| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Darvill: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am aware of her work in that campaign.
I am seriously concerned that a reduction in the number of appliances in London will mean that the LFCDA will not be able to maintain strategic cover to the acceptable standard required by my constituents.
The ability to save lives is a very serious matter. It is clear that the emergency services now have the ability to save more lives than ever before. One of the reasons for the continued advances in their lifesaving ability is the improvement in paramedic support in ambulances and the involvement of specialist teams of doctors who attend serious incidents, especially road traffic accidents--RTAs.
I am advised that the attendance of firefighters and appliances at serious RTAs and in other situations where accident victims are trapped is often essential to ensure that those victims are released quickly from their entrapment, thus enabling doctors and paramedics to stabilise their condition and ensure that they are transported speedily to intensive care facilities.
Although many RTAs happen on highways other than motorways, it should be noted that the appliances to be removed are situated in outer London stations closest to the M25. If the number of fire appliances throughout London is reduced by five, the ability to respond to such situations will be diminished, so the recommendation should not be implemented.
Another primary reason for opposing the recommendations is risk-based assessment. I note that in section 3.13 of the review, the authority has recommended that the Home Office risk categories place undue emphasis on the value of property, as opposed to prevention of injury and loss of life. The current risk categories do not appear adequately to reflect the complexity of risk in densely populated urban areas.
Section 5 of the review deals with issues likely to impact on the provision of fire cover in future. I note that a range of matters is currently under active consideration, which is likely to result, possibly within two years, in a new risk-based approach to protecting the community from the effects of fire. In light of all the points set out in section 5, the main thrust of which I agree with, I believe that the recommendations to reduce the number of fire appliances in London should at least be postponed until after the matters under active consideration have been determined.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Fifteen years' of constituency experience leads me to share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the move--perceived and often real--from people-based, densely populated area risk assessment to property-based assessment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be public consultation by the LFCDA--using all its evidence and expertise--on how to assess risk, and that only after the results of that consultation have been subject to scrutiny by bodies such as Parliament should the matter go back to Ministers and the fire authorities so that they can decide on the number of machines and personnel needed to respond to the perceived risk for a given area? That could apply not only in London but elsewhere. Unless we get the assessment of risk right, we shall never be able properly to project what is needed by way of appliances and personnel for 24-hour cover.
Mr. Darvill:
I do not disagree with that. I understand that the Home Office is examining those issues at the moment.
Any decision implemented now may need to be reversed in a relatively short time, and there could be adverse financial implications if fire appliances are removed and subsequently returned.
I acknowledge that ground calls, particularly at the Hornchurch station, have declined over the years--there are now 960 a year. Appendix C1 of the review sets out the possible impact on surrounding stations. I have queried that estimated impact, and have written to the chief fire officer, setting out my reasons for doing so.
It seems to me that insufficient weight is being given to off-ground calls and road traffic accidents. In fact, it appears that little or no account is being taken of RTAs. Greater significance should be attached to the service that the fire brigade renders at the scene of such accidents. In 1996 in the Hornchurch area alone, there were four fatalities, and 51 people were injured. In 1997, there were fortunately no fatalities but 31 people were injured; and up to mid-December last year, there were three fatalities and 31 people injured. Those are the figures for road incidents to which the fire brigade was called, not for road accidents in general. Also, 66 drivers and passengers needed releasing from cars involved in accidents. As I said, these statistics relate to the Hornchurch ground alone, but firefighters in Romford inform me that their experiences are similar.
I do not envisage any short, medium or long-term reduction in the number of RTAs that the fire service will be required to attend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch said, Hornchurch is close to the A13, A127, the A12 and the M25. However, it is not only on motorways and trunk roads that serious RTAs occur. In fact, it appears that they occur on the network of rural and semi-rural roads, mainly in the D fire risk category areas. These accidents occur when the M25, the A127 and the A12 are congested and motorists exit the main roads to use country lanes with which they are unfamiliar. These roads are narrow, unlit and much more hazardous. Drivers are unfamiliar with the conditions and, as a consequence, RTAs occur. The fire brigade is frequently called out in those circumstances. London is densely populated and built up, but the outer areas of London are linked with the countryside, and that is where the accidents that I have described take place. The reasons that have been set out so far are surely sufficient for opposing the proposed reductions.
The situation with the firefighters' pay formula and pension and the reduction in reserves are the main reason why we are in the present position. We should regard firefighters' pensions and pay as contractual obligations of the public. It is no good complaining about pensions or the level of the award. We have entered into employment contracts with those public servants and we must fund them properly.
I am aware that there are many difficulties, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to some of them in his reply. It is clear that public finances remain tight. Despite that, additional funds have already been directed to the fire service. Council tax precepts will not be able to meet the shortfall. Reserves have been depleted, but our constituents do not want to see reductions in fire cover, especially when they are being asked by the borough councils to pay increased council taxes that will be above the rate of inflation.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington):
The genesis of the problem has been thoroughly and more than adequately explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It is important that we recognise that the problem was identified a long time ago. I say that as the ex-chair of finance of the Greater London council. However, whenever the problem was identified, even in those dark mists of time, there was a lack of co-operation from central Government, and subsequently from individual boroughs, in addressing the problem.
I commend the stewardship of the London fire and civil defence authority after the GLC. I say as an aside that there were no pension holidays when the GLC was involved. The problem with the GLC's budget was that, in terms of revenue and capital, it was virtually capped by this House. In particular, I commend the stewardship of Councillor Tony Ritchie of the LFCDA after the abolition of the GLC. I have been present at meeting after meeting during which he has explained to borough leaders and Ministers--this happened year in, year out--that the problem was becoming worse year by year. I have listened to cant and hypocrisy from individual borough leaders. They went out on the streets campaigning against firefighting cuts while refusing to support an increase in the precept. Ministers argued against any further increase in support for the LFCDA to tackle funding problems while always promising reviews. That happened year after year without anyone tackling the problem. I do not blame the LFCDA for what has happened.
I heard what my hon. Friend and comrade the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said about management. I do not want to take up his comments. However, I know that at every consultation meeting at which I have been present, with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), management have made clear their attitude on finance. We are talking about a financial problem and not about service delivery. The best is being made, with limited resources, of a very bad job.
There have been various wage increases over the years. I and others have been campaigning since the days when I was with Terry Parry, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union--God rest his soul--during the first major dispute. In those days, we had a hard time even securing a decent standard of living for firefighters; some of them were on poverty wages while providing a good service.
Time after time, Governments have commended firefighters for the wonderful role that they play and then refused properly to remunerate them. That is complete hypocrisy. I commend the FBU on all its negotiations with the GLC as I commend the LFCDA subsequently. They showed a flexible approach in tackling problems jointly with management. They examined the budgets and
put forward options that involved changing working practices, sometimes to the detriment of their members, in an attempt to save jobs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |