| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.28 am
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this Adjournment debate. I have been trying to do the same, but he beat me to the punch in the ballot in November 1997, and he has done it again this time. I also congratulate him on getting here today. Yesterday, he was feeling distinctly unwell, but it is clear that the adrenaline has kicked in to enable him to open the debate so effectively.
I prepared for this debate by reading the Hansard report of the 1997 debate. That was an important debate, as is today's. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber hope that we will not need a similar important debate next year.
I was a member of the London fire brigade for 23 years, and I belonged to the Fire Brigades Union, so I have some familiarity with the service and its problems. However, I congratulate the LFCDA on the quality of the briefings that it has sent to the London Members of Parliament. Those briefings helped us to identify the exact nature of the problems that the authority has to face.
I shall deal with some general issues, before reinforcing the financial concerns--specifically about pensions--raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham. My starting point is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis): I believe that the fire service is extremely efficient. It received a glowing report from the Audit Commission in 1995, and last week's report and performance indicators show that the London brigade is operating at 91.5 per cent. efficiency.
That has happened against a backcloth of reductions since the Greater London council was abolished in 1986. The fire authority then assumed control of 10,000 staff, but the number has fallen to between 7,000 and 7,500 since then. Fire stations have been closed, appliances withdrawn and cuts made in various departments. Pressure has intensified year on year. Now we are threatened with the withdrawal of five more pumps this year.
All that has produced a consensus of disquiet stretching from the chief fire office, Mr. Robinson, to the councillors elected to the fire authority and the trade unions, the principal of which is the Fire Brigades Union, which represents operational firefighters. Despite the proud record of the London fire brigade, and of the fire service in general, the number of deaths and injuries in London and throughout the country has consistently been too high.
Most people understand that the politics of fire fit tidily with the Government's social exclusion initiatives, in the sense that the vast majority of people who die from fire are from the most vulnerable groups--the old, the sick, the poor and the disabled. There are distinct parallels between the Government's attempts to deal with social exclusion among the most vulnerable groups and what the service is trying to achieve by being more flexible in its responses. I commend the London fire brigade pilot scheme that is attempting to introduce smoke alarms to the Bangladesh community in Tower Hamlets, the Asian community in Ealing and pensioners in south London. Those are ways to improve precautions and safety in vulnerable communities.
A general difficulty for the fire service has been that the legislation creating it or allowing it to function has almost always been reactive rather than proactive. Even most recently, legislation has resulted from Hillsborough, Bradford and King's Cross. There is a powerful lobby for a new fire safety Act, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has been working on that. Such an Act could help brigades, including London's, by making it easier for business to understand and implement fire safety precautions; consequently, it would be easier to monitor and enforce those requirements.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, brigades such as London's have no opportunity to generate income from their expertise in training or fire safety. Such an opportunity would allow them to raise money to address their financial difficulties. The LFCDA is asking not for handouts from the Government, but for the power to help itself.
The main problem is the pension fund. Some people, including the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), have said that pensions are too generous and expensive. Anyone who has studied the fire service will know that its occupational pension scheme has been an appropriate acknowledgement of the nature of the job and the sacrifices and dangers involved in it.
However, there is a problem. When the fire service pension scheme was introduced, few people lived to collect their pensions. Contributions from firefighters went to local authority expenditures. Now, however, as a result of the shorter working week, health and safety changes and breathing apparatus, firefighters live to normal life expectancy rates. That is what makes the scheme expensive. There are today more retired firefighters from London than there are serving firefighters. The pressure on the pension scheme is intensifying.
The Government have considered the problem. In a written parliamentary answer on 31 March 1998, at column 466 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he sought views on the fire service pension scheme before 31 July 1998. On 6 November 1997, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, said that there could be no quick fix:
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) has tabled an early-day motion showing the clear cross-party support for action on the pressure on London fire brigade. I have outlined to my hon. Friend my misgivings about some words in his motion, but it rightly identifies the pension scheme as the critical aspect.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on last year's 3.9 per cent. increase in fire service expenditure. However, there was a 5.6 per cent. wage settlement, and, since wages account for 80 per cent. of the budget, that meant more pressure on the budget. London fire brigade's pension bill for this year is £77 million, and contributions are only £16 million. The retail prices index has risen by 60 per cent. since 1986, but the London fire brigade pensions bill has gone up by 284 per cent.
I commend the chief fire officer, the politicians on the fire authority, the Fire Brigades Union, the other unions and the public for highlighting the problems that cause us
to debate the problems again today. I level no criticism at individual Ministers, or even at the Home Office. The reality of our predicament is that the fire service budget amounts to less than 0.3 per cent. of public sector expenditure, making it extremely difficult for us to receive the attention that we believe the problems deserve.
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge):
I shall be brief, as many other hon. Members want to speak in an important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on obtaining the debate and allowing us to air our views. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), whose knowledge of and passion for the interests of firefighters and fire safety are well known throughout the House. I pay tribute to firefighters throughout London. We all know that they risk their lives daily in our cause.
In the London borough of Hillingdon, two pumps are threatened. One will be transferred from Hayes to Heathrow, and the other, at Hillingdon fire station, will be lost. There is all-party support in the borough for the retention of those services. I pay tribute to Councillor Anthony Way, who has actively represented the borough on the London fire and civil defence authority--I should point out that I am paying tribute to a Labour councillor. People are alarmed at the potential loss of those pumps.
"Any solution must be a long-term solution".--[Official Report, 6 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 478.]
However, the problems of the fire service pension scheme have existed for 10 or 15 years. The Tories did nothing, and we are grappling with them now. Even a solution to the problem of expenditure now running at 20 per cent. of the fire authority bill would not sort out the authority's financial difficulties for 20 years. The pressure is immediate, and it needs immediate attention.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |