| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Remaining Private Members' Bills
NON-DOMESTIC RATING (INFORMATION) BILL
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[Mr. Stewart.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[Mr. Hoyle.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
Second Reading what day?
Second Reading deferred till Friday 16 February.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Not moved.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members:
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 16 February.
Ordered,
Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich):
Last Thursday, on the Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) talked about the proposed closure of the Downham fire station and paid tribute to two Gwent firefighters, Kevin Lane and Stephen Griffin, sending condolences to their families. Since that debate there has been another tragedy, in which 21-year-old firefighter Fleur Lombard was killed by falling debris while checking a blazing supermarket to ascertain whether anyone was left inside. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Fleur Lombard and in sending condolences to her parents and to her colleagues in the Avon fire service.
I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 375 in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). I urge any hon. Members who have not appended their names to the motion to do so.
I do not wish to detract from the bravery or the tragedy in the cases of the three firefighters to whom I have referred: I merely say that the risks that they faced are those that every firefighter faces every day of his or her working life. I am concerned that the closure of Shooters Hill fire station will increase the time that it takes a fire engine to reach the scene of a fire--in other words, the attendance time. It is clear that the later a fire appliance reaches the scene, the more at risk is the building and the occupants. Greater also is the risk for the firefighters, whether from flames, suffocation or falling debris.
In addition to the proposed closure of Shooters Hill fire station, three other stations in London have been put up for closure, with the removal of a further 22 appliances across London. There is no doubt in my mind that the response and attendance times of the London fire brigade will be increased if the proposed closures go ahead. The Minister did not deny that when replying to the debate on the Downham station: he simply said that the Home Office minimum standards could still be met following the closures. That would mean forcing down standards.
At present, the London fire brigade response and attendance times are much better than those laid down as recommended minima by the Home Office. Is the Minister able to give an assurance that lives will not be put at risk or lost if fire engines arrive on the scene minutes later than they otherwise would have done?
If the cuts take place, it is likely that the Home Office minimum standards will apply in areas such as those covered by the Shooters Hill station. One appliance would need to arrive within 10 minutes, whereas under the London fire and civil defence authority's current arrangements one fire engine is targeted to arrive within five minutes and a second within eight minutes.
I have a list of examples which apply to Shooters Hill. First, there is the turnout to Eastcote primary school. The first appliance arrived within five minutes, the second within seven. Secondly, at Long Walk the first appliance arrived within three minutes and the second within seven. Thirdly, there was a call to Shooters Hill: the first
I shall quote briefly from some of the thousand or more letters that I received. One states:
Another says:
Another states:
Yet another says that
In the neighbouring borough of Lewisham, the number of appliances at Deptford--one of the poorest and most deprived parts of London--will go down from two to one. That is a short-term measure, but it will lead to the station's eventual closure. Similarly, my constituency contains some of the most socially deprived areas of London, with wards around Woolwich town centre having some of the highest levels of unemployment in the whole of London. One of the stations that is to serve Shooters Hill if the station closes is Plumstead--at the bottom of the hill.
Plumstead, however, also serves Thamesmead, a new town which has grown up over the past 20 years, with no additional cover and no resources. It is a high-risk area which originally was to have its own fire station, but now, sadly, there is no capital available for that, as its priority has been overtaken by other developments in London--for example, Heathrow. I do not dispute the priorities,but there is a need for additional resources.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) complained in the South London Press about the loss of an appliance at his fire station in Battersea. If Battersea is saved from the cuts, as he has been asking, that can only mean a closure and a cut elsewhere. I shall deal with the general resource situation later.
The area of the fire station which serves Thamesmead--Plumstead--is to be extended to cover Shooters Hill, when Thamesmead already faces risks due to the difficulty of access and to the construction of properties.
Shooters Hill fire station is perched on the top of Shooters Hill, in very hilly terrain where winter access is difficult. It serves the Memorial hospital in Shooters Hill, which houses elderly and mentally ill patients, as well as the newly designated Queen Elizabeth district general hospital. Other risks in the predetermined attendancearea include Falconwood station, Belmarsh prison and20 schools.
The total number of calls responded to by Shooters Hill has risen over the past two years. The Greenwich police consultative committee has expressed concern aboutits closure: that was the unanimous view of the52 community organisations represented on the committee. They pointed to the problems of traffic congestion and difficulty of access caused by the narrow streets and hilly terrain. Because of that terrain, indeed, Shooters Hill was at one time exceptionally provided with a four-wheel-drive appliance.
Shooters Hill is at the centre of the area served by Woolwich, Plumstead, Eltham, Lee Green, Bexley, East Greenwich and Sidcup fire stations--all one-appliance stations except Plumstead. If Shooters Hill closes, there will be a hole in the middle of the area. When two appliances are called out for either one call or two, an entire sector will be left without cover. Indeed, on one occasion, with the present number of appliances, when the Shooters Hill fire engine was detained on a call an appliance had to be sent from Poplar, across the river.
Under the "major incidents" plan, the Shooters Hill fire station area contains Eltham palace, the A102 motorway, the Blackwall tunnel, the Thames barrier, the Erith oil
works and the Valley, home of Charlton football club. Currently, the brigade's attendance time for anywhere in its area is three to four minutes, with a maximum of five. As I said earlier, the Home Office recommendation is eight to 10 minutes.
In London, it is normal practice to send two appliances to a property fire in a C-risk area. More than 70 per cent. of the Shooters Hill area is C risk. I take issue with the risk assessment. In an Adjournment debate last week,I drew attention to research carried out by the Greater Manchester fire authority, which states that the current risk categorisation puts property before life. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East: it seems strange that a higher priority is accorded to the buildings in which we are now than to the lives of pensioners in Woolwich. Like the Audit Commission, I believe that there is an urgent need for a fundamental review of fire cover to take account of changes. When will that review--recommended in the Audit Commission's report "In the Line of Fire"--be carried out?
Let me compare two incidents that have occurred in my constituency. One took place when Shooters Hill had two appliances, and the other when it had one. Four years ago, in Rowton road, four people had to be rescued from upstairs bedrooms. The crew worked very well; they passed the people on to the second crew, who carried out first aid and essential resuscitation. All four survived.
Two years later, when Shooters Hill had only one appliance, there was a serious fire in Llanover road. Again, the crews worked magnificently and did all that they could, but four children did not survive. I am not saying that it is certain that that happened because there was not a second appliance; perhaps the children were beyond help by the time they were found. It is in the minds of everyone, however--certainly those involved in the incident--that a second appliance might have made all the difference.
There is also serious concern about the safety of crews in the absence of a back-up vehicle. Do the Government believe that the minimum fire safety standard recommended by the Home Office is adequate for vast areas of our inner cities? I suggest that it is not. Part of the Shooters Hill area is classified as D risk, and there are a number of such areas on the fringes of Greater London. Is the Minister really saying that it is reasonable for people living in a D-risk area to have to wait 20 minutes for a fire engine to arrive? When will we see the fundamental review requested by the Audit Commission?
In a letter to the leader of the London fire and civil defence authority, Baroness Blatch said that fire officers should be given "flexibility within existing standards" as an interim measure, but that
That--
(1) at the sitting on Wednesday 14th February, the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to the Local Government Reorganisation (Compensation for Loss of Remuneration) Regulations 1995 not later than Ten o'clock;
(2) at the sitting on Thursday 15th February, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mrs. Secretary Bottomley relating to the Agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the British Broadcasting Corporation not later than Ten o'clock; and
(3) at the sitting on Monday 19th February, Standing OrderNo. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents) shall apply to the Motion in the name of SecretarySir Patrick Mayhew relating to the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 with the substitution of the words 'three hours' for the words 'one and a half hours' in line 4.--[Mr. MacKay.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. MacKay.]
2.35 pm
"As well as the threatened closure of Shooters Hill Fire Station, there is also the proposed withdrawal of one fire engine from East Greenwich Station. This will seriously affect the capacity of the fire service to respond to calls and emergencies.
The people of Greenwich are rightly deeply concerned at these threats to our local fire service--witness the massive postbags which both of us have had on this subject."
"Within the last week one of my neighbours had an electrical fault within his house, the resultant fact is his house caught on fire and rapidly spread throughout the whole house. The fact that the Fire Brigade responded very quickly I believe saved this man's life. Further cut backs may have had a completely different effect to this man's LIFE."
"Having had a house fire in 1985 the fire service was quick to respond and save the house from being destroyed so I feel that I am in a position to know how important it is to keep this and other stations open."
"I am particularly anxious about this matter following a serious incident last weekend only nine houses away from my home . . . a delay of even two minutes could have resulted in the deaths of immediate neighbours."
"within the last few years, the house just across the road from me caught fire and it was only the quick response of the Shooters Hill station that put the fire out, quickly and efficiently and allowed the
9 Feb 1996 : Column 628family there to continue in residence. If it were not for the rapid response time, it would almost certainly have resulted in them having to find alternative accommodation whilst the house was repaired, with all the trauma and upheaval that would have followed."
"in the meantime, existing standards continue to apply".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |