I thank Mr. Speaker for granting me this debate. We take the issue of fire services very seriously in the west midlands. My hon. Friend Mr. Robinson will speak for about 10 minutes, and my hon. Friend Mr. Ainsworth also supports us. It is recognised that he cannot take part in such debates because he is a deputy Chief Whip, but that is not generally understood outside the House, which is why I wanted to make that point.

There is considerable concern in Coventry about the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority's proposals, known as integrated risk management policy. Our town looks as if it will bear the biggest brunt in the reductions in the levels of service provided. I notice that other west midlands MPs are present, and they are probably in a better position to say how the changes will affect their authorities. However, I hope that they will support the Coventry MPs in highlighting some of our concerns.

The issue is complicated, and in half an hour we cannot cover all that we would want to—we could spend two or three hours debating the subject. We want to highlight some of our concerns, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will pick up on some of the points that I make. At the end of the day, it is a team effort from the MPs representing the three Coventry constituencies.

The proposals would reduce the number of fire engines available between 12 am and 8 am, and we have considerable concerns about how cover would be provided or supplemented if there were major incidents in both Coventry and other parts of the west midlands. My hon. Friends and I have had discussions with the fire authority, and although the proposals look good on paper, they are only theory and have not been tried out. I, for one, would like to see that happen. The theory looks okay but, as everybody knows, it is in practice when the difficulties start.

We also had discussions with the firefighters. They are the people on the ground who will have to deliver the service and who really know what effects the proposals will have. We took on board some of their arguments and raised their concerns with the fire authority. As my colleagues and other west midlands MPs know, we have also had discussions as a west midlands group of MPs. That group met not only the trade unions, but the authority and its chairman. I am also aware that Coventry city council will debate the issue tonight and, as I understand it, may reach a conclusion about what it thinks about the proposals. A lot of things are happening as a result of our concerns.

It is also only fair to point out—this surprised me and, I am sure, some of my colleagues—that there had not been any real discussion between the authority and trade unions. My experience tells me that if someone is going to effect change, they have to involve people from the workplace—in this case, the firefighters themselves. Enlightened management often find that people from the shop floor can make a tremendous contribution, pointing out where proposals are workable or not.

The West Midlands fire service is probably one of the most efficient in the country. It is not our intention to knock it in any way. However, it is our intention to represent the concerns and fears of the people of Coventry about the proposals. I hope that when the Minister replies he will bear that in mind. However, we also want assurances that the remaining appliances will not increase the risk to occupants of properties and to businesses and their employees—and, equally importantly, to firefighters and the public—as a result of any implementation of the proposals. We also want to know what effect the removal of the pumps and fire engines will have on standards.

There is also the problem of community fire safety. That needs to be evaluated before any appliances are removed, particularly in high-risk areas. At present, throughout the west midlands, 62 appliances are regularly risk-assessed and tested. That has been done by chief fire officers since 1947 and Her Majesty's inspector, who carried out an evaluation as recently as 1992. The 1985 national standards of fire cover provided higher levels of service than those in the authority's integrated risk management policy plan. We found that interesting because standards seem to have changed.

We are also concerned about the level of service provided in inner-city areas. Brownfield sites have now been used in inner cities, often for high-rise flats. Some cities have had successful millennium bids, such as the millennium proposals in Coventry, which have created not only more flats in Coventry city centre, but a higher density of them. That is one of the things that happens with brownfield sites. We are certainly concerned about those areas.

When we send firefighters into such areas, given the changing circumstances, we have to take on the issues concerning their safety, although nobody wants to be too emotional about that. In fact, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister stated that fire deaths rose by 6.5 per cent. in the first three months of 2004 compared with the same period in 2003. Fire-related injuries rose by 4 per cent. over the same period and fires increased by about 9 per cent. So the number of fires is increasing, which means that risk is increasing.

The west midlands operational procedure note 23 states that the predetermined attendance for fires in high-rise buildings is four appliances and one pump. Under the current proposals, that would leave Coventry covered by one fire appliance between 12 am and 8 am. There are some serious concerns about how the proposals will affect us. However, I would have thought that other MPs from around the west midlands would listen closely to what I am saying and apply the same tests to the level of services that they might get as a result of the proposals.

I know that the Minister's powers are limited, but I hope that he can reassure us. The situation is serious, and the proposals are being taken seriously. Overall, we need to consider the fact that it would take well over 18 minutes for a vehicle to travel in the night from Hunts Hall, on the outskirts of Birmingham, to Coventry—a lot more than the time that is proposed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the essential problem is that the proposals are a step into the unknown? I would feel much more comfortable if I could be sure that the rationale for such decisions will be made clear by the West Midlands fire authority, and that they will be subject to regular review and independent scrutiny so that we can find out whether our fears are justified. We need to know whether there are unintended consequences. Would not it be step forward to have a clear rationale, and decisions that are subject to review and independent scrutiny, so that we can see the total picture?

I could not agree more. I do not know whether it would be possible, but, in the light of what my hon. Friend said, there should be a trial run or pilot scheme so that we get away from theory and discover in practice what can and cannot be applied, and how we might change and improve things. He makes an important point.

The hon. Gentleman may know that people in Sutton Coldfield are also extremely concerned about the issue. At present, there is one fire appliance per 43,000 people in the west midlands. If 15 appliances are cut between midnight and 8 o'clock in the morning, there will be one appliance per 57,000 people. Those statistics are from the Fire Brigades Union. I understand that there is one appliance per 26,000 people in Tyne and Wear. Does he agree that it is the concern in our constituencies that has brought the proposals under such close scrutiny?

I could not agree more. In fact, the hon. Gentleman explained the situation much better than I could have. When one considers factors from different authorities, which seem to be doing different things, it becomes obvious that an overall standard has not been applied.

I said earlier that I am amazed that the fire authority has not conducted a proper dialogue with its firefighters. Other fire authorities have done exactly that and have reached some form of agreement.

I, too, am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting this debate and to my hon. Friend Mr. Cunningham for securing it.

One thing that has been stressed in all the discussions with the Fire Brigades Union and the management association is that this proposal has nothing to do with the overall discussions. Negotiations are still taking place between management and firemen on delivering the productivity deals that were inherent in the original settlement of the dispute a couple of years ago, in which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was so instrumental. Those discussions are ongoing, but we are told that the issue of the night shift from midnight until 8 o'clock in the morning is separate from the productivity negotiations, which inevitably will involve changes to shift patterns and working practices, and delivery of the efficiency savings that were at the basis of the arrangement reached between the Government, the Fire Brigades Union and the Local Government Association.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South said, and as other hon. Members indicated in interventions, it is difficult to understand the motivation for interim changes to night cover. It is said that those are purely issues of security, but it is hard to reconcile that with the fact that security performance is extremely good, integrated risk management is an unproven concept, and any change that is made must be done with great care and on substantial evidence. Indeed, the change should be divorced from questions of efficiency, productivity, shift patterns, payment systems and so on, given that it deals with life and death. However, it just does not seem to be correct—it does not ring true—that the two are entirely divorced. It is clear that cost savings are at the root of the proposals for the change in night coverage from 12 till 8 am. If there were not savings, the changes would not have been proposed. Let us not be too coy about this: at the root are cost savings, which may be right or wrong.

The problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South alluded, is that it is, for various reasons, difficult to have a pilot scheme in, for example, a hospital. It might even get in the way of hospital activities that do not involve acute emergency operations. I accept that a pilot scheme might make sense in some hospitals—I argued, for example, for the change to foundation hospitals.

A pilot scheme might make sense if we could conduct it without risking life and limb, and without putting at risk things that none of us would want to put at risk. If we try to run a pilot scheme that involves changes to night security and puts people at risk, we run the risk of proving that the pilot scheme was wrong and that people have died unnecessarily. I do not believe that anyone in the House, and in particular in this Chamber, would remotely want to be put in that position, so the fundamental question is: how well proven is it that the proposed changes will not endanger life? I do not know, but I would always err on the side of caution. We are assured that it has nothing to do with cost, but we should not embark on a course that drastically reduces night cover without hard evidence and the assurance that such a reduction will not unnecessarily endanger life. That is critical.

Other hon. Members who represent west midlands constituencies are also in the Chamber today, and it makes sense to cover the whole area, but I shall be slightly partisan and restrictive for a moment. I believe that Coventry is particularly concerned about being unnecessarily exposed when it comes to night coverage. I know that illustrations are not appropriate, but the west midlands is largely ham-bone shaped, and Coventry is at the tail end. There is gap between Coventry and the nearest stations—Bickenhill, Sheldon and Solihull—of about 10 miles, which is 15 minutes, and it is clear that Coventry is exposed. That is why we are pleased to voice our concerns in a debate on the wider context of the west midlands.

There was an arson attack last year on Britannia Tyres in my constituency in the early hours of the morning, at about 2 am. It took 18 minutes for an emergency fire engine to get from the nearest centre, which I believe is Solihull. It usually takes only 10 minutes to cover that distance, but such a concept is not easily fixed in stone and cannot be relied on absolutely. There were no deaths, but great financial damage and insurance costs were involved. Nevertheless, lives could have been lost, as they are more often than not. We know that 37 per cent. of fatal incidents occur in this period. That is the situation, but it will worsen if we implement the reductions that will hit Coventry proportionately more than the rest of the west midlands.

I did not intend to argue specifically for Coventry, but for the whole of the west midlands. It is a cop-out for hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to claim that this is purely a question of safety. At the heart of the matter are the overall arrangements for making cost savings and efficiency gains, to which they have committed themselves. It is putting the cart before the horse to change one part of that.

In many ways, night coverage is the worst, most exposed and most dangerous part of the package, and is separate from the rest of the package that still has to be negotiated. However, if that is what both sides want, my unequivocal view is that we cannot agree to it as parliamentarians until the overall situation is settled, because there are no proven systems behind it and no proof that we are not embarking on a course that could put lives in danger. Perhaps savings can be found elsewhere, perhaps they are not necessary, or perhaps the overall pattern of new shifts and costs can be otherwise arranged, but to prearrange things that affect the most sensitive and delicate of all the things that affect us—that is, human life—is dangerous and quite wrong. Surely what we need to do is to get the package right and, as part of that, ensure that night safety is properly taken care of.

I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Cunningham, accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), on securing this debate. We also heard contributions from my hon. Friend Mr. McCabe and Mr. Mitchell. Clearly the issue is of concern, and it is right that Members of Parliament have this opportunity to raise their concerns and champion the cause of their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West should not apologise for standing up on behalf of Coventry—it is his job to do that, and rightly so.

The overriding objective of the fire and rescue service is to save lives. Thanks to the Government's partnership with fire and rescue authorities, as well as with other key stakeholders, the fire and rescue service is changing for the better—better for the communities that it serves and for those who work in it.

Hon. Members will know that the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 came into force on 1 October 2004 and is the first substantive piece of fire legislation in the past 50 years. It puts the prevention of fires at the heart of the Government's agenda for improving the fire and rescue service, an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South. It does so by, for example, creating a new duty to promote fire safety, as well as by providing flexibility for fire and rescue authorities to work with others in the community.

The 2004 Act also gives statutory force to a fire and rescue national framework, which sets out the Government's priorities and objectives for the fire and rescue services and what fire and rescue authorities should do to achieve them. The national framework also sets out the support that the Government will provide. The framework provides strategic direction from central Government, while ensuring that authorities continue to make local decisions. The 2005–06 fire and rescue national framework was published on 6 December 2004.

Integrated risk management plans have been at the core of my hon. Friends' contributions. The idea of prevention and local decision making is also at the heart of the move away from inflexible national standards towards locally determined integrated risk management plans. Since April 2003, the introduction of integrated risk management plans has allowed fire and rescue authorities to target resources to address local risk, as well as to make effective use of their resources in preventing fires. The introduction of integrated risk management plans has given the senior fire and rescue service managers what they have long sought: the flexibility to make decisions about fire cover based on existing and potential risks to their communities, within a strategic framework set by locally elected members.

Integrated risk management plans, including those belonging to fire and rescue authorities in the west midlands, are about reflecting local needs, targeting resources at locally identified risks in a cost-effective manner, and identifying the ways in which a fire and rescue authority can work in partnership with other authorities and agencies to deliver improved public safety. Crucially, that must be a process of consultation. Documents must be published and everyone—Members of Parliament, members of the public, employees and others—must have the opportunity to contribute to the proposals that fire and rescue authorities publish. I understand that the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority completed its consultation on a year 2 integrated risk management action plan on 1 February this year.

I sincerely hope that the views and concerns expressed today have been articulated in that consultation process. I am sure that that has happened. On the basis of the documents put out for consultation, which has now been completed, those issues and concerns will have been heard loud and clear by the West Midlands fire service.

One issue raised was the involvement of trade unions in the consultation process. It is, of course, an important responsibility of the fire and rescue authorities to consult publicly on their integrated risk management plans. It is important that all the trade unions involved, including the FBU and many others, have the opportunity to engage in that consultation. I sincerely hope that the very important opportunity for those organisations to make their views known was taken up.

The Minister touches on something to which I referred. As I understand it, the trade unions have not been meaningfully involved in the process, whether it is called consultation or seeking their views. Their involvement was way down the scale, and not what he implies.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I emphasise that it is a statutory duty for the fire and rescue authority to publish documents, consult, receive consultation responses and make judgments on the basis of the outcome of that consultation. The document on the outcomes of the consultation process that ended on 1 February will be published in April 2005. It will include any approved changes resulting from the consultation. It is important that individuals and organisations had a good opportunity to make their views heard. My hon. Friend's views will be recorded in the parliamentary record for others to see

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West is concerned about how risk assessment operates. Risk assessment is not an unproven science. The fire and rescue authorities have tremendous experience in undertaking it. I understand that the IRMP that we are debating is based on six years of incident data and factors. That is the depth of the evidence for the West Midlands fire service, but there will be other IRMPs in other authorities. The risk assessments are taken extraordinarily seriously.

My hon. Friend mentioned an incident in which it took 18 minutes for an appliance to arrive. I understand that there is an investigation into that.

That just shows how careful we must be about using figures gathered over six years. I am sure that they are useful, calculated honestly and with integrity, but whereas they are based on a 15-minute maximum, or 10 minutes in some cases, in the example that I gave, it took 18 minutes for the appliance to arrive. That is the difference between life and death.

My hon. Friend is right, which is why it is important to understand why that might happen. If six years' worth of data are available, and one incident from that data is anomalous, it is important to ask what happened to cause it. That is a combination of longitudinal analysis of evidence and the specific analysis of an incident, which provides accurate risk assessments when such judgments are being made. He is right to say that we need to learn from such incidents.

I want to mention one other item. The West Midlands fire and rescue service has a very good record on community fire safety, and has led the way in tackling many things such as arson and fire safety, in running citizenship courses for young people—that can be difficult—in dealing with people who speak different languages and in engaging with different communities. The West Midlands fire and rescue service has a good track record, and notwithstanding today's debate, I hope that hon. Members will take away the message that we have a successful fire and rescue service, of which we can be proud.