HC Deb 06 November 1996 vol 284 cc1197-204 12.30 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise an important issue, which is of immense concern to my constituents and others throughout Lancashire.

A crisis is facing the fire service nationally and in my county. Lancashire is by far and away the busiest shire county fire authority. The county has dense urban areas, lots of industry, and of course, Blackpool, which poses particular fire risks, as does the rest of the Lancashire coast. Last year, the number of incidents shot up by 16 per cent. to 34,814. The number of calls that the Lancashire fire brigade dealt with rose by 14 per cent. to 55,872.

It is a busy fire brigade, and, like many fire authorities throughout the country, it is spending above the level that the Government consider to be right and appropriate. The county's chief executive, Gordon Johnson, wrote to the Minister's colleague Baroness Blatch, on 13 September: there is a major crisis developing with an alarming divergence opening up between central government allocation and actual spending here in Lancashire. In 1993–94, Lancashire spent £33.6 million on its fire service, which is 4.2 per cent. above the fire services standard spending assessment-the figure that the Government believe to be right for the county to spend. In 1994–95, that percentage gap had widened to 4.9 per cent. Last year, the gap widened yet again to 5.8 per cent. The forecast difference between what the Government believe the county should spend and what it is actually spending on providing its fire service is a staggering 10.2 per cent. So, the county will be spending £37.9 million on our fire service, but its SSA is £34.4 million.

There are good reasons why Lancashire fire authority has to spend at that level, which I shall discuss in a moment. First, I refer to a document entitled "Standards of Fire Cover Review", which was produced by the county's chief fire officer, Gordon Russel, in June this year, dealing with fire cover standards across the county. He made it perfectly clear that the report was his and that its purpose was to give an up-to-date picture of the changed categories of risk around the county. He set out possible options for change. He said in his report that his review, which has been considered by county councillors, was based on existing national guidance according to the Home Office national minimum standards of fire cover.

Mr. Russel stated that one option was to cut one of the two retained pumps at Barnoldswick, in my constituency. Furthermore, were he to follow Home Office standards, he could remove one of the pumps at Colne. Those suggestions, which cause great anxiety, surface regularly every year when they are considered by the councillors. Nothing happens, but those suggestions have a tremendously damaging impact on the morale of the firefighters.

Barnoldswick is a designated C risk area, but it is home to many important industries such as Silentnight Beds, which could go up in a puff of smoke. I am not suggesting for a moment that that would happen, but the materials that it uses to make beds are highly combustible. The Rolls-Royce plant that manufactures fans for aeroplane engines is based there. It is also home to Albert Hartleys and a number of other textile firms. I also live in the town. It is not part of a wider conurbation, but its status as a separate town has implications for response times and other considerations.

Colne is a different kettle of fish, and is designated a B risk area. It is one of the busiest two-pump retained stations in the country. Last year, it took 460 calls. The suggestion that those two fire stations could lose one pump each has been made according to the minimum standards of fire cover set down by the Home Office, which were agreed in 1958, almost 40 years ago. I take the view, as does everyone else to whom I have spoken, that that suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with those standards, and that they should be looked at.

I should like to make it clear for the record that I do not want to see a reduction in fire cover in my constituency, and I do not believe that that will happen. Even if the fire authority were to decide to get rid of those two retained fire pumps, it would save about £30,000—a small sum against the fire authority's budget of £38 million.

My local council is, unfortunately, run by the Liberal Democrats, who have relentlessly exploited the issue year after year. Tragically, they chose to vote down a recommendation put last September to Pendle borough council by Councillor Carol Hopkins, who is the leader of the Labour group. All she asked the council to do was call on the Home Secretary to conduct a further review of the Home Office minimum standards of fire cover. The Liberals voted that down because they said it would detract from the united response to the County Council". Those Liberal Democrats never miss the opportunity to vilify and condemn Lancashire county council if it suits their purpose.

The Liberals have shamelessly exploited the issue and stoked people's fears and anxieties by predicting that the fire engines at Barnoldswick and Colne would be cut as part of a wider package of cuts. They have ignored the fact that the possible loss of two fire engines was suggested by the county's chief fire officer, Gordon Russel, to the fire authority; instead they have dubbed it "Labour's crazy plan".

In Barnoldswick, the Liberals sent a personalised letter to my constituents stating: Taking one of our two fire engines away will make it less safe for people in Barnoldswick. It will put lives at risk. Voting Labour in the Council by election will give a green light to the Labour controlled authority that it is OK to take our fire engine away. A Focus leaflet produced by county councillor and Pendle borough councillor, David Whipp, states: Do you want Barnoldswick to lose its fire engines? This is the only cut in services put forward for Barnoldswick-and it has come from the Labour run Fire Services Committee. This plan will put local lives and safety at risk. Yet only … the local Liberal team are fighting against it. He said that, if people voted Liberal, it would be a protest against the Labour Party's crazy plan. That sort of mendacity has an effect. The Liberal Democrats recently presented a petition signed by 3,500 people who are obviously concerned that the town's fire cover may be reduced. They have launched a propaganda blitz. Hardly a week goes by without acres of coverage in the local press. There has been a blizzard of Focusleaflets perpetuating the lie that the Labour party wants to cut our local fire cover.

What is the position? In a letter that I received yesterday—Guy Fawkes day—the chief fire officer said that the Lancashire fire authority has given a continued commitment to sending two pumps to all known building tires, immaterial of risk classification. Home Office recommended minimum standards only require one pump to be sent to C and D Risk areas. The Authority has accepted that minimum Home Office standards in C and D Risk areas would not provide adequate protection for the Lancashire community in that any householders should reasonably expect, wherever they live, to have the same level of service delivery from its Fire Brigade, even though it will inevitably take longer for fire appliances to arrive at an incident. We in Barnoldswick—a C risk area—remember the horrific fire that occurred earlier this year in the old Gwent fire authority, now the South Wales fire authority. Only one pump was sent to a blazing domestic fire in which children were trapped and two firefighters lost their lives. The question whether one or two pumps should be sent is not an academic one. When one pump is sent and that is inappropriate, people and firefighters can lose their lives—firefighters did lose their lives in Gwent earlier this year.

The chief fire officer told me that the safety of individuals is of paramount importance, but that he must have regard for the safety of his own firefighters. He concluded: It is our view in Lancashire that all emergency calls to building fires should have two pumps responding whenever an emergency call is received. That is what I would like the Home Office minimum standards to say, because they are currently deficient.

I raised my concerns with Baroness Blatch on 30 July. She responded on 2 September. She reminded me—as if I need reminding—that all fire authorities have a statutory duty to provide an efficient fire service in their area and this is generally interpreted as a brigade which can meet the nationally recommended standards of fire cover. As I have already pointed out, those national standards are grotesquely inadequate. I rely on the professional view of Gordon Russel, our chief fire officer. I repeat that I want the Government to give a firm commitment to an early review of the minimum standards.

Baroness Blatch spoke of "an efficient fire service", yet the Government, over the years, have asked fire authorities to push an enormous boulder uphill. The Government's assessment of the amount of money that fire authorities should spend to provide a common standard of fire cover across the country is plainly unrealistic. The SSAs have not kept pace with inflation or, indeed, with the firefighters' pay award, which is coming up.

A fact sheet from the local authority associations tells me that the Government are already providing less than is needed across the country, and that the situation is becoming "critical"—their word. The associations tell me that spending in fire authorities will rise by 5 per cent. next year due to factors beyond local authorities' control. That has implications. We in Lancashire have an efficient and well-run fire service, but the Government are making it difficult for Gordon Russel and his team of firefighters to provide the service that people have a right to expect.

All sorts of nonsenses are built into the SSA formula. Lancashire was at the forefront of the effort to tackle the problem of malicious calls, yet the SSA formula does not reward its success. Although the number of malicious fire calls fell by a staggering 42 per cent., the perversity of the system docked £280,000 from Lancashire fire authority's SSA. Lancashire was penalised for being successful.

The cost of retirement and pensions is eating away at the funds that the county has to spend on delivering the fire service. At the beginning of the decade, Lancashire fire authority's pension bill was 8.8 per cent. of the fire service budget; in the current year it is 12 per cent., and no element in the SSA reflects that. I should say that, in fact, there is such an element but no additional money. The money has to come from the pot that has to be used to provide the fire service that people need today.

There has been a progressive reduction in the county's capital allocation, from £1.6 million in 1992 to £996,000 this year. That means that the fire stations we need, such as the one in Accrington, cannot open, and that vital fire appliances and equipment that firefighters need cannot be bought. If equipment can be leased, as has happened in Lancashire, the revenue costs of leasing are not recognised by the Government. Lancashire therefore loses yet again as a result of ensuring that its firefighters have the up-to-date equipment they need.

Not all fire authorities in the country take the same view. In their fact sheet, the local authority associations say that, throughout the country, the purchase of essential fire equipment is being deferred and that current spending levels are not being maintained. Vacancies in fire brigades are being frozen and there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in training by the Fire Service College. The associations conclude that, all across Britain, service provision is being reduced to meet only minimum Home Office standards. As I have explained, that is not happening in Lancashire. There, the county council is topping up from its own resources the cash that our firefighters need, but the council clearly needs help.

After a recent committee meeting, the fire authority wrote to Baroness Blatch asking for a meeting in which it could press its case. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he and his colleagues will meet councillors and the professional officers of the brigade as soon as possible. We also need an early commitment to a review of the antiquated minimum standards, which lie at the root of the crisis.

Blackpool and Blackburn are being wrenched front Lancashire county council following the local government review and, from April 1998, there will be a new combined fire authority. In the past, Lancashire fire authority has managed to get by because the county council has religiously topped up from its own resources the funding that the fire authority needs, but that might not continue after 1998. I want the Minister to give consideration to what is happening, not only in. Lancashire, but in other parts of the country where new fire authorities are being created.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing this debate on the fire service in Lancashire. We share his high regard for the fire service, for its professionalism, for the bravery of its firefighters and for the quality of the service it provides. The quality of this country's fire service is universally acknowledged.

The service was commended last year by the Audit Commission in its value for money study; and, in a report in April, the commission stated, in respect of the performance of the fire brigades in the year to that date: the fire service is one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government, with almost all brigades achieving national standards for at least nine out of ten fire calls. Lancashire is one of those high-performing brigades. I would like to be able to say that I am a fellow Lancashire Member, but it is an historical fact that Bolton disappeared into something called Greater Manchester some years ago. I am nevertheless aware of the quality of the fire brigade in our neighbouring county, Lancashire, and I am aware that it has met the required response times to fire calls on 92 per cent. of occasions recently, which is a splendid achievement.

In its latest report on Lancashire, published in March, Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate commended the authority's continued commitment to the development of the brigade and the positive manner in which the brigade is led by the chief fire officer and his team. The report noted: It is clear that the service provided by the brigade is highly regarded by the public, with personnel at all levels having a marked and justifiable pride in their contribution to the Lancashire fire brigade. I am aware that an extensive review of fire cover was completed by the brigade, and the results were circulated recently for public comment. Fire authorities necessarily review their fire cover arrangements periodically to keep them up to date. I understand that the recommendations of the review could, if implemented, have implications for the constituency of the hon. Member for Pendle. One implication may be that proposals will be made to remove one of the pumping appliances from Barnoldswick and from Colne fire stations.

Under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, the Home Secretary's approval is required before any fire authority reduces the number of its fire stations, fire appliances and fire fighting posts. My right hon. and learned Friend 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 authority. Thirdly, after taking advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate, my right hon. and learned Friend must be satisfied that the national recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained.

To date, we have not received any application from the fire authority to reduce the operational capability of its brigade in consequence of its fire cover review. I assure the hon. Member for Pendle that, should the county council make such an application to reduce fire cover in any part of the county, my right hon. and learned Friend will take account of any representations he receives in reaching his decisions.

I certainly agree that those who seek to cause panic and extreme distress among local residents, by causing them to fear that fire cover may become inadequate, should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who indulges in such activity for political reasons should examine their conscience closely.

The Fire Services Act 1947 does not define the test of an effective and efficient fire service that a fire authority must provide, but it is longstanding 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 in 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 in a certain time.

The standards are not only nationally recommended. They are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. They were also extensively reviewed by the Joint Committee on Standards of Fire Cover in 1985 for the central fire brigades advisory councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. The standards enable all concerned to know where they stand regarding the minimum level of service that they should deliver.

I hear what the hon. Member for Pendle says about the standards, but I have to tell him that we consider that the standards have served us well. That is not to say that we regard them as immutable. The Audit Commission's report recommended that there should be another fundamental review of levels of fire cover. It recognised, however, that no fundamental change should be considered without very careful research. A review of fire cover standards is being taken forward by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, but these are complex issues, as I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree, and much work will be needed before we make any changes.

The fire service is a local authority service, funded, like other local authority services, through the revenue support grant, national non-domestic rates and the council tax. Statutory responsibility for providing an effective and efficient fire service to meet all normal requirements rests with the local "fire authority".

It may be helpful for the debate if I say something about the national framework. For 1996–97, central Government support for local authorities in England increased by £966 million. Total standard spending in England for the year was set at £44.9 billion—an increase of 3.3 per cent. on the previous year. The total fire service element of standard spending assessments in England was increased by £17 million—1.5 per cent.,—from £1.168 million to £1.185. That comprised £14 million for the additional costs of firefighters' pensions and £3 million for training.

It is true that the fire service is being asked to make efficiency savings, but so is virtually any public service. It is essential that the taxpayer gets the best value for money. After the Audit Commission considered the service, its report, published last year, highlighted specific areas in which it believed that efficiencies could be made, including reducing sickness rates and management costs to the level of performance achieved by the most efficient brigades.

I remind the hon. Member for Pendle that there were and are considerable variations in all sorts of efficiency indicators between one service and another, and there is plenty of evidence that, if all services came up to the standards of the best, further considerable savings could be made.

Mr. Prentice

Has the Minister not already conceded that Lancashire is one of the most efficient fire authorities in the country?

Mr. Sackville

But that is not to say that there cannot be further efficiencies. At the start of my speech, I praised the fire service in Lancashire. I recall that I used the words: one of the most consistently high-performing brigades. That is true, but that is not to say that efficiencies cannot be made in Lancashire and elsewhere. All that the Audit Commission has said is that considerable savings could be made if all services came up to the level of the best. That is not to say that considerable further savings could not be made if the very admirable efforts made by many brigades in finding new efficiencies were maintained.

The fire service element of the SSA is, of course, distributed by a formula, which takes account of many factors. It is kept under constant review. Although not everyone will agree with the way in which the formula works for them, we believe that at present that formula provides the fairest allocation of funds.

A shire county such as Lancashire is not limited in its spending on the fire brigade by the fire service share of the standard spending assessment. What matters is the overall SSA for the county. It is for the county council to decide its priorities for spending between all its services, bearing in mind its statutory and other responsibilities. I remind the House that, as in most counties, spending on the fire service represents a very small proportion of overall county expenditure—in the case of Lancashire, of the order of 4 per cent.—and any decisions about inability to spend further above the SSA must be taken in the light of that.

I commend the hon. Gentleman's wise and moderate approach, and condemn those who say that there is a crisis in the making. Lancashire receives an extremely good fire service, in great measure due to the commitment of those involved in delivering that service. I pay tribute to the Lancashire fire service, and reiterate the Government's commitment to ensuring adequate resourcing for all fire services.