House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Nov 1997 (pt 25)

8.10 pm

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Obviously, I welcome the fact that the official Opposition are completely behind the Government in pushing the Bill through the House, as are the Liberal Democrats. It is an important Bill and I think that the whole House accepts that. Some of the welcome was perhaps less whole-hearted than it might have been under the circumstances.

I shall try to deal with a number of the issues of substance that were raised. Clearly, ratification is an important issue. There can be no doubt about that. I do not think that there is an argument that the treaty, as structured, went about the process of ratification sensibly. In the end, there has to be a global treaty to move the whole world forward. Therefore, we need ratification by all 44 states identified as would-be ratifiers to bring the treaty into operation.

It is a matter of fact that the present and the previous British Governments have been active in pursuing precisely that process on a global scale. In fact, we have taken part with our European Union colleagues in demarches to all the countries that have not already signed the treaty. We will continue to be active in that way, and we will certainly continue to pursue those who have not

6 Nov 1997 : Column 465

signed and who look as if they do not want to ratify, and draw to their attention the fact that there is not only a moral but a practical imperative that they should take part in that process. Yes, we will be engaged and we will look for support from the whole House for our activities.

I am a little concerned that there should be doubts about the position of the United States. In a letter to the Senate seeking consent to ratification in September, President Clinton said:

"The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is of singular significance to the continuing efforts to stem nuclear proliferation and strengthen regional and global stability. Its conclusion marks the achievement of the highest priority item on the international arms control and non-proliferation agenda. Its effective implementation will provide a foundation on which efforts to control and limit nuclear weapons can be soundly based."

With that sort of endorsement, doubts about the attitude of the White House are misplaced. The White House certainly is using and will use its influence with the Senate; so do we with our American allies. If we explained to the American President that there were doubts in Britain about his role, he might take that as a slight on his intentions and his actions.

North Korea is already a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, which binds it not to test. Of course, that is not the same as signing the CTBT, and we want Korea to sign and to ratify it. That is important, and we will continue to put pressure on the North Koreans in every way we can, along with our allies and the world community. It is important to recognise that this is not some relic of the cold war, with part of the global divide pitted against others. The whole of the P5--Britain, the United States and France obviously, but also Russia and China--are as one on this treaty. We collectively have a common interest in ensuring that North Korea is party to the treaty. While we cannot give guarantees on that, the international community is collectively engaged on that issue.

I was asked about Iraq. Obviously, the position there is serious and we are greatly concerned. There may have been a slight easing of the Iraqi position, but the British Government's position is clear. We are absolutely committed to the role of the United Nations. We have been major contributors to the debate at the United Nations and we will continue to pursue the issue in a way that makes it clear to the Iraqis that there can be no compromise. The world cannot and will not allow compromise in that area. There should be no ambiguity there.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised a number of questions. To be slightly churlish in response to the slight note of churlishness that I detected from the hon. Gentleman, I thought that a little confusion was emerging. On the one hand, he said that Britain should do more in the area of sub-critical tests and maintaining our independent verification capacity, but he also raised doubts raised about whether those were necessary or were simply a prelude to a more dangerous and unstable world. Our position and that of all those who

6 Nov 1997 : Column 466

negotiated the treaty is that the need to maintain a safe and reliable system under the CTBT allows for those sorts of test.

Mr. David Heath: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not equating computer simulation with sub-critical testing, because they are not identical. I would certainly differentiate between them. Britain should be engaged in developing the one; the other is unhelpful to the process. I had certainly hoped not to seem churlish about the Government in anything I said and I very much welcome the views that the Minister has expressed.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I simply say that safety and reliability are what we are about. That is also what the Americans and others are about. We believe that the international monitoring system works and should allow for the detection of explosions as small as 1 kilotonne on a global basis. That is a significant reassurance. It is far more than exists now. The simple truth of the treaty is that if it is brought into operation and ratified, it will provide the opportunity for inspections to be challenged and bring in a regime that the world lacks. In so doing, it will enhance the safety of the world. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

8.17 pm

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): I thank the Chair for this opportunity to speak on the Adjournment about the London fire service and an issue that is topical and of immense concern to the people of London, who value the security provided by the service and are worried about the way in which it is being eroded.

The subject is topical for two reasons. First, I think that a request to approve specific cuts in fire service provision in London is sitting on the Minister's desk. It is also topical in a slightly broader sense, in that, within a few days, it will be the 10th anniversary of the King's Cross disaster, which was the last really catastrophic fire in London.

In preparing for this debate, I read some of the Fennell report on that disaster, and it makes striking reading. The great courage and professionalism of the firefighters comes across, as does the importance of precision timing, which is a matter of discipline, training and good management, as well as of equipment, of where the equipment is, and of the number of firefighters available. That ultimately comes down to resources--to money--and that is the subtext of our debate.

I want to speak from a Londonwide standpoint, but I also have a parochial interest. We have not had a catastrophic fire in Twickenham, but in recent memory there were two major events: the loss of a substantial part of our Tudor heritage in the Hampton court fire; and the devastating fire on Eel Pie island--a scenic spot that some hon. Members may know--that took out many industrial buildings and wiped away the livelihoods of many local artisans.

Fortunately, no loss of life was involved, but my constituents are very aware of the risks of fire. That awareness has been heightened by the fact that we have been the subject of severe cuts. In the cuts at the beginning of this year, we lost one of the three appliances in the local stations and another is shortly to be moved; we have effectively lost two thirds of our firefighting capacity. I am not an expert and do not know precisely what that means for response times, but common sense suggests that when cuts take place on a large scale the capacity of the fire service to respond to disasters is correspondingly diminished.

The London fire and civil defence authority has had to recommend the closure of two more fire stations: one in the Barbican--the only one left in the ring of steel of the City--and one at Shooter's hill, while four others have been reduced to part-time status. The problem is that that is neither the beginning nor the end of the process. Earlier in the year, 12 appliances were removed. Downham and Addington are on the long list of other places under threat, and many people are anxious about the future of their stations.

It is not merely a question of the approval of closure of particular stations and appliances; behind that--this is the nub of the debate--is a severe financial crisis. London Members will have received a letter from the chief fire officer, setting out the nature of the authority's financial problems. In the coming financial year it faces a deficit of about £21 million.

6 Nov 1997 : Column 468

That deficit has not come out of the blue and is not a one-off event. As the chief fire officer clearly explains, the service has been trying to economise for years. It could not possibly be described as spendthrift or profligate; it has made savings of about £28 million a year; 10 per cent. of the staff have been cut in the past five years; and substantial reserves--£18 million, I believe--have been put towards preventing further closures.

The serious financial problem is marked out from those of other Government services by the extreme rigidity with which the service's finances have to be conducted. That rigidity stems from several elements. The service is a single-purpose local authority and does not have the capacity of local councils or the Government to switch resources from one activity to another. Rigidity is also a result of the capping system that the Government inherited. The capping limit is based on a highly restrictive spending assessment--allowing, I believe, less than 1 per cent. growth a year--that is far below the expenditure needs.

The system has been crippling for the service because its two main items of expenditure are entirely beyond its control and are growing considerably. One, which was determined only a couple of weeks ago, after the closure decisions were announced, is an increase in firefighters' pay of 4.8 per cent. a year--somewhat beyond the retail prices index. I do not begrudge firefighters extra pay, but it should be reflected in the financial provision for the service.

More serious even than pay is the problem of pensions. The service suffers the same problem as the police, some other parts of the public sector, and whole countries such as Italy, in that it is dependent on a pay-as-you-go system of pensions. About 20 per cent. of the service's budget now goes on pensions and the cost is escalating rapidly;I believe that there was 20 per cent. growth in pension provision last year, and about 50 per cent. over the past five years. A little mental arithmetic will show the Minister that far more money is needed than is being made available from central Government.

The problem is getting worse, partly for the good reason that firefighters are living longer. We all welcome that, but it means that their pension entitlements continue for longer. A special problem is looming: about 3,000 firefighters are due to retire in the next few years because of the bunching of recruitment in the 1970s, and each one of them will be entitled to a pension of about £10,000 a year.