| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.41 am
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch): I am not surprised to see the Tory Benches almost empty, given the Conservative Government's record on the London fire service. Since 1986, three stations have closed, with the loss of 63 pumps and 1,200 jobs. During the same period, the number of calls has risen from 144,000 calls in 1986
to 188,018 in 1996--a massive increase. But the key figure is that, last year, household fire deaths rose from 67 to 89, an increase of about a third.
The chief fire officer, Brian Robinson, in his report, to which reference has already been made, makes it clear that he does not want any cuts. In section 4, he states that it would be
My local station of Hornchurch has had two fire engines since 1936, since when there has been a huge expansion in roads--the M25, the A127, the A13 and the A12, all big roads--which see a lot of accidents, resulting in many calls on Hornchurch station and those around it. There has been an enormous increase in the number of people living in Havering, Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster and an enormous expansion in the number of office blocks, particularly in Hornchurch and Romford.
In 1997, the number of two-pump calls made to Hornchurch station--this is the key test, because we are talking about cutting 1.5 per cent. of the force there--was 396, compared with last year's figure, which was about 430, a significant increase. Hornchurch will, therefore, be in real difficulty if the second pump disappears this year.
The total number of calls made to Hornchurch last year was 1,410. That is a great deal more than the official figure, because it includes 450-odd calls from neighbouring grounds. We are therefore talking about a busy station with a high number of two-pump calls.
That brings me to the Fire Services Act 1947, which does not recognise, for example, road traffic accidents, which are a major cause of calls on a station such as Hornchurch. That legislation was framed when there were many fewer cars--only a few hundred thousand--on the road, compared with 22 million today, most of which seem to whiz through Havering at one time or another. That has led to an enormous increase in the calls on Hornchurch station, and on Dagenham and Wennington and the Essex brigade, which has not been met by legislation.
During the past two years, I have discussed the problem many times with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I know that he is genuinely concerned about it. The fact that the duties of the fire service have changed enormously during the past 50 years should be recognised in legislation.
My main point today is to ask the Government to call a moratorium on the proposed cuts to the fire service--the five pumps that are under threat. The Home Office fire cover review currently in progress will, it is hoped, result in a risk-based assessment.
Ms Linda Perham (Ilford, North):
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaign in Hornchurch. Does he agree with other hon. Members that the main problem is the pensions issue, and that, unless that is addressed, the LFCDA, and its successor, the Greater London authority, will continue to face problems, such as that at my station
Mr. Cryer:
I certainly agree that there is enormous public support for the fire service, and the pension issue is a key problem. It takes up £70-odd million from a budget of about £300 million. Public support for the fire service in my area has been superb. The firefighters have mounted a magnificent campaign. Only last week, on one day alone, I, along with a number of firefighters from Hornchurch, handed in about 11,500 completed public consultation leaflets to the LFCDA offices at Albert embankment, just across the Thames. We also have a petition with 40,000-odd names on it, and I alone have had more than 1,000 letters, so the public support is there. Self-evidently, people clearly do not want to see cuts in the fire service.
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster):
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), and I associate myself with the remarks already made by my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer).
My constituency is served by Hornchurch fire station. I have studied in some detail the review of fire cover in London and have recently visited the Hornchurch station and the Romford station, which in part covers my constituency, where I have had extensive talks with the firefighters and local management. I have also visited the command headquarters on Albert embankment and had talks with senior officers there.
Since the publication of the review and the chief fire officer's recommendations, I have received many representations from constituents who are concerned not only about the Hornchurch station, but the other appliances at Addington, Hillingdon, Finchley and Heston. I am opposed to the recommendations and, although my constituents are concerned chiefly with Hornchurch, they associate themselves by implication with the other fire stations.
Of course I appreciate that the reductions in cover are driven primarily by financial factors. During my research, I became all too aware of the problems arising from the funding of the firefighters' pensions and the difficulties that this has imposed on the LFCDA. I shall deal with the financial aspects in a moment.
My primary reasons for opposing the reduction in the number of fire appliances are strategic cover, the ability to save life, risk-based assessment and various local
issues. On the subject of strategic fire cover, the review naturally refers to Home Office minimum standards. However, section 4.8 of the review reminds us that they are minimum standards, and no more than that. The standards to which we should aspire in the provision of public services--particularly emergency cover--should not be the minimum.
Section 4.10 of the review highlights the fact that each local station does not provide fire cover for a particular location. My concern is for the level of strategic cover: if we cut five fire appliances, I fear that in the event of a major incident such as the King's Cross disaster or the bomb on the Isle of Dogs, the London brigade will not be able to respond adequately and maintain reasonable cover for the rest of the metropolitan area. Although in the fullness of time the terrorist threat in London may abate, it is too early to be confident of that.
Furthermore, I believe that road congestion in London is almost certain to have an adverse effect on attendance times. Projected vehicle ownership statistics and average car journey times in London are surely relevant factors. London roads have been close to gridlock several times. Such occasions will inevitably increase, with adverse effects on emergency services. Sections 4.21 to 4.24 of the review state that in eight areas
Section 4.32 states that, in the chief fire officer's professional judgment, the minimum number of appliances that need to be kept ready to attend fires will be greater than the theoretical minimum needed to provide cover strictly in line with the Home Office's minimum recommended standards.
I concur with the point made in the review that there are strong arguments for keeping fire stations open and for the number of appliances not to be cut at stations covering areas of local deprivation. The key point is whether the right balance of strategic cover will be provided to maintain sufficient cover to ensure that the brigade remains able to respond effectively to major incidents and can deploy resources quickly if and when required.
Mrs. Eileen Gordon (Romford):
Will my hon. Friend join me in praising all the firefighters and members of the public who are fighting the cuts? Does he agree that perhaps the best plan of action would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said, be to impose a moratorium on the cuts until the Greater London authority and mayor are in place? After all, it is they who will decide the future of the fire service in London, and to hand over to them stations that have lost pumps which cannot be replaced would give them a bad start when they come to form an overall picture of fire services in London.
"preferable to make no reductions in the number of stations and pumping appliances until they can be considered in the context of the developing approach to protecting the community from fire and its effects."
One of the developments to which the chief fire officer refers is the Home Office review of fire safety cover, which is currently in progress, and will, I hope, lead to some pilot schemes in the near future with a shift towards a risk-based assessment.
"difficulties are being experienced in meeting recommended response times."
The loss of five more appliances in London could, indirectly, cause the recommended response times in the areas in question to deteriorate even further.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |