London Fire Service

HC Deb 03 February 1999 vol 324 cc865-86

11 am

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)

First, I must thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate on the London fire service, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I introduced a similar debate a year ago and it is appropriate that the House should have an opportunity at least once a year to focus on the problems of that service. It is not a major public service in spending terms when compared with the national health service or education and it accounts for one third of 1 per cent. of all Government spending. However, it is a key service and one in which men and women risk their lives in our interests. Their concerns deserve proper attention.

I have not introduced the debate simply to create an annual ritual of reviewing the problems of the fire service in London; I have done so because the financial problems and cuts in the service with which we dealt last year have continued unabated. Last year, the debate took place in the context of the closure of two fire stations, Downham and Shooter's Hill, with the loss of 56 jobs. This year, the position is not entirely clear, but it seems likely—even if one is being fairly optimistic—that we will lose five fire engines and another 115 fire jobs as part of a process of cuts and economies in the fire service in London. That is the context and the motive for this debate.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), responded to the debate a year ago and is to do so again today and I acknowledge that there are positive aspects. It is obvious that he has been defending his corner in his Ministry and in Whitehall debates about funding. The standard spending assessments for the past two years—1998–99 and 1999–2000—of 4.7 and 3.9 per cent. respectively are above the rate of inflation, which is a positive outcome. It compares favourably with the previous four years, when the settlements were about half the rate of inflation.

That torrid period in the mid-1990s created many of the serious problems in the service. The annus horribilis of the London fire service was 1997, when 12 tenders were withdrawn and people like me, with no background in the service, were drawn into the campaign to save our local fire engines. The problems have continued and, although the Government deserve some credit for having granted relatively favourable settlements, the underlying structural problems, notably the overhang of pensions and flexibility in the service, have not been tackled. I have no doubt that they are in the pipeline. The fire service is in continuing difficulty in London because the problems have not been tackled. I hope that the Minister will point the way forward.

The immediate crisis has come about because the London fire service is totally constrained in several ways. It has limited freedom of manoeuvre and is a single-service operation. First, it is constrained on the pay front. Half its costs are salaries and, although the SSA settlement has been reasonably generous, next year's 3.7per cent. SSA does not begin to compare with the pay settlement, which is 5 to 6 per cent. I do not begrudge the firemen their pay increase—I am sure that they deserve it—but there is no obvious mechanism by which that pay award can be paid for. The assumption is that the money will come from efficiency savings, but in practice those mean cuts in the fire service. After years of economies and cuts in overheads, that is primarily where such savings have to be made.

The second constraint is the pension problem, and I am sure other hon. Members will refer to it. The problem of unfunded pensions exists in several public services, but it is probably most acute in the fire service. Pension obligations are rising at twice the rate of inflation. About 20 per cent. of the fire budget goes in pension obligations and the percentage is rising every year because of the increasing number of fire service pensioners. Firemen are living longer, which is welcome, and the contribution rate is falling because fewer people are on the staff. It is a vicious circle whereby the more the service is cut, the fewer people are left to contribute. It is a downward spiral and it is creating an unsustainable financial position. I understand that the pension obligation will rise towards 30 per cent. of the budget in the next few years. That is a hopeless position and it is causing immediate pressure.

Reserves are a third constraint. In the past year or so, the fire service has been kept at a respectable level of service because it has been able to dip into its financial reserves. It drew £12 million last year and could probably draw some more this year. Out of the £7 million or so that is left, it could draw £2 million to £3 million more to remain roughly within sight of what the Government auditors consider financially prudent. Clearly, however, that cannot continue, unless the Government intend to hand the service to the London mayor with no reserves, which would be extremely dangerous. For example, an unforeseen increase in pension obligations would leave it illiquid and unable to meet its day-to-day obligations.

I do not fully understand the final constraint and I hope that the Minister will explain it. It is the way in which the new Government clawback arrangements for the so-called more sensitive form of capping that has been introduced will operate. I understand that the Government have said that they would tolerate a 4.5 per cent. increase in the precepting for local councils in London. I am not entirely clear what would happen if the fire service breached the ceiling. We are in new territory and I am not sure whether, when the Government introduced the new system, they had fully thought through what it might mean for precepting authorities, as opposed to normal, multipurpose councils. The new system has created significant uncertainty and difficulties for the service and I hope that that will be clarified during the debate.

Those severe constraints are hemming in the service. In the current and the coming financial years, even if the fire service draws down much of its reserves to a level that is verging on financial imprudence, uses the savings from last year—there were small savings because pension obligations were not quite as large as had been budgeted for—and breaches the Government's target for precepting up to perhaps a 7 per cent. increase, it will still have to close five fire tenders down. The situation could be worse. That is my analysis of the situation. What are the alternatives and what else could be done? Could the problems be avoided?

Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central)

One of those stations is in New Addington in Croydon. In recent times, we have lost a station in Sanderstead and engines in Warlingham, Beckenham and Woodside. As the hon. Gentleman said, the situation is not sustainable. It is gradually leading to the degradation of the service. Does he agree that one way forward would be to ring-fence the pension side of expenditure and have separate funding for the service, so that pension obligations do not undermine the provision of fire engines?

Dr. Cable

The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is sensible and it is one of several that I intended to propose to the Minister. There are different ways of dealing with the pension problem and the hon. Gentleman correctly identified one. The local colour that he has added to the debate from Croydon is appropriate. I hope that other hon. Members will give from their areas examples showing how the position is causing alarm throughout the capital.

Before dealing with that point, however, I shall run through the options available to the fire authority to head off the cuts under the present financing arrangements. They are all extremely unpalatable. One option is to run the reserves down to zero and pass on a hot potato to the new London mayor. One can imagine the mayor's problems, faced with a bankrupt fire service and having to trade off its problems against those of the Metropolitan police. That is an unpalatable option, but it needs consideration.

A second option is to break the bank in terms of capping limits and go up to a 10 or 11 per cent. increase in precepting. That would not involve an enormous cash increase for local councils, but it would be extremely unpopular with them. It would also test to breaking point the Government's belief that a clawback system should be applied to authorities that breach limits, and I suspect that the Government would not be able to let that happen.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

The bill received by local council tax payers in London shows separately the precepted amounts for both the Metropolitan police and the London fire and civil defence authority. Because people value the fire service as they do the police service, the politics of raising money suggest that an increase in precept would be one method that would appeal to the Government, if they were willing to accept it, and be acceptable to the people and to local authorities. People want the fire service and would be willing to pay a relatively small additional sum on a relatively small part of the total council tax bill. It strikes me that that way forward in ensuring that the fire service receives the resources it needs would be the easiest to deliver.

Dr. Cable

I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive suggestion. However, if the cuts crisis is to be avoided through precepting, the increase would have to be fairly substantial, in the order of 12 per cent., and it would require forbearance on the part of the Government. Perhaps the Minister will offer clarification on that point.

Drawing the threads together, I ask: where are the cuts leading? At what point do fire services become dangerously overstretched? This year, the fire service management have clearly gone to some trouble to prioritise firefighting equipment, through risk assessment carried out in a professional manner. They will argue that the five fire tenders identified are those whose loss will put the public least at risk, and that all sorts of improvised arrangements of that nature have to be adopted. However, there is a point at which such arrangements become positively dangerous.

I am no expert, but simple common sense dictates that, in the event of a major emergency or combination of emergencies, the fewer fire tenders and firefighters there are, the greater are the response times and the risk of death. The professional management of the fire service now believe that, if cuts in excess of the five now contemplated are made, we will not be in merely difficult territory; real danger will threaten the public. The Fire Brigades Union, which is more outspoken than the management, already believes that the increase in fire deaths—in 1997–98, the number increased from 67 to somewhere in the 80s—is probably attributable to the fact that fire cover was reduced. I am not sure whether that can be proved, but the figures are not encouraging.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only the public who would be put at risk by the reduction in services, but fire crews themselves?

Dr. Cable

That is absolutely right and an important point. Unfortunately, disasters such as the King's Cross fire appear to be needed to remind us all of threats, not only to the public but to fire officers. In addition, although the fire service is right to have refocused its priorities from property to people, risk to property remains an element of concern.

Let me now outline some of the longer-term problems that the Government will have to address if the overall difficulty is to be alleviated. The first is the pensions problem. I have already sketched the difficulties, and most hon. Members already know the underlying problem. The difficulties started in the post-war period, a relatively easy period in which far more money went into the fire service pension scheme through contributions than was taken out. It is not altogether clear what happened to the surplus, but I suspect that, instead of being spent on the fire service, it leaked out to the Greater London council and was used to permit lower rates around London. We all had an apparently free lunch at the expense of the London fire service's pension provision, but we have now reached the point of having to pay the bill.

The pensions problem is wholly unsustainable, because contributions are likely to fall further. The Government have begun to address the issue of pension arrangements for new recruits to the London fire service; that is a creditable effort, but it does not deal with the problem of the pensions overhang and it may make the existing problem worse. New recruits may opt out of the pension arrangements and cease to pay their 11 per cent. contribution, which would result in lower overall contributions at a time when pensions outgoings increased because of longevity and redundancies. The problem will get wholly out of control if something is not done.

What are the options? The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) suggests that, within the SSA arrangements, pensions should be isolated from the rest of the budget and, in effect, be reimbursed by central Government. That would take pensions out of the internal financing arrangements of the LFCDA, which is my preferred option. A second option, which builds on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), is to rely more heavily on precepting and to allow pension costs to be passed on to local authorities without restriction.

Various methods are available, but it is clear that the Government have not yet proposed a method of dealing with the pension problem. It is one thing to deal with new recruits and prospective pensioners, but the real financial difficulty arising from pensions has not yet been faced. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to address those problems.

My final point relates to the fire service's overall operational flexibility. The fire service management believe that their financial position would be easier if they were able to operate more flexibly. They are governed by a set of legislative regulations that has accumulated over the years. That severely inhibits their freedom of action, for example, in charging big business for fire prevention services, which appears in principle to be a reasonable thing to do. It also inhibits flexibility in other ways: it is a proper part of the Government's approach to social exclusion that the fire service should refocus its efforts on deprived areas, which are where most fires occur, but that sort of operational flexibility is currently inhibited by restrictive legislation. In last year's debate, the Minister said that he was willing to look at that legislation and to introduce a new fire Bill. 1 should be grateful for some information about when that will happen, how it will happen and what mechanism will be used, for that is an important part of the story.

I suspect that the House is of one mind on the fact that there is a serious short-term problem. I should like to know how the Government propose to deal with it, especially in matters, such as capping limits, where the Government have a responsibility. I should also be grateful if the Minister revealed how the Government intend to address the longer-term problems of pensions and fire service flexibility.

11.18 am

Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green)

I accept much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) says and I shall try not to repeat his remarks, because that would be boring. Instead, I shall ask why the London fire and civil defence authority is affected by impending crisis.

Mr. Robinson, the chief fire officer and chief executive of the LFCDA, has informed us of the many financial difficulties he faces. Unfortunately, neither the LFCDA's financial figures nor the measures taken to stabilise them add up. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we may be here again next year if we allow the LFCDA management to continue to act as they have until now.

When Mr. Robinson was appointed, he must have accepted the job on the basis and the understanding that he had to run an efficient and safe fire service. I doubt whether he said that, although he would do that, he would not take account of pension arrangements; my guess is that he accepted those responsibilities.

In a letter sent to hon. Members in December, Mr. Robinson sets out the main problems. The pension scheme is unfunded; when it was started, in 1947, income was high and expenditure low, whereas last year expenditure was £77 million and income was only £16 million—a pound;61 million shortfall.

When did that start? As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, it started in the 1970s. My dog could understand the problem, if I told him about it. What has Mr. Robinson done to change the system from an unfunded scheme to a funded one? Absolutely nothing: neither he nor his predecessors took the necessary management action. So what does he say now? He says that a funded scheme for new firefighters could be a solution only in the long run—but if the process had been started in the 1970s, we would now be well into that long run and the problem would have been avoided.

The cuts in the fire service began just when expenditure started to exceed income. Since 1979, a lot of equipment has been lost, but the problem has not been solved, merely avoided. That is a management failure. What does Mr. Robinson propose to do? He proposes to make another 50 or 60 people redundant, or more, depending on the circumstances. What will those people do? They will draw pensions from the scheme, thus making the problem worse. That is not a solution—just the opposite.

Mr. Robinson also intends to make savings in the support areas. In a letter, he stated that 86 per cent. of income was spent on front-line services. However, the same letter stated that the service spent 21.4 per cent. of income on pensions. Subtracting 21.4 per cent. from the 100 per cent. income total leaves a remainder that is too small: it is not possible to spend 86 per cent. of income on fire services. The figures do not add up.

Mr. Robinson has said that the management structure has been changed. It is hard to imagine, but there used to be five layers of management. Now there are three layers, but that is still far too many. London's fire service has a military structure. Even in television programmes such as "London's Burning", one can see firefighters, grown men and women, touching their forelock to management. My goodness: everyone is afraid. Top managers have bigger cars, bigger offices and more assistants. The fire service has less to do with fires than with management. Priorities are upside down.

I am a Dutchman by birth, and I maintain that we could learn from the way things are done in the Netherlands. There, some pertinent questions would be asked, and the answers would provide the basis for action. What is the service for? It is a fire service. What does it do? It fights fires; it helps people in flats; it helps to get people out of lifts that do not go up or down; it helps in dealing with road accidents; and all sorts of other things.

Depending on the relevant regulations, the management should have ensured that there was income to cover the service's activities. In the Netherlands, a structure was built to allow the service there to fight for the necessary income. The LFCDA does things differently. The management structure comes first: only when that is in place does attention turn to fighting fires. That is the wrong way around. The LFCDA is not doing what it should be doing.

I have read the budget proposals, but they contain not a word about expenditure on civil defence, which is part of the LFCDA's responsibility and would have to be covered in any honest overview. Why have we not been told about civil defence?

It is a scandal, but it is common now to see a gleaming little car arriving at the scene of a fire. Who gets out? A management person. What does he know about fires? Nothing. He says, "Oh, my goodness, that's a fire." The management person stands there for about 10 minutes and then asks the firefighter in charge when it will all be over. On being told that it might take about two hours, the management representative assumes that everything is under control and that he can go home. Why does that happen? The answer is that the management person is paid out of money for front-line services. That element is hidden in the budget, but we must not forget that. To my mind, it is unacceptable.

Why must firefighters retire at the ridiculously young age required? I know of many who are totally fit, as medical supervision proves. They want to go on working, either on active service or at desk jobs, but there is almost no way for existing firefighters to get into management. The structure is one of "us and them", and the management do not want them.

The LFCDA has protested that it has consulted all relevant people and groups. Has any firefighter been consulted, or been involved in any way? The answer is no. If I want to meet firefighters, rather than just go to head office, I have to ask it for permission. The situation with the LFCDA management is unbelievable. If my house should catch fire, I would want firefighters to come, not management.

The financial problems are severe, but the solutions are idiotic. In the literature that he has sent, Mr. Robinson states that overheads will be shared with other emergency services. There has just been a massive change in the police structure in Barnet, but the LFCDA did not get in touch to offer to share the overheads involved in reorganisation, which it could have implemented at the same time. No contact was made.

Changes to the north circular road mean that Finchley fire station is poorly placed. However, other emergency services have a very much better site near Finchley high road. Has the LFCDA taken up that option? It is considering the matter, and doing so in such a way that one might think that it may be working to that end; yet the budget report has details of cuts that have been made in ancillary services. More than 50 per cent. of personnel in the LFCDA property division—the authority's asset management arm—have been kicked out. Those are the very people who should talk to other emergency services about saving money—proper money, not improper money—but there has been no negotiation at all.

I believe that the LFCDA management are not capable, and that Mr. Robinson should go. In addition, I contend that its political control must be examined. Every year, three or four of the 32 councillors who represent London's boroughs are caught out. The other 28 councillors are very sympathetic, but what they are thinking is, "Thank God, it's not me this time." The result is that votes are held and cuts are approved in all the areas for which they are proposed. There should be an independent inquiry into the inefficient and irresponsible management of the LFCDA.

11.28 am

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this Adjournment debate. I have been trying to do the same, but he beat me to the punch in the ballot in November 1997, and he has done it again this time. I also congratulate him on getting here today. Yesterday, he was feeling distinctly unwell, but it is clear that the adrenaline has kicked in to enable him to open the debate so effectively.

I prepared for this debate by reading the Hansard report of the 1997 debate. That was an important debate, as is today's. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber hope that we will not need a similar important debate next year.

I was a member of the London fire brigade for 23 years, and I belonged to the Fire Brigades Union, so I have some familiarity with the service and its problems. However, I congratulate the LFCDA on the quality of the briefings that it has sent to the London Members of Parliament. Those briefings helped us to identify the exact nature of the problems that the authority has to face.

I shall deal with some general issues, before reinforcing the financial concerns—specifically about pensions—raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham. My starting point is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis): I believe that the fire service is extremely efficient. It received a glowing report from the Audit Commission in 1995, and last week's report and performance indicators show that the London brigade is operating at 91.5 per cent. efficiency.

That has happened against a backcloth of reductions since the Greater London council was abolished in 1986. The fire authority then assumed control of 10,000 staff, but the number has fallen to between 7,000 and 7,500 since then. Fire stations have been closed, appliances withdrawn and cuts made in various departments. Pressure has intensified year on year. Now we are threatened with the withdrawal of five more pumps this year.

All that has produced a consensus of disquiet stretching from the chief fire office, Mr. Robinson, to the councillors elected to the fire authority and the trade unions, the principal of which is the Fire Brigades Union, which represents operational firefighters. Despite the proud record of the London fire brigade, and of the fire service in general, the number of deaths and injuries in London and throughout the country has consistently been too high.

Most people understand that the politics of fire fit tidily with the Government's social exclusion initiatives, in the sense that the vast majority of people who die from fire are from the most vulnerable groups—the old, the sick, the poor and the disabled. There are distinct parallels between the Government's attempts to deal with social exclusion among the most vulnerable groups and what the service is trying to achieve by being more flexible in its responses. I commend the London fire brigade pilot scheme that is attempting to introduce smoke alarms to the Bangladesh community in Tower Hamlets, the Asian community in Ealing and pensioners in south London. Those are ways to improve precautions and safety in vulnerable communities.

A general difficulty for the fire service has been that the legislation creating it or allowing it to function has almost always been reactive rather than proactive. Even most recently, legislation has resulted from Hillsborough, Bradford and King's Cross. There is a powerful lobby for a new fire safety Act, and I know that the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has been working on that. Such an Act could help brigades, including London's, by making it easier for business to understand and implement fire safety precautions; consequently, it would be easier to monitor and enforce those requirements.

As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, brigades such as London's have no opportunity to generate income from their expertise in training or fire safety. Such an opportunity would allow them to raise money to address their financial difficulties. The LFCDA is asking not for handouts from the Government, but for the power to help itself.

The main problem is the pension fund. Some people, including the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), have said that pensions are too generous and expensive. Anyone who has studied the fire service will know that its occupational pension scheme has been an appropriate acknowledgement of the nature of the job and the sacrifices and dangers involved in it.

However, there is a problem. When the fire service pension scheme was introduced, few people lived to collect their pensions. Contributions from firefighters went to local authority expenditures. Now, however, as a result of the shorter working week, health and safety changes and breathing apparatus, firefighters live to normal life expectancy rates. That is what makes the scheme expensive. There are today more retired firefighters from London than there are serving firefighters. The pressure on the pension scheme is intensifying.

The Government have considered the problem. In a written parliamentary answer on 31 March 1998, at column 466 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he sought views on the fire service pension scheme before 31 July 1998. On 6 November 1997, the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, said that there could be no quick fix: Any solution must be a long-term solution".—[Official Report, 6 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 478.] However, the problems of the fire service pension scheme have existed for 10 or 15 years. The Tories did nothing, and we are grappling with them now. Even a solution to the problem of expenditure now running at 20 per cent. of the fire authority bill would not sort out the authority's financial difficulties for 20 years. The pressure is immediate, and it needs immediate attention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) has tabled an early-day motion showing the clear cross-party support for action on the pressure on London fire brigade. I have outlined to my hon. Friend my misgivings about some words in his motion, but it rightly identifies the pension scheme as the critical aspect.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on last year's 3.9 per cent. increase in fire service expenditure. However, there was a 5.6 per cent. wage settlement, and, since wages account for 80 per cent. of the budget, that meant more pressure on the budget. London fire brigade's pension bill for this year is £77 million, and contributions are only £16 million. The retail prices index has risen by 60 per cent. since 1986, but the London fire brigade pensions bill has gone up by 284 per cent.

I commend the chief fire officer, the politicians on the fire authority, the Fire Brigades Union, the other unions and the public for highlighting the problems that cause us to debate the problems again today. I level no criticism at individual Ministers, or even at the Home Office. The reality of our predicament is that the fire service budget amounts to less than 0.3 per cent. of public sector expenditure, making it extremely difficult for us to receive the attention that we believe the problems deserve.

Most fire safety legislation is, as I have said, reactive. I hope that we do not need a disaster, as some people have said, before we can acknowledge deterioration in the service. The warning signs are there—from principal officers and from firefighters on the ground, showing that there is unanimity in the service. None of us wants to be able to say, "I told you so." There are solutions to the crisis facing the fire service, and facing London fire brigade in particular. I hope that the Minister can persuade the Home Office and the Treasury to grasp a difficult nettle.

11.37 am

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)

I shall be brief, as many other hon. Members want to speak in an important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on obtaining the debate and allowing us to air our views. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), whose knowledge of and passion for the interests of firefighters and fire safety are well known throughout the House. I pay tribute to firefighters throughout London. We all know that they risk their lives daily in our cause.

In the London borough of Hillingdon, two pumps are threatened. One will be transferred from Hayes to Heathrow, and the other, at Hillingdon fire station, will be lost. There is all-party support in the borough for the retention of those services. I pay tribute to Councillor Anthony Way, who has actively represented the borough on the London fire and civil defence authority—I should point out that I am paying tribute to a Labour councillor. People are alarmed at the potential loss of those pumps.

It is difficult to understand how anyone can believe that such a decision will not increase the risk to the public. I have lived in the area all my life and the Hillingdon station—previously at Uxbridge—has always had two, if not three, pumps. In those years, the potential risks have increased. We have Heathrow, RAF Northolt, Hillingdon hospital, the rapidly expanding Brunel university, and a large shopping centre at Uxbridge, with another being built. It is difficult to understand how a 50 per cent. reduction at the Hillingdon station can be anything other than detrimental to the safety of my constituents and those of other hon. Members representing the London borough of Hillingdon.

The problem should have been considered earlier; it is not new. My constituents' views and those of all the hon. Members who are here today mean that the problem must be addressed. We fear that something will have to happen before people realise the problems that we face.

11.41 am

Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch)

I am not surprised to see the Tory Benches almost empty, given the Conservative Government's record on the London fire service. Since 1986, three stations have closed, with the loss of 63 pumps and 1,200 jobs. During the same period, the number of calls has risen from 144,000 calls in 1986 to 188,018 in 1996—a massive increase. But the key figure is that, last year, household fire deaths rose from 67 to 89, an increase of about a third.

The chief fire officer, Brian Robinson, in his report, to which reference has already been made, makes it clear that he does not want any cuts. In section 4, he states that it would be preferable to make no reductions in the number of stations and pumping appliances until they can be considered in the context of the developing approach to protecting the community from fire and its effects. One of the developments to which the chief fire officer refers is the Home Office review of fire safety cover, which is currently in progress, and will, I hope, lead to some pilot schemes in the near future with a shift towards a risk-based assessment.

My local station of Hornchurch has had two fire engines since 1936, since when there has been a huge expansion in roads—the M25, the Al27, the A13 and the Al2, all big roads—which see a lot of accidents, resulting in many calls on Hornchurch station and those around it. There has been an enormous increase in the number of people living in Havering, Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster and an enormous expansion in the number of office blocks, particularly in Hornchurch and Romford.

In 1997, the number of two-pump calls made to Hornchurch station—this is the key test, because we are talking about cutting 1.5 per cent. of the force there—was 396, compared with last year's figure, which was about 430, a significant increase. Hornchurch will, therefore, be in real difficulty if the second pump disappears this year.

The total number of calls made to Hornchurch last year was 1,410. That is a great deal more than the official figure, because it includes 450-odd calls from neighbouring grounds. We are therefore talking about a busy station with a high number of two-pump calls.

That brings me to the Fire Services Act 1947, which does not recognise, for example, road traffic accidents, which are a major cause of calls on a station such as Hornchurch. That legislation was framed when there were many fewer cars—nly a few hundred thousand—on the road, compared with 22 million today, most of which seem to whiz through Havering at one time or another. That has led to an enormous increase in the calls on Hornchurch station, and on Dagenham and Wennington and the Essex brigade, which has not been met by legislation.

During the past two years, I have discussed the problem many times with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I know that he is genuinely concerned about it. The fact that the duties of the fire service have changed enormously during the past 50 years should be recognised in legislation.

My main point today is to ask the Government to call a moratorium on the proposed cuts to the fire service—the five pumps that are under threat. The Home Office fire cover review currently in progress will, it is hoped, result in a risk-based assessment.

Ms Linda Perham (Ilford, North)

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaign in Hornchurch. Does he agree with other hon. Members that the main problem is the pensions issue, and that, unless that is addressed, the LFCDA, and its successor, the Greater London authority, will continue to face problems, such as that at my station at Hainault, which is faced with day crewing? Does he agree that there is much public support in London against the cuts?

Mr. Cryer

I certainly agree that there is enormous public support for the fire service, and the pension issue is a key problem. It takes up £70-odd million from a budget of about £300 million. Public support for the fire service in my area has been superb. The firefighters have mounted a magnificent campaign. Only last week, on one day alone, I, along with a number of firefighters from Hornchurch, handed in about 11,500 completed public consultation leaflets to the LFCDA offices at Albert embankment, just across the Thames. We also have a petition with 40,000-odd names on it, and I alone have had more than 1,000 letters, so the public support is there. Self-evidently, people clearly do not want to see cuts in the fire service.

Because of the particular factors affecting the London fire service, I should like the Government to call a moratorium on fire service cuts for the foreseeable future until we have a comprehensive review of the fire service. The chief fire officer makes it clear in his report that he does not want to make the cuts, and we await the Home Office review of fire cover. We also await the new authority and the mayor. The LFCDA has £5 million in reserve in a £6.5 million underspend this financial year, and next financial year it may well have another underspend. Until we have the Home Office report and the mayor and the new authority in situ, directly accountable to the people of London, I should like there to be a moratorium on fire service cuts.

11.48 am

Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster)

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), and I associate myself with the remarks already made by my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer).

My constituency is served by Hornchurch fire station. I have studied in some detail the review of fire cover in London and have recently visited the Hornchurch station and the Romford station, which in part covers my constituency, where I have had extensive talks with the firefighters and local management. I have also visited the command headquarters on Albert embankment and had talks with senior officers there.

Since the publication of the review and the chief fire officer's recommendations, I have received many representations from constituents who are concerned not only about the Hornchurch station, but the other appliances at Addington, Hillingdon, Finchley and Heston. I am opposed to the recommendations and, although my constituents are concerned chiefly with Hornchurch, they associate themselves by implication with the other fire stations.

Of course I appreciate that the reductions in cover are driven primarily by financial factors. During my research, I became all too aware of the problems arising from the funding of the firefighters' pensions and the difficulties that this has imposed on the LFCDA. I shall deal with the financial aspects in a moment.

My primary reasons for opposing the reduction in the number of fire appliances are strategic cover, the ability to save life, risk-based assessment and various local issues. On the subject of strategic fire cover, the review naturally refers to Home Office minimum standards. However, section 4.8 of the review reminds us that they are minimum standards, and no more than that. The standards to which we should aspire in the provision of public services—particularly emergency cover—should not be the minimum.

Section 4.10 of the review highlights the fact that each local station does not provide fire cover for a particular location. My concern is for the level of strategic cover: if we cut five fire appliances, I fear that in the event of a major incident such as the King's Cross disaster or the bomb on the Isle of Dogs, the London brigade will not be able to respond adequately and maintain reasonable cover for the rest of the metropolitan area. Although in the fullness of time the terrorist threat in London may abate, it is too early to be confident of that.

Furthermore, I believe that road congestion in London is almost certain to have an adverse effect on attendance times. Projected vehicle ownership statistics and average car journey times in London are surely relevant factors. London roads have been close to gridlock several times. Such occasions will inevitably increase, with adverse effects on emergency services. Sections 4.21 to 4.24 of the review state that in eight areas difficulties are being experienced in meeting recommended response times. The loss of five more appliances in London could, indirectly, cause the recommended response times in the areas in question to deteriorate even further.

Section 4.32 states that, in the chief fire officer's professional judgment, the minimum number of appliances that need to be kept ready to attend fires will be greater than the theoretical minimum needed to provide cover strictly in line with the Home Office's minimum recommended standards.

I concur with the point made in the review that there are strong arguments for keeping fire stations open and for the number of appliances not to be cut at stations covering areas of local deprivation. The key point is whether the right balance of strategic cover will be provided to maintain sufficient cover to ensure that the brigade remains able to respond effectively to major incidents and can deploy resources quickly if and when required.

Mrs. Eileen Gordon (Romford)

Will my hon. Friend join me in praising all the firefighters and members of the public who are fighting the cuts? Does he agree that perhaps the best plan of action would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said, be to impose a moratorium on the cuts until the Greater London authority and mayor are in place? After all, it is they who will decide the future of the fire service in London, and to hand over to them stations that have lost pumps which cannot be replaced would give them a bad start when they come to form an overall picture of fire services in London.

Mr. Darvill

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am aware of her work in that campaign.

I am seriously concerned that a reduction in the number of appliances in London will mean that the LFCDA will not be able to maintain strategic cover to the acceptable standard required by my constituents.

The ability to save lives is a very serious matter. It is clear that the emergency services now have the ability to save more lives than ever before. One of the reasons for the continued advances in their lifesaving ability is the improvement in paramedic support in ambulances and the involvement of specialist teams of doctors who attend serious incidents, especially road traffic accidents—RTAs.

I am advised that the attendance of firefighters and appliances at serious RTAs and in other situations where accident victims are trapped is often essential to ensure that those victims are released quickly from their entrapment, thus enabling doctors and paramedics to stabilise their condition and ensure that they are transported speedily to intensive care facilities.

Although many RTAs happen on highways other than motorways, it should be noted that the appliances to be removed are situated in outer London stations closest to the M25. If the number of fire appliances throughout London is reduced by five, the ability to respond to such situations will be diminished, so the recommendation should not be implemented.

Another primary reason for opposing the recommendations is risk-based assessment. I note that in section 3.13 of the review, the authority has recommended that the Home Office risk categories place undue emphasis on the value of property, as opposed to prevention of injury and loss of life. The current risk categories do not appear adequately to reflect the complexity of risk in densely populated urban areas.

Section 5 of the review deals with issues likely to impact on the provision of fire cover in future. I note that a range of matters is currently under active consideration, which is likely to result, possibly within two years, in a new risk-based approach to protecting the community from the effects of fire. In light of all the points set out in section 5, the main thrust of which I agree with, I believe that the recommendations to reduce the number of fire appliances in London should at least be postponed until after the matters under active consideration have been determined.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Fifteen years' of constituency experience leads me to share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the move—perceived and often real—from people—based, densely populated area risk assessment to property—based assessment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be public consultation by the LFCDA—using all its evidence and expertise—on how to assess risk, and that only after the results of that consultation have been subject to scrutiny by bodies such as Parliament should the matter go back to Ministers and the fire authorities so that they can decide on the number of machines and personnel needed to respond to the perceived risk for a given area? That could apply not only in London but elsewhere. Unless we get the assessment of risk right, we shall never be able properly to project what is needed by way of appliances and personnel for 24-hour cover.

Mr. Darvill

I do not disagree with that. I understand that the Home Office is examining those issues at the moment.

Any decision implemented now may need to be reversed in a relatively short time, and there could be adverse financial implications if fire appliances are removed and subsequently returned.

I acknowledge that ground calls, particularly at the Hornchurch station, have declined over the years—there are now 960 a year. Appendix C1 of the review sets out the possible impact on surrounding stations. I have queried that estimated impact, and have written to the chief fire officer, setting out my reasons for doing so.

It seems to me that insufficient weight is being given to off-ground calls and road traffic accidents. In fact, it appears that little or no account is being taken of RTAs. Greater significance should be attached to the service that the fire brigade renders at the scene of such accidents. In 1996 in the Hornchurch area alone, there were four fatalities, and 51 people were injured. In 1997, there were fortunately no fatalities but 31 people were injured; and up to mid-December last year, there were three fatalities and 31 people injured. Those are the figures for road incidents to which the fire brigade was called, not for road accidents in general. Also, 66 drivers and passengers needed releasing from cars involved in accidents. As I said, these statistics relate to the Hornchurch ground alone, but firefighters in Romford inform me that their experiences are similar.

I do not envisage any short, medium or long-term reduction in the number of RTAs that the fire service will be required to attend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch said, Hornchurch is close to the A13, Al27, the A 1 2 and the M25. However, it is not only on motorways and trunk roads that serious RTAs occur. In fact, it appears that they occur on the network of rural and semi-rural roads, mainly in the D fire risk category areas. These accidents occur when the M25, the Al27 and the Al2 are congested and motorists exit the main roads to use country lanes with which they are unfamiliar. These roads are narrow, unlit and much more hazardous. Drivers are unfamiliar with the conditions and, as a consequence, RTAs occur. The fire brigade is frequently called out in those circumstances. London is densely populated and built up, but the outer areas of London are linked with the countryside, and that is where the accidents that I have described take place. The reasons that have been set out so far are surely sufficient for opposing the proposed reductions.

The situation with the firefighters' pay formula and pension and the reduction in reserves are the main reason why we are in the present position. We should regard firefighters' pensions and pay as contractual obligations of the public. It is no good complaining about pensions or the level of the award. We have entered into employment contracts with those public servants and we must fund them properly.

I am aware that there are many difficulties, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to some of them in his reply. It is clear that public finances remain tight. Despite that, additional funds have already been directed to the fire service. Council tax precepts will not be able to meet the shortfall. Reserves have been depleted, but our constituents do not want to see reductions in fire cover, especially when they are being asked by the borough councils to pay increased council taxes that will be above the rate of inflation.

I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my fears about the future of the fire service in London. If we do not solve the problems that we have been discussing this morning, it is as sure as anything is in politics that the LFCDA will be back next year and the year after with more reductions. Eventually, the chief fire officer will not be able to recommend further reductions. The percentage of the LFCDA's budget that is devoted to pensions and wages will continue to increase. What will happen then? The Government should grasp the nettle now and demonstrate what they can do to solve another problem which they inherited partly from the Conservative Government. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply.

12.2 pm

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

The genesis of the problem has been thoroughly and more than adequately explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It is important that we recognise that the problem was identified a long time ago. I say that as the ex-chair of finance of the Greater London council. However, whenever the problem was identified, even in those dark mists of time, there was a lack of co-operation from central Government, and subsequently from individual boroughs, in addressing the problem.

I commend the stewardship of the London fire and civil defence authority after the GLC. I say as an aside that there were no pension holidays when the GLC was involved. The problem with the GLC's budget was that, in terms of revenue and capital, it was virtually capped by this House. In particular, I commend the stewardship of Councillor Tony Ritchie of the LFCDA after the abolition of the GLC. I have been present at meeting after meeting during which he has explained to borough leaders and Ministers—this happened year in, year out—that the problem was becoming worse year by year. I have listened to cant and hypocrisy from individual borough leaders. They went out on the streets campaigning against firefighting cuts while refusing to support an increase in the precept. Ministers argued against any further increase in support for the LFCDA to tackle funding problems while always promising reviews. That happened year after year without anyone tackling the problem. I do not blame the LFCDA for what has happened.

I heard what my hon. Friend and comrade the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said about management. I do not want to take up his comments. However, I know that at every consultation meeting at which I have been present, with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), management have made clear their attitude on finance. We are talking about a financial problem and not about service delivery. The best is being made, with limited resources, of a very bad job.

There have been various wage increases over the years. I and others have been campaigning since the days when I was with Terry Parry, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union—God rest his soul—during the first major dispute. In those days, we had a hard time even securing a decent standard of living for firefighters; some of them were on poverty wages while providing a good service.

Time after time, Governments have commended firefighters for the wonderful role that they play and then refused properly to remunerate them. That is complete hypocrisy. I commend the FBU on all its negotiations with the GLC as I commend the LFCDA subsequently. They showed a flexible approach in tackling problems jointly with management. They examined the budgets and put forward options that involved changing working practices, sometimes to the detriment of their members, in an attempt to save jobs.

The stewardship of the LFCDA under Councillor Ritchie and his colleagues has been superb in highlighting problems and trying to tackle them without co-operation from central Government and, on most occasions, the boroughs. The firefighters and others have commended the authority on the job that it has done with such limited resources during this period.

I shall refer to the implications for my patch. The hon. Member for Uxbridge briefly examined what has happened in Hillingdon. In the middle of my constituency is Heathrow. The proposals that we are discussing will remove a pump from Hayes, Hillingdon and Heston. These areas surround the airport, which is one of the biggest potential disaster areas in the country. Air disasters do not usually happen at the airport itself. We last had an air disaster in 1956, when an aeroplane dropped out of the sky at Staines before it could reach the airport. That is the risk area. I am concerned that we are not taking into account the real problems that the LFCDA will face in future.

Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)

I intervene as someone who lost a fire station in my constituency last year. Local people are concerned about the enormous amount of development that is taking place around Woolwich and the millennium dome. That development will increase the amount of fire cover that is required to be provided by local fire stations, which will reduce their ability to serve the local community.

Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps there is an opportunity for additional resources to be raised under the Greater London Authority Bill, with fire cover advice being provided through the LFCDA, where there is a great deal of expertise? I have in mind Canary wharf and what the LFCDA received for the advice that it gave in that instance. Perhaps we should examine that approach urgently.

Mr. McDonnell

My hon. Friend makes a valid point which I shall move on to in a moment.

The thrust of our argument is that for the sake of us all we should stand back for a period and then tackle the problem once and for all, rather than having another round of cuts and decisions put off for another year—followed by another round of cuts next year and the year after. If the Government are about anything, they are about saying, "Let us tackle these problems objectively and seriously to secure a long-term future."

The situation is sometimes almost Pythonesque. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) may think that he has problems, but in my constituency I have the airport, the M25, the M4, the M40 and the A312. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and I share, as it were, Northolt. There are many bizarre proposals for the development of Northolt. In addition to that, I am in the middle of a single regeneration budget area. The massive development that has been proposed is not yet even at the planning stage, but it will go ahead because the money has already been allocated. We have the risk of terminal 5 and even a third runway. At the same time we are cutting the very basis for tackling any firefighting problems that might arise as a result of the developments to which I have referred.

I was at Camden town hall as a local government officer on the night of the King's Cross disaster. I and others were present at a social services committee when the news came of the fire. Our job was to prepare the mortuaries for the dead. I remember all the lessons that we were supposed to learn from King's Cross about investment, resources and training in the long term. No more were we to have short-term measures or cuts. Even then, we were talking about risk assessment. However, the present risk assessments are archaic. They take no account of road traffic accidents.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) about the problem of rat running. Cars coming off the M4 and M40 rat-run through my constituency, as they do through Uxbridge. Deaths occur when this happens. Firefighters are called to attend these accidents. My constituency can be at risk because the gridlock in the area is such that we cannot get transport into it.

I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to agree that we should act on all fronts and on all sides. I agree with the proposal for a moratorium. There are three reasons why we want a breathing space in tackling the problem. First, the GLA is coming. That will give us an opportunity over the coming weeks to put new powers in place that will enable us to tackle the problems. We are in a position to give new powers to the new authority, if necessary, to increase charges, and to consider new forms of revenue funding that will stand us in good stead in the long term. Secondly, the review of risk assessments is forthcoming. Why jump the gun before that report is made? Thirdly, we must examine the pensions fund report from central Government that we have been promised. That will tackle the problem once and for all.

I urge the Government to proceed with a moratorium. If that means a larger precept increase than would normally be allowed for one year, let us do it, or if it means a combination of a special grant and an additional increase in the precept, let us do that, but let us not put our constituents' lives at risk for yet another short-term fix.

12.10 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his success in the ballot for this debate. It is a timely opportunity for the House to discuss these matters before the meeting of the London fire and civil defence authority on 18 February. My only criticism of the hon. Gentleman is that all the solutions on which he concentrated would require more expenditure and he made no reference to the alternatives, as I shall, and as, I am sure, the Minister will.

Before I address the key issue, mostly in the form of questions to the Minister, I pay tribute to the courage and bravery of firefighters not only in London but throughout Britain. They are always there when we need them and they serve us well.

The key issue that the House and, on 18 February, the London fire and civil defence authority must address is the need to set a budget for the coming year. That will require difficult choices to be made. It may be that the only way in which a budget can be set and council tax precepts kept within Government guidelines will be to implement the proposal to withdraw five pumps—about which there has been much discussion this morning—unless the Government relax the capping limit.

The first issue that I want the Minister to address relates to the LFCDA leaflet on the consultation document. One of the four options that was canvassed was that there would be no cuts at all and, as a result, there would be a 20 per cent. increase in council tax. The sums of money involved are not enormous, but the precept would go up by 20 per cent. The House needs to know what will happen if the consultation result demonstrates that a majority are in favour of paying more than the Government guideline. It is all very well to have consultation, but sometimes the answer may not be palatable to Ministers.

If the Government insist that the precept guideline must be adhered to, responsible councillors from all parties will have no option but to support the chief fire officer—

Mr. Efford

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway

I have very little time in which to make my comments, and I did not intervene on any other hon. Member who spoke.

Responsible councillors will have no option but to accept the chief fire officer's recommendations, provided—this is the big caveat to which hon. Members have referred throughout the debate—that they are satisfied that fire safety standards are not compromised.

I sat through the debate with a sense of deja vu because there were similar debates when I sat on the Benches where the hon. Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) now sit. In my constituency, a two-pump station had one of its pumps removed, and there were petitions and expressions of local concern and anxiety.

I make two points about that to the House. First, the passage of time has revealed that the fire officer's assessment was correct. More important—this is the nub of the problem with the proposals—the cover provided is greater than the Home Office minimum standard, and that is the thrust of what is happening now. There is a limit to how far the policy can go. As long as a gap remains between what is provided in a given area and the Home Office minimum level of provision, there will continue to be opportunities to make such cuts.

I said that I would discuss alternatives to simply spending more money. The chief fire officer acknowledges that there is scope for greater efficiency and that great strides have been made on that in recent years. In the briefing that he sent to hon. Members, he seems to take pride in the fact that during the past seven years, £20 million per annum has been removed from the budget by efficiency savings, and that, of more than 800 staff reductions during that time, only 8 per cent. involved uniformed staff. That is a creditable performance, and the House needs to give credit where it is due.

Conservative Members agree that there are new ways of providing services. I listened to what the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said about liaison, but it must make sense to pursue greater liaison with other emergency services, and that is happening not only in London but in other parts of the country.

More can be done to prevent fires, and the private and commercial sector, in particular, has already done that. We need to redeploy resources to modernise delivery of the service. We need to find new ways to increase income and attract sponsorship. There may be scope for amending the Greater London Authority Bill—I am delighted to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who is piloting the Bill through Committee for the Opposition—to provide the new authority with legal powers in its fire responsibilities. Will the Minister consider whether he agrees with that assessment?

My fundamental question for the Minister is whether the Home Secretary would accept the advice of the chief fire officer and approve the five pump withdrawals, if that decision is made. Does he agree with that? Has he been advised that the fire standard could be met if the five pumps were withdrawn? What advice has the chief inspector of fire services given on meeting the minimum standard? Has that advice taken account of the increased demand for the fire services to provide emergency cover to road traffic accidents on the M25, which runs through many of the areas that will be affected by the proposed pump withdrawals?

Has the Home Office done any research on the resource implications of the proposed shift from risk-to-property assessment to risk-to-life assessment, and with what result? What impact will that have on the fire cover standard, which underlies the proposals made by the chief fire officer for London?

I also want to ask the Minister about resources and efficiency savings. I am surprised that not one of the speakers in the debate referred to the fact that the Government have imposed a 2 per cent. efficiency saving per year for three years, which has of course exacerbated the shortfall of income against revenue currently experienced by the London fire service. Did Ministers know that there had been a 5.6 per cent. pay increase for the fire service when they were setting that 2 per cent. efficiency saving? Did they know that pension costs already accounted for over 20 per cent. of revenue and were getting worse? I agree with much of what has been said about the need to deal with pensions. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to debate that on another occasion.

Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to use up to £4.5 million of the London fire service's reserves? Does he accept, however, that that could not be repeated? Does he agree with those who express concern about the need for the new Greater London authority to have some reserves? How will Ministers measure whether the 2 per cent. efficiency increase has been delivered and not merely reflected in cuts and use of reserves? How does the Minister anticipate that the 2 per cent. efficiency savings will be delivered in years two and three?

I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town, but I am concerned that some of the comment in the Fire Brigades Union's latest magazine on the scale of potential cuts as a result of the second and third years of efficiency savings was rather alarmist. Perhaps we can address that.

We think that the Government are right to continue the previous Government's policy of making the fire service more efficient, as well as more effective, to obtain better value for taxpayers. The Government will need to be flexible, to support fire officers, members of the fire service and hon. Members who have concerns, and review whether the 2 per cent. year-on-year efficiency saving is deliverable without compromising public safety. Above all, this debate has shown that the public need to be reassured that any changes will lead to a better fire service and a safer capital city.

12.21 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth)

I join everybody else in congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing his second debate on the fire service in London, which has provided us with a useful opportunity. I understand the importance that all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate attach, on behalf of their constituents, to the quality of the fire service in our capital city. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and several of my hon. Friends have conceded, we have every reason to be proud of our fire service. It is a great privilege for me to work with a service that is highly regarded by the public, and which achieves consistently high standards of performance—often, as many hon. Members have said, in very difficult and hazardous circumstances.

In the time available, I doubt whether I shall be able to cover all the points that have been raised. I undertake to reflect on Hansard and to write to hon. Members in more detail and at greater length on any points that I do not cover. My comments similarly apply to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

Last week, the Audit Commission published its timely report on performance indicators for local authorities, which showed that, in 1997–98, the London fire brigade met the national standards for responding to fire calls on 91.5 per cent. of occasions. That is its best performance in the four years that the Audit Commission has been collecting such figures. The figure was slightly below the national average of 96 per cent., but, given the more problematic circumstances of a capital city, several of which have been described, it is a very creditable performance. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made some very trenchant criticism of the London fire and civil defence authority, and the brigade and its leadership. He should take time to read the report. Perhaps then he would take a slightly different view.

I should like to say a word about pensions, which have been mentioned quite extensively. We of course recognise the implications of increasing pension expenditure for the overall settlement and for changes to the fire standard spending assessment distribution formula for 1999–2000. Although it has not been said in this debate, it has occasionally been reported as fact that it is not true that we take no account of pensions in the formula. The matter is given weight; we consider it important. We are considering responses to the pensions review in consultation with colleagues, and over coming months plan to publish our proposals for the future of the firefighters pension scheme.

We are keen to adopt a consultative approach; we shall be consulting all interested bodies as the proposals are developed. I say to hon. Members who have said that there has been very little action, even though the problem has been apparent for many years, that we are moving towards some solution. It may not be ideal or short term, but we recognise the need to consult. Points and suggestions made in the debate will certainly be taken into account.

We published the findings of the review that the previous Government set up. I do not want to be too partisan, because nobody else has been, but it was notable that the previous Government ensured that it was not published before the general election. They left us to publish it. We did so, and are consulting on it. I wanted to make that point because it is important.

The fire authority for London, like all fire authorities in England and Wales, will of course be subject to the proposed duty of best value, which is set out in the Local Government Bill. That places an explicit duty on authorities to secure continuous improvement of the delivery of their services. The focus is on quality and efficiency. The driving force will be the use of performance indicators, standards and targets, and most important, the use of various ways of consulting the public. The importance of that has emerged in several ways.

The hon. Member for Ryedale raised the question of efficiency. There is continual scope, not just in London but elsewhere, for greater efficiency in the fire service. I welcome the fact that the leader of the London fire authority, Councillor Ritchie, is a member of the forum that is considering best value for the fire service. So there is scope for best value and greater efficiency in London.

I should point out, although it is slightly repetitive to do so, that, following the comprehensive spending review in July, we announced that authorities in England would receive an overall increase in the fire service element of the total standard spending of £143.6 million—an average increase of 3.5 per cent. That includes £47.1 million—or 3.6 per cent.—for 1999–2000. Details of the settlement were published on Monday, and will be debated in due course. I am particularly proud that London has done very well over the past two years, as the hon. Member for Twickenham acknowledged.

I should say a brief word about applications concerning fire cover arrangements—several have been referred to—that the London fire authority may decide to make that would affect the constituents of several hon. Members present. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will grant approval for such applications only if he is satisfied that the proposals have been widely publicised; that representations have been considered by the fire authority and, most important, that Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate advises that national standards for fire cover will be maintained. We take those responsibilities very seriously. Before we agree to any such proposal, we must be convinced that it does not represent a risk to the public.

This has been a good debate. Unfortunately, time has not allowed me to acknowledge and respond to every point. Although many items that arose under the previous Government still need to be discussed before the fire service is absolutely as we would want it to be, we aim to maintain the mood of co-operation in local government and other interests. Between us, we can start to move on and to modernise an already good fire service, to take us into the next century—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order.