2.6 million to NHS charities from betting on the grand national, and a great deal of voluntary work has been done as well. I pay tribute to the horse racing industry’s contribution to our country during this time of crisis.

Given that time is pressing, let me address directly some of the requests my right hon. Friend made in his excellent speech. On a review of the horserace betting levy, it was of course reviewed relatively recently in 2017, when my right hon. Friend was a Minister in the Department, albeit not directly responsible for this policy area. In that review, the Government fixed the levy at 10% of bookmakers’ gross profits, to avoid annual negotiations, and based the levy on gross gambling yield—in effect, the gross profit—rather than turnover, so that there was a certain amount of risk-sharing between the gambling industry and the horse racing industry. One could conceive of circumstances in which, for some reason—unexpected events—the gambling yield might go down. That would clearly affect both parts of the sector, which are symbiotic, rather than falling wholly on the shoulders of the gambling industry, which is why the levy was originally constructed in that way.

A review is due to take place in three years’ time, in 2024. I am of course willing to listen to detailed representations if there is a case for looking at it again sooner. I think that the measures that I have set out addressed the issues in respect of covid, but if there are particular reasons why a review ought to be considered sooner, I would be happy to look at detailed representations from either my right hon. Friend or the industry, and I would consider them carefully. Having been appointed only a week ago, almost to the hour, I do not want to race to make any commitments in this policy area, but I will of course listen carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Lord Spellar

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

In common with so many other areas of the justice system employment tribunals were profoundly affected by coronavirus, but we have taken decisive action. The number of employment tribunal sitting days is being increased dramatically, and the tribunal is benefiting from the 1,600 extra staff hired across Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and from the enormous investment in technology, which is enabling across the court system, including the tribunal, 20,000 remote hearings a week. Those are the actions we are taking to address the issue the hon. Lady raises.

[John Spellar]

The Minister is being remarkably complacent, because he must know that much of the backlog was actually caused by massive cuts by the Conservative Government. That was a huge error, impacting not only on very serious criminal cases in the Crown court, but on dealing with the petty crime and antisocial behaviour that is blighting our communities. He also knows that cases are taking years to get to court, with the impact that that has on the availability or willingness of witnesses. When he will he stop putting out this complacent line and get a grip of the problem?

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the situation prior to coronavirus. The outstanding case load in the Crown court prior to coronavirus was 39,000 cases—low by historical standards and substantially lower than the 47,000 cases left behind by the last Labour Government. Moreover, under this Government, crime, as reported by the crime survey, has dropped by 41%. There is no complacency. A quarter of a billion pounds has been spent, 1,600 extra staff have been hired and 23,000 extra police are being recruited. There is no complacency here.