| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on initiating this debate on the London fire service. At the risk of damaging his reputation, I also congratulate him on the measured and thoughtful way in which he presented the subject. He alluded to the fact that his style is in sharp contrast to that of his predecessor. He was perhaps not so amusing as his predecessor, but he was thoughtful nevertheless.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members and their constituents about the quality of fire services, and I am aware of the sensitivities that inevitably surround proposals that change existing arrangements for fire cover.
Given that the performance of the fire service has been raised in the debate, implicitly and, in some cases, explicitly, I feel that I should comment on the service's performance in the country as a whole, and specifically in London. As hon. Members have made clear, we have reason to be proud of the service. The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the response to the King's Cross disaster; that is a good example of the service's response to difficult situations and the way in which it gives of its best--often in fraught conditions--earning the deserved pride and support of both the House and the general public.
It is a privilege for me, holding the office that I hold, to work with a service that is so highly regarded by the public: a service which, as has been said, is courageous, which is on the whole well led and which achieves such high standards of performance. Those qualities were recognised in the 1995 report of the Audit Commission's study of the fire service, entitled "In the line of fire".
Several of my hon. Friends--and, indeed, the hon. Member for Twickenham--raised the subject of the 1947 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) reminded us that this year marked its golden anniversary. "In the line of fire" raised many issues connected with fire risk assessment and the way in which the London fire service should operate, and there are important lessons to be learnt from it. I shall say more about that shortly, but I think that we should first accept--as several hon. Members have said--that the conditions in which the fire services operate, and the type of work that they have to do, have changed considerably since 1947.
Let me make a simple point which I think illustrates that very well. As I was not born then, I shall take it on trust that, to those who wandered the streets of London or any other major city in 1947, traffic levels alone would demonstrate the stark difference between the risks that existed then and those that exist now. It is necessary only to travel around London at any time during the week to realise how difficult the position now is.
Having said that, I must point out that the 1947 Act--initiated under the Labour Government of the day--has, until recently, stood the test of time very well. It has been adapted, the fire services have operated within it and its basic principles were very good. We should not underestimate the Act; but that does not mean that it does not need to be modernised. We all recognise that a much more modern approach is needed to the way in which we assess risk and provide fire services.
Each year, the Audit Commission publishes a report on performance indicators for local authorities. In its latest report, for the year 1995-96--published in March--the commission said that the fire service was
The Government are intent on building on the solid foundations that already exist. There will be more emphasis on partnership, and we intend to forge ever-closer links with fire service interests: trade unions, the local authorities concerned--single-purpose or otherwise--and chief fire officers. It is a cornerstone of our attitude to local government that we take a partnership approach, and respect and recognise the legitimate interests that are brought to bear on fire and, indeed, other services.
Let me say a little about the duties of fire authorities. The fire service is, of course, a local authority service. Statutory responsibility for providing fire services rests with the local fire authority--in London, the London fire and civil defence authority. Under the 1947 Act, it is for the fire authority to secure, among other things,
Section 19 of the Act provides safeguards to ensure that the statutory responsibilities are met. Subsection (4) requires that a fire authority cannot reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances and fire-fighting posts without the express consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend will grant his approval only if the following conditions are satisfied. First, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail and with adequate time,to enable any interested party to make proper representations. Secondly, those representations must have been considered by the fire authority. Thirdly, Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services must have advised that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained if the proposals are ever to be implemented.
The existing agreed and published criteria make it clear that the Home Secretary will also take into account any representations that are made directly to him. I invite any hon. Member--indeed, anyone with an interest in the subject--to make representations in connection with section 19 applications: my right hon. Friend and I will give them all due consideration.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, we have now received a section 19 application from the London fire authority seeking approval for the closure of the fire stations at Shooters Hill and the Barbican, and new arrangements for the provision of fire cover on the River Thames. Until now, there have been no strong representations about the proposals for the Thames, although such representations may emerge; but I have already received written representations from hon. Members about Shooters Hill. I do not think that any representations have yet been received about the Barbican proposals. We shall consider representations and, as part of that process, seek technical advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services. I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will listen carefully to representations by hon. Members, interested organisations or individuals who wish to comment on the proposals.
I strongly assure the House that, having taken technical advice, we shall not approve any decision that we are advised would place the lives of Londoners at risk. It would be improper for me to give any indication of our likely reaction to the proposals. However, we would not agree to a proposal unless there were overwhelming grounds and we were satisfied that no lives would be put at risk.
On the issue of fire cover, the London section 19 proposals follow recommendations that were made in the authority's review of fire cover, which was published in December 1995, and subsequent follow-up work. All fire authorities regularly review fire risks in their area to ensure that the brigades' deployment of resources is updated in the light of changing circumstances. I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned Downham. That has been discussed, but I confirm that it forms no part of the section 19 application that is currently before us. As there is no proposal for that fire station at this time, it is not being considered.
Levels of fire cover are determined locally against nationally recommended standards that dictate the initial response to a fire in terms of weight and speed of attack. They rest on four main standards of service according to the risk category of the area, and they assume for each category that a predetermined number of fire-fighting appliances should attend within a certain time. The standards are not just recommended nationally: they are nationally agreed by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is constituted under the Fire Services Act 1947 to represent fire service interests in advising the Home Secretary. I have chaired the two most recent meetings of that body and I know that it takes its responsibilities very seriously. The standards were extensively reviewed in 1985 by the advisory councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. The standards have enabled all concerned to know where they stand on the minimum level of service that should be delivered.
The Audit Commission recommended in 1995 that there should be another review of the level of fire cover. The hon. Member for Twickenham spoke about that. The commission recognised that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. I assure the House that we shall carry out such research on any proposals that are received under the process. A review of fire cover standards is being undertaken by a joint committee of the advisory councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. That research is under way, and I look forward to receiving the committee's report in due course.
I shall now deal with fire service budgets because in many ways they are the heart of the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members. Fire authorities have to set their budgets within the overall framework for local government spending, and that currently includes the criteria that are set for council tax capping. In London, the fire authority's revenue budget for 1997-98 is£267 million--the limit that is permitted under council tax capping policy and some £13 million or 5 per cent. above its standard spending assessment.
The Government are committed to ending crude and universal capping as soon as possible. In July, in collaboration with local government, we announced a review of local government finance which, among other things, will help to put in place the changes that are needed to deliver that commitment. In the meantime, capping will remain in place for 1998-99 and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will announce his provisional capping principles later this year. I assure the House that that announcement will be made in good time so that people will know where they stand.
Under current arrangements, it is open to authorities to set budgets that are higher than the provisional capping limit and to apply for redetermination of the cap if they think that they cannot set budgets that would allow them to meet their statutory obligations. There were examples of that happening under the previous Government.
The hon. Member for Twickenham spoke about capital expenditure. Obviously, we are watching that carefully. Eight private finance initiative projects are currently in existence through which the Government are helping local authorities. One such project is in London and it is getting, I think, £70,000 in consultancy support to see how it can benefit from the PFI proposals. Although no immediate relief is available in terms of the overall limits, we are considering carefully and constructively how the PFI can be taken forward and used in that context.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North, for Hendon and for Poplar and Canning Town mentioned the wider question of fire service funding, as did the hon. Member for Twickenham. I do not pretend that the problems of funding public services are easy, or that the funding problems that we inherited can be resolved overnight. The hon. Gentleman graciously accepted that--and I was pleased that, for once, no one suggested that the matter could have been resolved by a penny on income tax. He conceded that we had inherited a very difficult situation from our predecessors.
Although, in view of the constraints on its funding, I commend the fire service for maintaining its performance, I am well aware of the financial pressures confronting London and many other fire authorities. Those have been fully represented by myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in our discussions with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and in representations that have been made to the Treasury on the SSA settlement.
I can say no more now, but it is fair to say that, in the past few weeks, several of my hon. Friends have represented those concerns to me, not in the Chamber but elsewhere. It is also fair to say that the observations that have been made tonight will be given full weight in our deliberations during the next few weeks, and that both Councillor Ritchie and the chief fire officer, Brian Robinson, have had the opportunity to raise those matters with me privately in a meeting, and I am well aware of their concerns.
The Government are committed to sticking to planned overall spending allocations for the first two years of our time in office, but that should not rule out adjustments of priorities within those totals, as hon. Members conceded. I am well aware of the 4.8 per cent. pay settlement that was announced a week ago, and obviously that will form part of our considerations.
We are examining spending throughout government in the comprehensive spending review, to discover what the current priorities are and where they may be shifted. That gives us a further opportunity to consider some of the problems and the fundamental issues and spending priorities in the fire service, looking at standards of fire service cover, fire safety, funding and the structure of the fire service. I hope that we make progress on that.
We are committed to a consultative approach, and I expect that consultation process to start from the end of November. The Home Office has worked closely with the Local Government Association and other fire service interests to assess future fire service spending pressures and to look at the scope for efficiency savings. This year's report of the local authorities' fire service expenditure forecasting group has drawn particular attention to the pressures in respect of pensions, training and fire safety. Each of those issues is being addressed differently.
The hon. Member for Twickenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned difficulties with pensions. Hon. Members will be aware that the previous Government commissioned a review of the fire service pension fund. I regularly asked them when they would publish it, and I had begun to believe that it had disappeared into the ether, but lo and behold, to their credit, when we entered office I found that it was advanced and that work was being done on it.
I intend to publish the findings of that review as soon as it is practicable to do so, but I must tell the House that there is no easy solution to the problem. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that he suspects that a cheque book may be needed somewhere along the line. There is no cheque book. Any solution must be a long-term solution: it cannot be implemented overnight. It will be many years before we can get the pension scheme into the type of balance that we would expect. There are many suggestions as to how that can be done and we will have to make a choice at some stage. None of those suggestions, however, lead us to the conclusion that the matter can be resolved speedily.
Decisions on the provisional local government settlement for England for 1998-99 will be announced within the month. There has been some wild talk--although not in the House tonight--and it has been reported in the media that difficulties will be experienced in London. I do not believe that at this time it is either necessary or appropriate for anybody, whether in the fire service or among the general public, to panic. As I said earlier, no decisions will be made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or me that will put lives in jeopardy.
The most sensible thing for all concerned is to await next month's announcement. When that announcement is made, I ask that people compare what we have
achieved with the achievements of the previous Government, which, as many people have said, is a fairly sorry record.
I can assure hon. Members that fire service funding pressures, including those for London, are noted and are being carefully considered. When the figures are announced next month, I will be happy to be judged on the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have noted those pressures and taken them into account. I hope that, when that happens, hon. Members will feel that we have done right by the fire service in England.
Question put and agreed to.
"one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government. Most brigades achieved national standards for at least nine out of ten fire calls during all three years from 1993-94 to 1995-96, with the poorest performances significantly improving over this period. These improvements were achieved with increases in spending no higher than the level of inflation."
The financial difficulties that all hon. Members have mentioned applied at that time, particularly in London. The increase in standard spending assessment was 1.1 per cent. in 1994-95; 0.8 per cent. in 1995-96; 0.4 per cent. in 1996-97; and zero per cent. in 1997-98. Against a background of real-terms decline in resources, however, the service has continued to improve.
"the services for their area of such a fire brigade and such equipment as may be necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements."
The fire authority sets the budget for its brigade, and it is up to it to ensure that that budget is set at such a level that its statutory responsibilities can be properly discharged.
6 Nov 1997 : Column 479Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |