| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Spicer (South Worcestershire): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in an excellent speech, in which he makes an important argument on behalf of his part of the county. I am the Member of Parliament for the other part of the county, which is covered by the same fire service, which, as my hon. Friend knows, was enormously stretched this summer in, among other things, putting out those enormous fires on the Malvern hills.
I have a problem similar to that of my hon. Friend. The fire service is starting to speak about closing Pebworth fire station in the same way as the Bewdley fire station in my hon. Friend's constituency. In the context of what my hon. Friend is saying, I wanted to ask him about funding.
Is it not peculiar--I have previously drawn this matter to the attention of the Minister--that the way in which fire services must spend their money is calculated on the basis of risk analysis, but the money that is made available for them is calculated on the basis of historic spend?
There is a mismatch between the budgeting process and the funding process. Is that not at the back of my hon. Friend's argument?
Mr. Coombs:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To give an idea of the scale of the problem we have, not only is there a gap of 21 per cent. between the shire average SSA and the Hereford and Worcester SAA, but that gap has grown historically. Even if the plan is implemented by the chief fire officer, the gap will increase to about 30 per cent.
I know that Baroness Blatch has spoken to members of Hereford and Worcester county council about that matter. I know that the Government are reviewing the area cost adjustment, which militates against counties in our region. I also know that the Government, with the Department of the Environment, are reviewing the mechanism by which the fire service SSA is calculated.
I am worried that the Hereford and Worcester county council fire brigade appeared not to know what the nine options were that had been laid down in that working party for the review of the SSA. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Mr. Spicer) says, there is a significant difference between the options.
For instance, option 1, which, on fire safety, would give greater credence to the number of premises and plans that were covered by the fire service and, on fire prevention, would give greater credence to the number of pupils in schools, would mean that an SSA settlement for Hereford and Worcester would be increased by 23 per cent. on 1995-96 figures, or by £2.7 million, which would reflect current spending in the way we require.
There is a strong case for, not an activity-based approach, but a fire station-based approach, based on the number of homes and the sparsity of population in much of the area. I urge Ministers to get on with considering such a redistribution of resources. I hope that we shall hear something good when we hear the local government finance settlement, which we expect tomorrow.
It is an irony that the proposals, far from saving money, will cost about £340,000 to implement and £240,000 a year from then on. They involve the redundancy of 28 whole-time personnel from Kidderminster--half the whole-time personnel--the removal of a whole-time pumping appliance and the hydraulic platform there, and the closure of the Bewdley retained station, in a way that has caused uproar.
Those proposals are wrong-headed for several reasons. First, they are a perverse redistribution of resources, even within the county. Kidderminster, which, in the period July to September 1995, had 762 turn-outs, will be downgraded, whereas Bromsgrove, which had only 427, will be upgraded to the same level as Kidderminster, in spite of the fact that it had only slightly more than half the number of calls. With the closure of Bewdley,
Kidderminster, even on a downgraded basis, will now be expected, with half the whole-time personnel, to cover an area not of 50 square miles, as hitherto, but of 90 square miles.
The boundaries set within Bewdley between those areas that are designated C in the review and those that are designated as lower-risk D areas lack all logic, owing more to the squares of the Ordnance Survey map than to any idea of the community and the physical geography. The Lakes residential estate is regarded as a C risk area, whereas St. Anne's middle and first schools, where there are a great many vulnerable young people right next to the Lakes industrial estate, are regarded as being in a D area.
The fact that Kidderminster has been downgraded from B to C status does not reflect the very many small factories, many with chemical and electrical processes, in the town. The matter has been drawn to my attention by firefighters in the area.
Moreover, the proposals completely ignore the historic nature of Bewdley, the proximity and complicated nature of its buildings, the high proportion of elderly people in its population, and the presence of tourist attractions such as the Severn valley railway and the safari park, which not only increase the risk of fire but make access difficult, particularly during the rush hours and at tourist peak times.
I shall concentrate on two specific problems. The first relates to response times. If a fire service is to be credible, its fire engines must be able to reach a fire within the time laid down. The centre of Bewdley is designated a C area, which means--according to Home Office recommendations--that one fire engine must reach a fire in between eight and 10 minutes. If the proposals are implemented, that fire engine will have to come from Kidderminster.
In a letter dated 11 September, the chief fire officer told me that that could be done in eight minutes. On 19 September, he elaborated on that, saying that it could be done
I have discovered the answer, however. Apparently, the calculation is done on the basis that the clock stops when the vehicle is stationary. It will not be of much comfort to someone in a fire to be told, "We can get to you in eight to 10 minutes, provided that our fire engine is moving all the time." If the vehicle is held up by traffic lights or a traffic jam, the period could be much longer, and lives could be put at risk. That, I feel, reveals the absurdity of the fire officer's argument that response times will be acceptable.
It is suggested that, in the event of a fire in, for example, a block of flats, a hydraulic platform can be transported from Bromsgrove to Kidderminster--a distance of at least six miles--within that period of eight to 10 minutes. According to Mr. R. E. Smith of Kidderminster, who drives that hydraulic platform,
My second point relates to the cost of fire cover. If the full-time team of firemen in Kidderminster and their pumping appliance are to go--and, according to best practice, there should be two appliances for each fire, so that back-up is available--retained crews will have to be called out for every fire. It has been estimated by the Fire Brigades Union that turn-outs by retained firefighters would increase by no less than 398 per cent. in my area.
First, that is likely to increase costs, which should be allowed for in the review. Secondly, it will affect recruitment. As a firefighter asked in a letter to me, what employers will allow their fire officers to have four times as much time off as they had before? Thirdly, because retained firefighters cannot reach a fire as quickly as non-retained full-time firefighters, the speed of attack and the effectiveness of firefighting will be reduced.
I am also concerned about the way in which the fire brigade, the fire authority and the county council have consulted on these controversial proposals. This is not the first time that such consultation has taken place; in 1988, 1993 and 1994, the townspeople of Bewdley--with my support--repelled attempts to close their fire station. Although the circumstances of the town were exactly the same then as they are now, special circumstances of the kind that I have outlined were identified by professional officers on the fire review team, and it was decided that the station should remain open.
The same circumstances obtain today. Indeed, the original fire cover review report--produced by three senior officers and others for the chief fire officer earlier this year--specifically states that, although in statistical terms there may well be a case for closing the Bewdley fire station, as there has been on all the previous occasions,
I understand that the document was given anonymously to the chairman of the Wyre Forest working group which is studying the proposals. He--Councillor John Gordon-- openly gave it to the chairman of the county council's fire
services committee, who photocopied it and gave it back to him. At 4 o'clock on 27 November, the police raided the home of this gentleman, who was doing his best to help the people of Bewdley to retain their fire service, saying that they were dealing with the theft of a document.
Initially, the chief fire officer denied any knowledge of the document. Then his deputy said, "Okay, it does exist, but only minor grammatical changes have been made." In fact, the main thrust of the proposals had been completely changed. The first version said, "Do not close Bewdley fire station"; the second said, "We are going to close it."
"at a speed of no more than 30 mph, with no lights or two-tone alarms, obeying traffic regulations and in a rush hour."
His deputy took the same line, saying that trials had been carried out showing that the journey could be done in eight minutes and 45 seconds. Most people, including firefighters, do not believe that; although the distance is only about three miles, they do not see how it could be achieved.
"If he thinks the hydraulic platform can provide adequate cover from Bromsgrove"--
"he" being the chief fire officer--
"he is wrong. I drive the appliance. He doesn't. I doubt if Mr. O'Dwyer has even the slightest idea how long it would take an appliance such as the hydraulic platform to get from Bromsgrove to Kidderminster."
He is sure that it would not be possible to take the platform to the scene of the fire within the required time, particularly during rush hours.
"Having paid due regard to these influences, it is our professional opinion that the fire station at Bewdley is maintained as at present.
The town is of historic importance, and many of the properties are of architectural value. The attractive riverside properties provide a backdrop to a thriving community reliant upon the tourist industry."
The report refers to the River Severn and the safari park, which attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year--people who contribute significantly to the county's economy. It adds:
"The hotels, restaurants, shops, guest houses and leisure facilities that line the narrow streets of Bewdley present a substantial fire risk and the potential for rapid fire spread with dire consequences is ever present. It is for these reasons that we cannot recommend the closure of Bewdley fire station."
That is said every time the closure is proposed. It was said this year, and completely ignored by the chief fire officer.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |