§ Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch)I thank Madam Speaker for choosing this debate, which is a very important one for the people in the area represented by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon). I also thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who will reply to the debate.
I have been involved in the campaign to keep Hornchurch's second fire pump from even before the cut was announced—as there had been some indication that there would be such a cut. In the past three or four months, there has been a magnificent campaign— particularly by the Hornchurch fire fighters, who led the campaign, and by the people of Hornchurch—against the cut. A few weeks ago, we had a public meeting outside the fire station that attracted about 1,000 people, who were primarily from Hornchurch but also from Romford and Upminster. Previously, we had a public meeting that attracted about 200 people.
I have received about 1,000 letters on the issue, including one recently from officials and representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, who object to losing the engine both on health grounds and because of the area's many nursing homes—particularly in the more far flung and vulnerable parts of the ground—and other health facilities, such as our two hospitals and many doctors' surgeries. Two particularly far-flung nursing homes are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster.
Recently, Hornchurch fire fighters and I handed in to No. 10 Downing street a petition containing the names of 40,000 people who want to keep the second pump at Hornchurch. We also handed in to the London fire and civil defence authority, on Albert embankment, approximately 12,000 consultation leaflets that had been completed by local people, all of whom were against the cut and said that they were willing to pay more, in council tax and perhaps in other charges, to keep the fire pump in Hornchurch.
All of those representations have been ignored by the London fire and civil defence authority, which has treated the people of Hornchurch contemptuously. Tony Ritchie, the authority leader, and other authority members have simply brushed aside the opinions of the people of Hornchurch and those living in other parts of the ground, saying, "We're going to get rid of the pump anyway." They have been absolutely contemptuous.
Hon. Members should remember that since 1986, 63 pumps have been cut from Greater London fire stations, 14 of which have gone since the Docklands bomb—on a night when the London fire authority was pulling in pumps from as far away as Essex and Surrey. The cuts make us wonder whether we could cope in London if there was another, similar massive disaster. In addition to previous cuts, the LFCDA is planning to cut another five pumps across London. Today, however, I am dealing specifically with the Hornchurch pump.
The London fire authority has a £5 million reserve in the bank and, in the current financial year, an underspend of £6.5 million. Very likely, there will be an underspend 326 also in the next financial year. I therefore cannot understand why the authority insists on cutting the Hornchurch pump or the other four pumps. I shall certainly watch the future career of Tony Ritchie with great interest.
My ground of Hornchurch is one of the biggest—the second biggest—in Greater London. We have had two appliances since 1936, when Hornchurch was still a village. Many older people in the area still refer to Hornchurch as a village. In 1936, both Rainham, in the south, and Upminster were also tiny villages. Since 1936, there has been an enormous expansion not only in the population, which has increased many fold, but in roads. We now have the M25 and the A127, on which the Hornchurch pumps spend a great deal of time. Hornchurch's pumps spend a lot of time covering the A13 and the A12 also, although they are not in our ground. All of those roads are hugely busy, particularly at rush hour, taking people in and out of London.
There has also been enormous industrial development in the ground. The Fairview estate, for example—which is in the south of my constituency—often has to be covered by the Hornchurch pumps. Ferry lane, which also is in my constituency, frequently has fires and problems that must be attended by our fire brigade. All those developments—including increased industrialisation— have occurred in the past 50 years.
Traffic jams on the big roads—particularly the A13, A127 and M25—often entail enormous tailbacks. People leave the main roads, go on to back roads that they do not know very well, drive too fast and have accidents. Therefore, there are major problems on the back roads that also have to be attended by the Hornchurch pumps.
In the past few years, risk categorisation in the borough of Havering has been greatly reduced. At one time, parts of Romford were A risk, and Hornchurch was generally B risk. Now, the ground has nothing but C and D risk areas. That is unfair. Even on the basis of current risk assessment, there is no reason why Hornchurch and Romford should not be categorised as B risk. Arguably, parts of Romford should be classified as A risk.
Currently, the Home Office is conducting a fire cover review. I argue today—as I did in a previous debate on the subject—that, until the review is completed, there should be a moratorium on cuts in front-line fire cover in Greater London. I hope that the review will recommend using risk-based assessment. However, until the review is finished, we shall not know the future basis of fire cover. I believe that the use of risk-based assessment will ensure that there will be at least two pumps at Hornchurch for ever and a day.
In the past two years, the number of two-pump call-outs at Hornchurch has increased from 396—in 1997—to about 430 last year. There is not yet a definitive figure for 1998, but it will be at least 430. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in the number of two-pump calls, which is the crucial factor when considering cutting the second pump at Hornchurch fire station. Last year, the total number of calls was 1,410—not 960, as the fire authority claimed—which includes calls to fires in other grounds.
I put those figures to the authority leader, Tony Ritchie, but he failed to respond to them. At a meeting well before Christmas, I told him the figures; he failed to respond. Shortly before the meeting at which the authority decided to proceed with the cut of five pumps, I again gave him 327 the figures; again, he failed to respond. If he is prepared to treat a Member of Parliament like that, I wonder how he treats members of the public who approach him saying that they do not want any more cuts in the fire service. It makes the mind boggle.
In the past two years, the number of fire deaths in London have increased by one third. I cannot believe that that crucial fact—the huge increase in the number of fire deaths—is completely unconnected to the fact that there have been so many cuts in the London fire service. If we continue cutting, we shall have more loss of life and more serious injury.
Only last night, I discovered that—according to Hornchurch fire fighters—on Saturday, 30 January, Hornchurch was without fire cover for three hours: the station was empty, the pumps were out and no cover was provided by other stations. If Hornchurch is already going without fire cover for three hours on a Saturday—which is surely one of the station's busiest times—I should think that even the idea of cutting Hornchurch's second pump is simply dicing with death.
I have a strong personal view on the matter. My family lives in one of the more vulnerable parts of the ground, in Upminster. I do not want to see our home going up in smoke—and cutting the second pump would put families like mine at risk. I cannot see how we can continue to cut fire pumps from across Greater London and expect that there will not be an increase in deaths and injuries. The slogan of the Fire Brigades Union for many years has been "Cuts cost lives". That encapsulates what I am saying today. We cannot afford any more cuts and we certainly cannot afford to lose the fire pump at Hornchurch. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's response.
§ Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing this debate and I endorse and support what he has said. Hornchurch fire station serves part of my constituency, as my hon. Friend said, and in particular Emerson Park, Cranham, Upminster and part of Harold Wood. That is a large area. In terms of area covered, my constituency is one of the largest in Greater London. It is no coincidence that Hornchurch fire station serves such a large area.
My constituents are very concerned at the chief fire officer's recommendation, which has now been endorsed by the London fire and civil defence authority. I share their concern. Like my hon. Friend, I live in the ground covered by Hornchurch fire station. I have been inundated by representations and messages of support for the campaign against the decision. My postbag is full of complaints from constituents; I am lobbied every time I walk down the high street and my friends and neighbours constantly raise the issue with me. It is a big issue in the area.
I had the opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago on the London fire services obtained by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I raised a number of points to which my hon. Friend the Minister helpfully said that he would respond in writing. I look forward to his response. I shall not repeat those points today, as I know that time is short, but I take this opportunity to request an early meeting with 328 my hon. Friend the Minister to make further representations to him on behalf of my constituents, who are very worried. In the mean time, I urge him to consider the enormous number of representations that I know are being sent to him and to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
There is a strong case for a postponement of the decision. I know that the risk-based assessment for fire cover is being reviewed. Changes in the London emergency services will come about as a result of the Greater London Authority Bill. I know that the finances of the LFCDA could tide us over until those changes happen.
Hornchurch does not merely provide direct fire cover. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch said, the area is surrounded by the M25, the A13 and the A127. They are busy roads and there are numerous accidents on them. The firefighters tell me that they are constantly called out to road traffic accidents on those roads. They are frequently able to save lives because advances have been made in ambulance services and improved treatment can be given to accident victims. My concern is that a reduction in the number of fire appliances will not only reduce the fire cover but reduce the number of incidents that the fire service can get to quickly to save lives.
The chief fire officer's recommendations are based on minimum cover. I believe that we should strive not merely to achieve minimum cover, but to obtain better cover for the area. A reduction in the number of fire appliances in Hornchurch will affect not only the ground but other parts of the area, including Romford, Dagenham and Wennington, which are covered by Hornchurch when local services are called out to emergencies. Our constituents' genuine concern is important. As the Members of Parliament representing the area, we need to emphasise that to Ministers. With all that in mind, I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing this debate on Hornchurch fire station and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on his speech. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is aware that this Minister is always willing to meet right hon. and hon. Members if they have a problem, as they perceive it, in their constituency. He may not be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch has already written to me asking for a meeting, and in a letter of 8 March I responded saying that I would be willing to meet him. If the arrangements have not been completed, they are certainly under way.
As hon. Members will know, there was a serious, tragic and horrific fire in Chingford last week. Our sympathies go out to all the friends and relatives of those who died in that fire. The cause is very suspicious and arson is strongly suspected. Regrettably, arson has increased considerably. In the past decade, 1.7 million fires have been started deliberately, causing 22,000 injuries and 1,100 deaths. We shall be publishing shortly the outcome of a Home Office review, which has examined the current arrangements for combating arson and will recommend a range of new measures arising out of that.
Hornchurch appliances were not called to the Chingford fire so I can now turn to the subject of today's debate. I fully understand the concern that my hon. Friends have 329 expressed today and during last month's debate on the London fire service, about the proposal by the London fire and civil defence authority to remove a fire appliance from Hornchurch fire station.
As I said last month, we have good reason to be proud of the fire service in this country. It achieves consistently high standards of performance, often in difficult and hazardous circumstances. The fire service's high level of performance in responding to fire calls has been confirmed year after year by the Audit Commission. So it is with good reason that the fire service is highly regarded by the public, both in Hornchurch and elsewhere in the country. The key point to stress is that the statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service rests with the fire authority, and, in the case of Hornchurch, with the London fire and civil defence authority.
It is for the authority to keep its fire cover provision under review and to set a budget that will allow it to meet its statutory and other obligations and, in particular, to provide a service that meets the national standards of fire cover. However, under section 19 (4) of the Fire Services Act 1947, the fire authority cannot reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances or fire-fighting posts without the express permission and consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My right hon. Friend has a specific role in considering section 19 applications. He will grant approval only if he is satisfied on three counts. The first is that the proposals have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail and with adequate time to enable any interested party to make representations. The second is that the representations have been considered by the fire authority. The third is that Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services advises that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained if any of the proposals were implemented.
There is no statutory requirement on the fire authority to consult, but my right hon. Friend and I consider it important that proper consultations are undertaken. Once a section 19 application has been made, we will also take into account representations made to us direct. We will consider and reflect carefully on the points made by my hon. Friends today. Our primary concern is the maintenance of the national fire cover standards. Successive Secretaries of State have interpreted the duty to provide an efficient fire service against those standards.
At the beginning of this month, we received the authority's application to remove the second pumping appliance from Hornchurch and from four other fire stations around the capital. We are seeking advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services on the authority's proposals. We shall ask the inspectorate to look carefully at the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and any that other hon. Members, organisations or individuals may make. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not approve any proposal unless we are entirely satisfied that national fire cover standards will be maintained.
The authority's latest proposals result from a review of its fire cover. All fire authorities are obliged to review the fire risks in their area regularly against the national standards to ensure that the brigade's deployment 330 of resources is updated in the light of changing circumstances. That is not contentious. Most people agree that it is sensible to do so.
It may be helpful if I explain the national standards in a little more detail, because they were an important part of my hon. Friend's speech. The standards are not just nationally recommended; they are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland, which are constituted under the Fire Services Act 1947 to represent fire service interests in advising the Secretary of State. The standards lay down terms for the number of appliances and also the speed of response in the initial attendance to a fire. They rest on four main standards of service, which depend on the risk category of the area, and assume for each category that a predetermined number of fire-fighting appliances should attend within a specified time. The area served by Hornchurch fire station has been assessed as 55 per cent. C risk and 45 per cent. D risk. My hon. Friend has suggested that Hornchurch should be reclassified as B risk.
Under the national standards, a brigade should aim in normal circumstances to meet the following response times: in a B risk area, one pumping appliance to arrive in five minutes and one within eight minutes; in a C risk area, one pumping appliance to respond to the incident within 10 minutes; and in a D risk area, one pumping appliance to respond within 20 minutes.
In considering the section 19 application, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to be assured by Her Majesty's inspectorate that the area has been correctly categorised for fire risk and that, if a pumping appliance was removed from Hornchurch, the brigade would continue to meet the above standards.
In 1995, the Audit Commission recommended that there should be another review of the standards of fire cover. The commission recognised that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. That recommendation was taken forward by a further joint committee of the advisory councils. Its report "Out of the Line of Fire: Modernising the Standards of Fire Cover" was published in July 1998.
The advisory councils have endorsed the report's conclusions in favour of risk assessment as a more flexible approach to planning fire cover that explicitly addresses the risk to life. Pilot trials are in hand with a number of brigades, including London, to confirm the practicality of that approach and, if successful, what the arrangements for implementation should be. However, that is a longer-term project. In the mean time, the existing standards of cover continue to apply.
When the authority set its budget for 1999–2000 on 18 February, it had to take into account the local government finance settlement and the implications for its reserves and assess what savings it should seek to make. The local government settlement provides a £143.6 million overall increase in the fire service element of total standard spending in England—an average annual increase of 3.5 per cent. over the next three years. That includes £ 47.1 million—3.6 per cent.—for 1999–2000. London's share is an above-average increase of £9.9 million—3.8 per cent. That follows an increase of 5 per cent, in 1998–99. The settlement, which I am proud of, acknowledged future funding pressures, notably on 331 pensions and training, which were identified by fire service interests. It should help fire authorities to plan ahead on a more stable funding basis. The settlement has also set the fire service a challenging efficiency target of 2 per cent. a year. The best value initiative should play a key role in assisting fire authorities achieve that target.
I shall reflect carefully on the points that have been raised in the debate. There are matters of significance and concern that we have to take into account.
It might be worth spending a few minutes on our approach to community fire safety. We want progress to be measured against our commitment to community fire safety. To that end, we have publicly set a target of reducing the average number of house fire deaths by 20 per cent. over the next five years. That move towards prevention is a step change for Government policy and for the work of brigades. Prevention work should be regarded as the first line of defence against fire. The vast majority of fatal fires are accidental and therefore preventable. However, the speed with which fire spreads and smoke kills often means that no matter how quickly the brigade arrives, it can be too late.
In this financial year, we have provided an extra £ 12 million to the fire service in England to undertake community fire safety work, thus implementing a key recommendation of the Audit Commission report on funding fire prevention. We have also recently established a national community fire safety centre, which will take forward the objective of reducing fires and casualties and act as a resource for fire brigades in England and Wales. I announced last December that we would be providing the new centre with £14 million of funding over the next three financial years to run high-profile safety campaigns in conjunction with every brigade. We have also conducted a major national smoke alarm television campaign for fire brigades, including London, to make sure that every householder has a smoke alarm and maintains it properly.
It is disappointing that house fires and fatalities in London have increased, particularly when other metropolitan brigades have been able to achieve significant reductions in recent years. However, the brigade is not alone in seeing such increases and the national trend has been upwards since 1994.
We recognise that without intervention the projected trend for house fires is set to increase. We are not prepared to let that situation arise and have therefore put in place a wide range of measures to reduce the number of house fire deaths. We are working closely with London and other brigades to ensure effective community fire safety arrangements. Whatever the outcome of the Hornchurch proposals, I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and for Upminster will support us in our endeavour.
As I have said, we shall reflect carefully on the points that have been made in this debate and seek advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services on the section 19 application and all the representations that have been made. We shall not approve any application unless we are entirely satisfied that the national fire cover standards will be maintained and the safety of the public in Hornchurch and elsewhere is assured.