Shooters Hill Fire Station

HC Deb 09 February 1996 vol 271 cc626-34

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

2.35 pm

Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich)

Last Thursday, on the Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) talked about the proposed closure of the Downham fire station and paid tribute to two Gwent firefighters, Kevin Lane and Stephen Griffin, sending condolences to their families. Since that debate there has been another tragedy, in which 21-year-old firefighter Fleur Lombard was killed by falling debris while checking a blazing supermarket to ascertain whether anyone was left inside. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Fleur Lombard and in sending condolences to her parents and to her colleagues in the Avon fire service.

I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 375 in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). I urge any hon. Members who have not appended their names to the motion to do so.

I do not wish to detract from the bravery or the tragedy in the cases of the three firefighters to whom I have referred: I merely say that the risks that they faced are those that every firefighter faces every day of his or her working life. I am concerned that the closure of Shooters Hill fire station will increase the time that it takes a fire engine to reach the scene of a fire—in other words, the attendance time. It is clear that the later a fire appliance reaches the scene, the more at risk is the building and the occupants. Greater also is the risk for the firefighters, whether from flames, suffocation or falling debris.

In addition to the proposed closure of Shooters Hill fire station, three other stations in London have been put up for closure, with the removal of a further 22 appliances across London. There is no doubt in my mind that the response and attendance times of the London fire brigade will be increased if the proposed closures go ahead. The Minister did not deny that when replying to the debate on the Downham station: he simply said that the Home Office minimum standards could still be met following the closures. That would mean forcing down standards.

At present, the London fire brigade response and attendance times are much better than those laid down as recommended minima by the Home Office. Is the Minister able to give an assurance that lives will not be put at risk or lost if fire engines arrive on the scene minutes later than they otherwise would have done?

If the cuts take place, it is likely that the Home Office minimum standards will apply in areas such as those covered by the Shooters Hill station. One appliance would need to arrive within 10 minutes, whereas under the London fire and civil defence authority's current arrangements one fire engine is targeted to arrive within five minutes and a second within eight minutes.

I have a list of examples which apply to Shooters Hill. First, there is the turnout to Eastcote primary school. The first appliance arrived within five minutes, the second within seven. Secondly, at Long Walk the first appliance arrived within three minutes and the second within seven. Thirdly, there was a call to Shooters Hill: the first appliance arrived four minutes and the second within seven. The fourth example is a call to Warland road, where the first appliance also arrived within four minutes and the second within seven. At Elmdene road, the first arrived within three minutes and the second within six. Under the proposals currently before the London fire and civil defence authority, it is unlikely that one appliance would have attended those within 10 minutes.

In 1989 and 1991, as the prospective parliamentary candidate for Woolwich, I was involved in the successful campaign to keep Shooters Hill fire station open. Regrettably, the second appliance was removed. It is the policy of the London fire brigade to send two appliances to property fires in C and D risk areas, exceeding Home Office minimum standards. The fire officer's report shows that the closure of Shooters Hill fire station would mean that the area served by it would be covered by East Greenwich, Woolwich, Eltham, Lee Green and Bexley. If we go back to the debate that was held last week, we find that Eltham and Lee Green will also be covering for the closure of Downham fire station. Both Eltham and Lee Green are single-appliance stations, so the second pump, if a second appliance were needed, would have to come from other stations.

Between them, Shooters Hill and Downham attend 40 calls each week on their own ground. In addition, they attend numerous calls as back-up outside their area. Indeed, all the stations expected to cover for Shooters Hill are one-pump stations, except Plumstead and East Greenwich. Moreover, if we read the report further, we find that East Greenwich is one of the stations that will lose an appliance.

On Wednesday, I presented a petition to the House and referred to the letters that I had received, of which there were more than 1,000, in response to the proposals for Shooters Hill. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is unable to be here today, but in a letter to me he wrote: As well as the threatened closure of Shooters Hill Fire Station, there is also the proposed withdrawal of one fire engine from East Greenwich Station. This will seriously affect the capacity of the fire service to respond to calls and emergencies. The people of Greenwich are rightly deeply concerned at these threats to our local fire service—witness the massive postbags which both of us have had on this subject. I shall quote briefly from some of the thousand or more letters that I received. One states: Within the last week one of my neighbours had an electrical fault within his house, the resultant fact is his house caught on fire and rapidly spread throughout the whole house. The fact that the Fire Brigade responded very quickly I believe saved this man's life. Further cut backs may have had a completely different effect to this man's LIFE. Another says: Having had a house fire in 1985 the fire service was quick to respond and save the house from being destroyed so I feel that I am in a position to know how important it is to keep this and other stations open. Another states: I am particularly anxious about this matter following a serious incident last weekend only nine houses away from my home … a delay of even two minutes could have resulted in the deaths of immediate neighbours. Yet another says that within the last few years, the house just across the road from me caught fire and it was only the quick response of the Shooters Hill station that put the fire out, quickly and efficiently and allowed the family there to continue in residence. If it were not for the rapid response time, it would almost certainly have resulted in them having to find alternative accommodation whilst the house was repaired, with all the trauma and upheaval that would have followed. In the neighbouring borough of Lewisham, the number of appliances at Deptford—one of the poorest and most deprived parts of London—will go down from two to one. That is a short-term measure, but it will lead to the station's eventual closure. Similarly, my constituency contains some of the most socially deprived areas of London, with wards around Woolwich town centre having some of the highest levels of unemployment in the whole of London. One of the stations that is to serve Shooters Hill if the station closes is Plumstead—at the bottom of the hill.

Plumstead, however, also serves Thamesmead, a new town which has grown up over the past 20 years, with no additional cover and no resources. It is a high-risk area which originally was to have its own fire station, but now, sadly, there is no capital available for that, as its priority has been overtaken by other developments in London—for example, Heathrow. I do not dispute the priorities, but there is a need for additional resources.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) complained in the South London Press about the loss of an appliance at his fire station in Battersea. If Battersea is saved from the cuts, as he has been asking, that can only mean a closure and a cut elsewhere. I shall deal with the general resource situation later.

The area of the fire station which serves Thamesmead—Plumstead—is to be extended to cover Shooters Hill, when Thamesmead already faces risks due to the difficulty of access and to the construction of properties.

Shooters Hill fire station is perched on the top of Shooters Hill, in very hilly terrain where winter access is difficult. It serves the Memorial hospital in Shooters Hill, which houses elderly and mentally ill patients, as well as the newly designated Queen Elizabeth district general hospital. Other risks in the predetermined attendance area include Falconwood station, Belmarsh prison and 20 schools.

The total number of calls responded to by Shooters Hill has risen over the past two years. The Greenwich police consultative committee has expressed concern about its closure: that was the unanimous view of the 52 community organisations represented on the committee. They pointed to the problems of traffic congestion and difficulty of access caused by the narrow streets and hilly terrain. Because of that terrain, indeed, Shooters Hill was at one time exceptionally provided with a four-wheel-drive appliance.

Shooters Hill is at the centre of the area served by Woolwich, Plumstead, Eltham, Lee Green, Bexley, East Greenwich and Sidcup fire stations—all one-appliance stations except Plumstead. If Shooters Hill closes, there will be a hole in the middle of the area. When two appliances are called out for either one call or two, an entire sector will be left without cover. Indeed, on one occasion, with the present number of appliances, when the Shooters Hill fire engine was detained on a call an appliance had to be sent from Poplar, across the river.

Under the "major incidents" plan, the Shooters Hill fire station area contains Eltham palace, the A102 motorway, the Blackwall tunnel, the Thames barrier, the Erith oil works and the Valley, home of Charlton football club. Currently, the brigade's attendance time for anywhere in its area is three to four minutes, with a maximum of five. As I said earlier, the Home Office recommendation is eight to 10 minutes.

In London, it is normal practice to send two appliances to a property fire in a C-risk area. More than 70 per cent. of the Shooters Hill area is C risk. I take issue with the risk assessment. In an Adjournment debate last week, I drew attention to research carried out by the Greater Manchester fire authority, which states that the current risk categorisation puts property before life. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East: it seems strange that a higher priority is accorded to the buildings in which we are now than to the lives of pensioners in Woolwich. Like the Audit Commission, I believe that there is an urgent need for a fundamental review of fire cover to take account of changes. When will that review—recommended in the Audit Commission's report "In the Line of Fire"—be carried out?

Let me compare two incidents that have occurred in my constituency. One took place when Shooters Hill had two appliances, and the other when it had one. Four years ago, in Rowton road, four people had to be rescued from upstairs bedrooms. The crew worked very well; they passed the people on to the second crew, who carried out first aid and essential resuscitation. All four survived.

Two years later, when Shooters Hill had only one appliance, there was a serious fire in Llanover road. Again, the crews worked magnificently and did all that they could, but four children did not survive. I am not saying that it is certain that that happened because there was not a second appliance; perhaps the children were beyond help by the time they were found. It is in the minds of everyone, however—certainly those involved in the incident—that a second appliance might have made all the difference.

There is also serious concern about the safety of crews in the absence of a back-up vehicle. Do the Government believe that the minimum fire safety standard recommended by the Home Office is adequate for vast areas of our inner cities? I suggest that it is not. Part of the Shooters Hill area is classified as D risk, and there are a number of such areas on the fringes of Greater London. Is the Minister really saying that it is reasonable for people living in a D-risk area to have to wait 20 minutes for a fire engine to arrive? When will we see the fundamental review requested by the Audit Commission?

In a letter to the leader of the London fire and civil defence authority, Baroness Blatch said that fire officers should be given "flexibility within existing standards" as an interim measure, but that in the meantime, existing standards continue to apply". What does that gobbledegook mean?

The London fire and civil defence authority needs the resources at least to maintain the level of the existing service. The authority faces a situation in which its credit approval for next year has been set at £5.5 million compared with £8.5 million in the current year. With no possibility of any revenue contribution, that will mean that the capital programme will be halved and that will have a drastic effect on operational equipment. The revenue budget will be cut by £7 million in real terms and that will cause the closures and the reduction in appliances. The current budget of £258 million would need to be increased to £266 million to maintain current levels of service. The Government have allowed spending of only £259 million. That shortfall of £7 million will close four fire stations, including Shooters Hill, and lose 28 fire appliances.

I urge the Minister to review the calculations in the settlement in respect of pensions, which I and the authority consider to be inadequate. The proposed cuts envisage the loss of 650 operational posts and a virtual freeze on recruitment. That will exacerbate the pension problems even further as fewer firefighters will contribute to more retired firefighters' pensions.

Already, the fire authority in London is contributing 19 per cent. of its budget to pensions. I raised that point in the debate on the Queen's Speech in 1994. I said then: I hope that we might get an assurance from the Government that, when the standard spending assessments are announced in the next couple of weeks, they will give some guarantee on disregards in SSAs with regard to the rising costs of pensions within the fire and civil defence authorities. Unless that is done, there is a real prospect that we face dramatic cuts in the cover provided by fire and civil defence authorities in the next financial year."—[Official Report, 18 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 293.] What I said in 1994 is now coming to fruition.

The estimate of the pension requirements in 1996–97 is £45 million. The calculation in the SSA is £41 million—a difference of £4 million. That is one of the impacts on the budget of the London fire and civil defence authority that is forcing the closures.

I wish to refer the Minister to the health and safety requirements. The fire authority has an obligation to respond to the Health and Safety Executive. In the 1990s, three improvement notices were served on the authority. All of those have been discharged, but on the basis of various training commitments that will cost the authority £2 million a year over a three-year period. Those training requirements should be taken into account in any assessment.

At present, the brigade is able to meet its target of the first appliance arriving in five minutes and the second in eight minutes. If the cuts go ahead, it will be difficult to provide one fire engine in eight or 10 minutes. The response from the public has been huge and the Government will ignore that at their peril. The public know that the cuts have not been put forward willingly by the authority, but that the cuts arise as part of the Government's attacks on public services. If they continue down that path, the Government will be putting dogma before the safety of Londoners and the safety of firefighters. The best tribute that the Minister could pay to the memories of Fleur Lombard, Kevin Lane and Steve Griffin, and the 21 firefighters who have lost their lives since 1990, would be to order an immediate review of the categorisation of risk and an increase in the settlement for the LFCDA and the other authorities to allow them to maintain at least the present level of cover and to ensure the safety of my constituents in Woolwich by keeping Shooters Hill fire station open.

2.53 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)

Before I discuss the future of Shooters Hill fire station, I too should like to express a few words about the recent tragedies in Avon and Gwent. Today is the funeral of retained firefighters Kevin Lane and Stephen Griffin, who died so tragically last week in the course of a search-and-rescue attempt at a house fire in Gwent. On Sunday, we had the death of firefighter Fleur Lombard in a supermarket fire in Bristol. I am sure that I speak for the House in expressing our sadness at that tragic loss of life and extending our sympathy to their families, friends and colleagues at this time.

I know that the fire service will be considering as a matter of urgency what lessons can be learnt from those fires. Such incidents, and the one involving station officer Michael Mee in West Yorkshire, who drowned while trying to rescue a child over the Christmas period, remind us yet again of the selfless bravery of the fire service.

The courage of our firefighters and other qualities of the fire service were recognised in a report by the Audit Commission last year, entitled "In the Line of Fire". The commission stated that the fire service could be proud of its record in responding to incidents; has high levels of skill and professionalism; is staffed by able managers and courageous front-line staff; and is held in great esteem by both the general public and individuals who have needed its assistance. The Government wholeheartedly endorse the commission's comments.

I understand the concern that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and his constituents feel about the quality of their fire service and the sensitivities that must inevitably surround any proposal to close a fire station. The hon. Gentleman was present at last week's debate initiated by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), on the future of Downham fire station. That station, like Shooters Hill, has also been recommended for closure by a fire cover review conducted by London fire brigade. Therefore, I shall have to repeat some of the points that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), made in responding to that debate.

The key point, which I must stress at the outset, is that statutory responsibility for the provision of an effective and efficient fire service rests with the fire authority—in this case, the London fire and civil defence authority. It is for the fire authority to keep its fire cover provision under review and to set a budget that will allow it to meet its statutory and other obligations and, in particular, to provide a service that meets the national recommended standards of fire cover.

The hon. Member for Woolwich referred to the funding of the fire service. As he knows, the fire service is a local authority service, which is funded, like other local authority services, through the revenue support grant, national non-domestic rates and the council tax. There are three underlying issues in relation to fire service funding: the total public expenditure provision for local government; how that total is distributed in terms of 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 assessments in England should be increased by £17 million, that is, by 1.5 per cent., from £1,168 million to £1,185 million. In the Government's view, the settlement was realistic. The fire service, like other public services, must operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is important that fire authorities continue to keep their service under review and redeploy resources or reorder their priorities as necessary.

When the Audit Commission looked at the fire service, it commented that the savings that it could identify were lower than it normally identifies in major studies of local government services. It ascribed that in part to the fact that the service was generally well managed at brigade level. None the less, it found that significant savings were possible if best practice was adopted by all fire authorities; and it made a number of detailed recommendations in a management handbook, which should help brigades carry out their responsibilities in the most cost-effective manner.

Of course, the revenue support grant that is allocated to individual fire authorities depends not only on the total provision, but on the distribution formula. It is a matter of general policy, agreed with the local authority associations, that we should review the formula every year and that we should use the most up-to-date data. With any proposal to change the formula, the problem is to find an alternative that does not unreasonably increase the grant to some brigades and disproportionately reduce it to others. However, the Government are always willing to see what improvements can be made. We looked carefully with the Department of the Environment and the local authority associations at the formula for the fire service element of standard spending assessments, and 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 the recommendations of the Audit Commission.

As 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 in 1996–97. The London fire and civil defence authority has benefited in previous years from the process of reviewing and updating the formula. For 1996–97, its increase in revenue support grant is lower than the national average, primarily as a result of updating the data in the area cost adjustment. That factor is included in the formula to compensate for the additional costs of providing services in the south-east. On the latest data from the new earnings survey, those costs have gone down.

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 1995–96. I understand that London has chosen to fund expenditure in the current year of £4 million above its capping limit by the use of reserves. It was, however, its choice to do that, rather than to make the savings necessary to stay within the cap. The authority was aware that, under the relevant legislation, permitted expenditure increases are calculated on the previous year's budget requirement, net of reserves. To do otherwise would defeat the object of the legislation, which is to keep a firm grip on public expenditure.

It is now for the London fire and civil defence authority, following the settlement and the proposed criteria for council tax capping and in view of its overall financial position, to decide how much to spend on its fire service for 1996–97 to meet its legal obligations. That includes its obligations in respect of firefighters' pensions and to implement improvement notices issued by the Health and Safety Executive.

If the authority should take the view that it is necessary to set a budget above the proposed capping limit 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. That is the authority's responsibility and the success or otherwise of any redetermination application would depend on the quality of the case.

Alternatively, the authority could decide to draw further on its reserves. I note that, according to its director of finance and information technology, its general reserves of £20 million are "relatively high" for an authority of its size.

The authority can also seek to identify further efficiencies without reducing fire cover below the national recommended standards. It has to strike a balance between demands to provide a high standard of fire cover and the need to ensure that the service makes the best use of its available resources.

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

I come to the Government's role in the assessment of fire cover. Under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is required to be notified of the fire authority's establishment—the number of its fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting posts—as at 1 January each year. The fire authority may not reduce its establishment—although it can increase it—without his consent.

The Home Secretary has a specific and limited role in considering applications under section 19. He grants approval where the following conditions are satisfied: first, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail and 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 fire service inspectorate, the Home Secretary must be satisfied that the national recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained.

It is not the role of the Home Secretary to decide whether the proposals that a fire authority makes represent the best arrangements for fire cover. Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate is available to advise the authority on that matter. Ultimately, however, responsibility for fire cover rests with the fire authority, which is accountable in law for the service that it provides.

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 individual or organisation concerned forwards those representations promptly on being advised that a section 19 application is to be submitted.

The Fire Services Act 1947 does not define the test of an effective and efficient fire service that 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 national recommended standards of fire cover. Those standards dictate the initial response to a fire in weight and speed of attack. They rest on four main standards of service, according to the risk category into which a region has been placed. That system of risk is based on the characteristics of the buildings and property in a region and assumes for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances should attend within a certain time.

The 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.

Mr. Austin-Walker

Does the Minister recognise that most lives are lost in category C regions, which, generally, are regions of social and economic deprivation?

Mr. Maclean

As I understand it, what matters is the risk of buildings catching fire and, after that has been assessed, the damage likely to be caused. That, I believe, is what the standards are based on.

The hon. Gentleman asked how we could pay less attention to fire standards in buildings for old-age pensioners than to those in this building. If pensioners are living in newer homes, or in homes with better precautions than buildings built in the 1830s that are a fire risk, naturally the older buildings, which are more liable to catch fire, should be in a higher-risk category. That is a sensible fact. That is not a slight against the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and it does not put buildings before people. It represents a sensible assessment of the risk of the buildings in which people live catching fire.

The Government believe that the standards have served the country well, but that is not to say that we regard them as unchangeable. The Audit Commission's report recommended that there should be another fundamental review of fire cover levels. The commission was not saying that standards—

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes past Three o'clock.