HC Deb 01 February 1996 vol 270 cc1217-24

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

9.59 pm
Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East)

Before I begin—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. Before the hon. Lady continues, I ask those who are leaving to do so quietly, out of courtesy to her.

Mrs. Prentice

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hesitated—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mrs. Prentice

I should like to begin a debate on the fire service by paying tribute to the two firefighters, Kevin Lane and Steve Griffin, who lost their lives today in a tragic incident in Gwent. I am sure that the House would wish to send our condolences to their families and to the family of young Daniel Hartford, whom they tried so courageously to save.

I want to raise the question of the future of Downham fire station, in my constituency, and also to mention the possible closure of three other fire stations in London and the withdrawal of 22 further appliances. I believe that all that will have a serious effect on the quality of service that the London fire brigade can offer Londoners.

I am distressed that I should have to raise the issue at all in the House, because, when I was the Labour candidate for Lewisham, East in 1991, Downham fire station was threatened with closure. We fought alongside the local community group to keep it open—and we won. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) visited the station with me, as he was then the shadow Home Secretary.

I shall mention again one of the issues that we raised then—the definition of risk categories. That will not be the main thrust of my argument, which will be about keeping the fire station open and raising the standard spending assessments for the fire service in general, but I hope to show that, if those categories were redefined, it would support that main argument.

Downham fire station is in Reigate road, in the centre of the Downham estate, a large inter-war housing estate. Many of the people who live there have done so since the estate was built, and it has the largest percentage of pensioner population in Lewisham borough. More than 30 per cent. of the borough's pensioner-only households live in Downham. In fact, one in four of Downham's residents is a pensioner, compared with 21 per cent. in the borough as a whole and a similar percentage in London as a whole, and compared with fewer than one in five in the country as a whole. Downham is also the area in the borough with the highest percentage of people with long-term illnesses.

There are seven primary schools in the immediate area, as well as two secondary schools and two schools for children with special educational needs. I am aware that the fire authority takes the needs of schools into account, but Downham is in risk category C. That means that only one fire engine is required to arrive within eight to 10 minutes. Had it been in category A, it could have expected two fire engines to arrive within five minutes and another within eight minutes.

Those are the Home Office minimum attendance standards. Fortunately, the London fire service tries to send two engines to category C incidents. In other words, it tries to provide cover above the Home Office minimum standards. Surely we do not want to reduce the standard of service provided to Londoners.

Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich)

Is my hon. Friend aware of the research that has been carried out by Greater Manchester fire authority, which argues for a total review of risk categorisation for the very reason she gives—that category C areas like Downham are where the greatest number of deaths occur? Does she agree that attendance times based on those risk categories determine the allocation of resources? Is it not crazy that we seem to have a system that gives more priority to the protection of property than it does to the lives of Londoners?

Mrs. Prentice

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The Greater Manchester survey is very important, and I want to come back to what the Audit Commission said later.

It is quite wrong that the categories are weighted in favour of protecting property rather than lives, and I have never accepted the sense of that. It is particularly unfair given that modern buildings now incorporate sophisticated fire prevention detection features, while estates such as Downham and others in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) clearly do not. I have said, and I still hold to it, that something is not quite right when Members of Parliament here in the Palace of Westminster are in a higher-risk category than my elderly constituents in Downham.

I hope that the Minister will be aware that the Audit Commission document "In Line of Fire" has recommended that there should be a fundamental review of the levels of fire cover which would take into account the extent to which circumstances have changed and are changing. That is now a matter of some urgency.

Another point that my hon. Friend might have made is that the services that the fire service now provides are very different. It is not just about putting out fires: firemen are called to all sorts of emergencies and disasters. None of that is properly taken into account when the categories are assessed.

That is a matter of great concern, because all the evidence—as my hon. Friend has mentioned—is that it is in category C risk areas, such as the whole of Downham, where people are most at risk from injury or death from fire. Those people, and people who suffer socio-economic deprivation, are most at risk. It would seem logical that the risk categories should be weighted in their favour. I believe that it has now become a matter of the greatest urgency that they are protected, and protected well.

I should say, in fairness, that the London fire service has done its level best to do just that—it provides cover above the minimum standards set by the Home Office. But if the present funding arrangements are not changed, it will cease to provide that level of service for Londoners. The leader of the fire authority in London, Councillor Tony Ritchie, said today that he believes the cuts are inevitable, but I do not want to believe that.

The closure of Downham fire station—along with those at Shooters Hill, Manchester Square and the Barbican—as well as the loss of pumps at 22 other stations, must inevitably mean a serious reduction in service. Downham fire station takes more than 1,000 calls a year, and those calls will have to be taken up by stations elsewhere. If that is compounded by the loss of engines around the capital, the system will not be able to cope. If the system cannot cope, people will die—it is as simple and as horrifying as that.

Councillor Ritchie also said that the effects would be disastrous, but I think that that may be an understatement. The people of Downham cannot understand why, having worked together as a community to save the fire station in 1991, they should now have their safety threatened again. They are especially angry that the station is threatened with closure when £852,317 has been spent on raising the station to a proper standard.

The chief fire officer, Brian Robinson, told me in a letter: as a result of the works that were carried out, the asbestos problems have been remedied, better working conditions and a modern, much larger appliance room have been provided and better security afforded from the provision of new appliance room doors. When did that happen? It happened over the past three years. Where is the sense in making such a commitment to the people of Downham if it is to be destroyed three years later?

I close by paying tribute to the people of Downham and the surrounding area, who have banded together again to protest publicly about the threat to their fire station. They have been out in the streets of Lewisham and Bromley during this cold winter, and collected more than 2,000 signatures from local people in the hope of persuading the Government that the fire station is essential. The feelings of people across the capital are such that the Fire Brigades Union has a petition with some 30,000 signatures protesting at the possible closure of the four stations.

I was in Bromley tonight speaking to a public meeting about the closures. People there asked me to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to come back to the House, should the closures go ahead, and tell us the number of people who will have died or been seriously injured because the fire service could not reach them in the times that it now sets itself. This evening, in Ballamore road in Downham, there was a fire involving an elderly resident who might have been seriously injured but for the quickness and alertness of the local fire station.

This is a cross-party issue. I have had a note from the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who could not be here this evening, in which he said that he shares my concerns. Part of his constituency abuts Downham. However, the debate is not only about Downham but about the quality of the fire service across London. The previous chief fire officer, Mr. Clarkson, is on record as having said that he has already cut the service to the bone, and that there is no more room for cuts. He is, I believe, a Conservative nominee on the police committee in Kent, so we may presume that he is unlikely to be accused of unnecessary scaremongering.

I do not want to believe that the Government want a reduction in service, or that they think that the minimum standard is adequate for areas such as Downham, given the type of population that lives there. I want to believe that even this Government will see the sense in increasing the standard spending assessment so that my constituents in Downham, and those of other hon. Members, can continue to rely on a service of the highest quality that saves lives rather than putting them at risk. I therefore plead with the Minister to reconsider the SSA for the London fire service, and ensure that people's lives in Downham and across London are not put at risk.

10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville)

I join the hon. Lady in expressing sadness at what happened to the two Gwent firefighters who died so courageously while attending a house fire. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to them, and sending our condolences to their families.

I understand the concern that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) and her constituents feel about the quality of the fire service and the plans to close four stations, including Downham, which affects her constituency. However, to reduce provision in a way that fire service professionals believe to be possible without reducing necessary fire cover should not always be taken as an opportunity to say that people will die as a result. That is clearly facile, and it is slightly unworthy of the hon. Lady to jump to that conclusion and attempt to frighten her constituents unnecessarily.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice

The Minister is being naive or unfair to the residents of Downham. They currently receive a service that is above the minimum standards set by the Home Office. If the cuts go through, there will be a reduction in that service, and it is almost inevitable that people will suffer serious injury or death. He must recognise that.

Mr. Sackville

A balance needs to be struck in the provision made to cover each area. As the hon. Lady well knows, the authority's report, which was drawn up by professionals, not by politicians, states that the proposed reductions could be made without affecting the Authority's ability to meet Home Office recommended attendance times. That is the criterion that must be used, in all fairness, all over London. It is the same criterion that is used all over the country.

We in government understand the sensitivity of the question of the provision of fire services. I echo what the Audit Commission recently said—that the fire service can be proud of its record in responding to incidents, of its high level of skills, of its very able managers and the great esteem in which it is held around the country.

The hon. Lady referred to the funding of the fire service. There are three underlying issues: whether the total public expenditure provision for local government is sufficient; given that total, how we distribute it in terms of the standard spending assessments among local authorities; and the criteria for council tax capping. The Government concluded that, for 1996–97, the total fire service element of standard spending assessment in England should be increased by £17 million—1.5 per cent.—from £1,168 million to £1,185 million. That is not as much as many of us would have liked, but in the Government's view the settlement is realistic in the context of low inflation and the requirement that pay increases in the public sector, which form a large part of the cost of fire services, should be met from increased efficiency.

The Audit Commission has found that significant savings are possible if best practice is adopted by all fire authorities. The fire service, like other public services, must operate as efficiently and effectively as possible, and it will continue to be supported in that respect by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services. The Audit Commission also made a number of detailed recommendations in a management handbook that should help brigades to carry out their responsibilities in the most cost-effective manner.

The revenue support grant, which is allocated to individual fire authorities, is dependent not only on total provision, but on the distribution formula. Together with the Department of the Environment and the local authority associations, we looked carefully at the formula for the fire service element of standard spending assessments for next year. We decided that the formula should be adjusted to include factors for fire safety enforcement, fire safety education and firefighters' pensions. That is in line with recommendations by the Audit Commission.

As a result of the inclusion of those new elements and the updating of the data in the formula, the London fire and civil defence authority's standard spending assessment, including capital financing, will increase by £1.1 million. Under the proposed capping criteria, the authority will be able to set a budget for 1996–97 of up to £5.1 million more than in the current year.

Statutory responsibility for the provision of an effective and efficient fire service rests with the individual fire authorities. It is now for the London fire and civil defence authority—in the light of the settlement, the proposed criteria for council tax capping and its reserves—to decide how much to spend on the fire service for 1996–97 in order to comply with its duties under the Fire Services Act 1947 and with the nationally recommended minimum standards of cover.

If the authority should take the view that it is necessary to set a budget above the proposed capping limit in order to fulfil its statutory obligations, it is open to it to set a budget above that limit, and to make out a case for redetermination of the cap. Alternatively, it may decide to draw on its reserves, as it has done in the current year, or seek to identify further increases that may be made in efficiency without reducing fire cover below recommended standards.

I am aware that, as part of its three-year strategy, including the implementation of its fire cover review, the authority has already identified potential net savings of about £3.5 million in 1996–97, which may increase to between £6.5 million and £7.5 million per year by 1997–98.

As I said, statutory responsibility for the provision of fire services rests with the fire authority. The fire service has been a local authority service since the Fire Services Act 1947, which transferred firefighting functions from the wartime National Fire Service. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has various duties under the 1947 Act. He monitors performance through Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services. He is also responsible for promoting consistent standards in training, equipment, promotion, recruitment and so on.

Under section 19 of the 1947 Act, my right hon. and learned Friend is required to be notified of the fire authority's establishment—that is to say, the number of its fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting posts—as at 1 January each year. Of special relevance to the debate is the fact that the fire authority may not reduce its establishment, although it may increase it, without his consent.

My right hon. and learned Friend has a specific and limited role in considering applications under section 19 of the 1947 Act. He grants approvals when the following conditions are satisfied.

First, the proposals must have sufficiently wide and detailed publicity, with adequate time to enable any interested party to make representations. Secondly, the representations must have been considered by the fire authority. Thirdly, after taking advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, my right hon. and learned Friend must be satisfied that the national recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained.

I emphasise that it is not the role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to decide whether a fire authority's proposals represent the best arrangements for fire cover. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services is available to advise the authority about that. Ultimately, however, responsibility for fire cover rests with the fire authority, which is accountable in law for the service that it provides.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sackville

I will not. If the hon. Member for Lewisham, East wishes to intervene again, I will give way.

Although there is no statutory right of consultation about section 19 applications, we have made it clear in guidance to fire authorities that we consider it desirable that they should undertake proper consultations. It has also been made clear that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider representations in addition to those already forwarded to the fire authority, provided that the person or organisation concerned forwards those representations promptly on being advised that a section 19 application is to be submitted.

The 1947 Act does not define the test of an effective and efficient fire service, which a fire authority must provide to meet normal requirements for fire cover, but it is long-standing practice to interpret that by reference to the nationally recommended minimum standards.

Those standards rest on four main standards of service, according to the risk category into which an area has been placed. The system of risk is based on the characteristics of the buildings and property in an area, and assumes for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances should attend within a certain time. I should add that the standards represent the target to be achieved in normal circumstances. They dictate only the initial response to any fire in weight and speed of attack. The officer in command at an incident may at any time request additional firefighting resources.

Mr. Austin-Walker

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville

No, I will carry on if I may. The standards are not just nationally—

Mrs. Bridget Prentice

The Minister is right to say that the local officer can ask for more resources, but if the resources have already been removed, including the closure of a fire station and fewer pumps at nearby stations, where will that officer get those extra resources?

Mr. Sackville

Those are operational matters that have to be considered when deciding whether it is possible to make reductions in the number of appliances in an area. Those matters form part of the review, and they have not come before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I have already explained what considerations need to take place if they do, but the review has been carried out by the professionals and they have decided, as the hon. Lady has already spelled out, that Downham station and three others should be closed. That is the proposal in their review. They also recommend that other stations can be reduced from two appliances to one without reducing cover below the designated standards.

Mr. Spearing

There will be half the cover if it is reduced.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Sackville

Those standards are not just nationally recommended. They are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which was established by the 1947 Act and on which the relevant fire service organisations are represented. They were also extensively reviewed by the joint committee on standards of fire cover in 1985 for the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils of England and Wales and for Scotland. The standards enable all those involved to be aware of the minimum level of service that they should deliver.

The Audit Commission's report called for greater local flexibility in the application of fire cover standards. The commission did not say exactly how the standards should be changed and recognised that no change should be considered without careful research. The issue is being considered by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, but it is a complex matter on which much work will be needed.

Following the 1985 review, all fire authorities in Great Britain reviewed their risk categorisation and the resources necessary to comply. Authorities update those reviews regularly to take account of local circumstances. As has already been said, London currently has 113 stations with 189 pumping appliances. Currently, 76 stations have two appliances, and 37 have one. The on-going review process in London has recommended the closure of Downham fire station and three others, and the removal of one pumping appliance from each of 22 stations which have two at present.

The review has also recommended that an additional appliance be provided at two stations that have only one, and proposes that the authority seek to develop new fire stations at Heathrow, Surrey Quays and Isle of Dogs. In respect of the proposed reductions, a report by the authority—I have already quoted this, but I will tell the House again—states that those changes can be made without affecting the authority's ability to meet Home Office recommended attendance times.

Mrs. Prentice

The chief fire officer said that, but he also said—it is only fair that the House should know—that the changes would seriously reduce the present service.

Mr. Sackville

The chief fire officer has to consider whether to recommend that the overall cover would continue to meet the minimum standards. That is a technical matter, and he must consider any proposals that the authority makes.

The proposals are reflected in the authority's review by its professional staff. In the case of Downham station, the review clearly considered that its ground could be covered by surrounding stations, while still maintaining the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover. It does not envisage that the increased work loads on surrounding stations would be unacceptable.

I am aware that the authority has consulted on the recommendations. It is not for me to comment about the consultation exercise or the recommendations in the review. That is a matter for the authority to judge. I know that the authority proposes to take decisions about the fire cover review later this month in the course of meetings. I am sure that the authority will give careful consideration to the points that the hon. Lady has raised tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.