| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham): I intervene as someone who lost a fire station in my constituency last year. Local people are concerned about the enormous amount of development that is taking place around Woolwich and the millennium dome. That development will increase the amount of fire cover that is required to be provided by local fire stations, which will reduce their ability to serve the local community.
Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps there is an opportunity for additional resources to be raised under the Greater London Authority Bill, with fire cover advice being provided through the LFCDA, where there is a great deal of expertise? I have in mind Canary wharf and what the LFCDA received for the advice that it gave in that instance. Perhaps we should examine that approach urgently.
Mr. McDonnell:
My hon. Friend makes a valid point which I shall move on to in a moment.
The thrust of our argument is that for the sake of us all we should stand back for a period and then tackle the problem once and for all, rather than having another round of cuts and decisions put off for another year--followed by another round of cuts next year and the year after. If the Government are about anything, they are about saying, "Let us tackle these problems objectively and seriously to secure a long-term future."
The situation is sometimes almost Pythonesque. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) may think that he has problems, but in my constituency I have the airport, the M25, the M4, the M40 and the A312. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and I share, as it were, Northolt. There are many bizarre proposals for the development of Northolt. In addition to that, I am in the middle of a single regeneration budget area. The massive development that has been proposed is not yet even at the planning stage, but it will go ahead because the money has already been allocated. We have the risk of terminal 5 and even a third runway. At the same time we are
cutting the very basis for tackling any firefighting problems that might arise as a result of the developments to which I have referred.
I was at Camden town hall as a local government officer on the night of the King's Cross disaster. I and others were present at a social services committee when the news came of the fire. Our job was to prepare the mortuaries for the dead. I remember all the lessons that we were supposed to learn from King's Cross about investment, resources and training in the long term. No more were we to have short-term measures or cuts. Even then, we were talking about risk assessment. However, the present risk assessments are archaic. They take no account of road traffic accidents.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) about the problem of rat running. Cars coming off the M4 and M40 rat-run through my constituency, as they do through Uxbridge. Deaths occur when this happens. Firefighters are called to attend these accidents. My constituency can be at risk because the gridlock in the area is such that we cannot get transport into it.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to agree that we should act on all fronts and on all sides. I agree with the proposal for a moratorium. There are three reasons why we want a breathing space in tackling the problem. First, the GLA is coming. That will give us an opportunity over the coming weeks to put new powers in place that will enable us to tackle the problems. We are in a position to give new powers to the new authority, if necessary, to increase charges, and to consider new forms of revenue funding that will stand us in good stead in the long term. Secondly, the review of risk assessments is forthcoming. Why jump the gun before that report is made? Thirdly, we must examine the pensions fund report from central Government that we have been promised. That will tackle the problem once and for all.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his success in the ballot for this debate. It is a timely opportunity for the House to discuss these matters before the meeting of the London fire and civil defence authority on 18 February. My only criticism of the hon. Gentleman is that all the solutions on which he concentrated would require more expenditure and he made no reference to the alternatives, as I shall, and as, I am sure, the Minister will.
Before I address the key issue, mostly in the form of questions to the Minister, I pay tribute to the courage and bravery of firefighters not only in London but throughout Britain. They are always there when we need them and they serve us well.
The key issue that the House and, on 18 February, the London fire and civil defence authority must address is the need to set a budget for the coming year. That will require difficult choices to be made. It may be that the only way in which a budget can be set and council tax precepts kept within Government guidelines will be to
implement the proposal to withdraw five pumps--about which there has been much discussion this morning--unless the Government relax the capping limit.
The first issue that I want the Minister to address relates to the LFCDA leaflet on the consultation document. One of the four options that was canvassed was that there would be no cuts at all and, as a result, there would be a 20 per cent. increase in council tax. The sums of money involved are not enormous, but the precept would go up by 20 per cent. The House needs to know what will happen if the consultation result demonstrates that a majority are in favour of paying more than the Government guideline. It is all very well to have consultation, but sometimes the answer may not be palatable to Ministers.
If the Government insist that the precept guideline must be adhered to, responsible councillors from all parties will have no option but to support the chief fire officer--
Mr. Efford:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway:
I have very little time in which to make my comments, and I did not intervene on any other hon. Member who spoke.
Responsible councillors will have no option but to accept the chief fire officer's recommendations, provided--this is the big caveat to which hon. Members have referred throughout the debate--that they are satisfied that fire safety standards are not compromised.
I sat through the debate with a sense of deja vu because there were similar debates when I sat on the Benches where the hon. Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) now sit. In my constituency, a two-pump station had one of its pumps removed, and there were petitions and expressions of local concern and anxiety.
I make two points about that to the House. First, the passage of time has revealed that the fire officer's assessment was correct. More important--this is the nub of the problem with the proposals--the cover provided is greater than the Home Office minimum standard, and that is the thrust of what is happening now. There is a limit to how far the policy can go. As long as a gap remains between what is provided in a given area and the Home Office minimum level of provision, there will continue to be opportunities to make such cuts.
I said that I would discuss alternatives to simply spending more money. The chief fire officer acknowledges that there is scope for greater efficiency and that great strides have been made on that in recent years. In the briefing that he sent to hon. Members, he seems to take pride in the fact that during the past seven years, £20 million per annum has been removed from the budget by efficiency savings, and that, of more than 800 staff reductions during that time, only 8 per cent. involved uniformed staff. That is a creditable performance, and the House needs to give credit where it is due.
Conservative Members agree that there are new ways of providing services. I listened to what the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said about liaison, but it must make sense to pursue greater liaison with other emergency services, and that is happening not only in London but in other parts of the country.
More can be done to prevent fires, and the private and commercial sector, in particular, has already done that. We need to redeploy resources to modernise delivery of
the service. We need to find new ways to increase income and attract sponsorship. There may be scope for amending the Greater London Authority Bill--I am delighted to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who is piloting the Bill through Committee for the Opposition--to provide the new authority with legal powers in its fire responsibilities. Will the Minister consider whether he agrees with that assessment?
My fundamental question for the Minister is whether the Home Secretary would accept the advice of the chief fire officer and approve the five pump withdrawals, if that decision is made. Does he agree with that? Has he been advised that the fire standard could be met if the five pumps were withdrawn? What advice has the chief inspector of fire services given on meeting the minimum standard? Has that advice taken account of the increased demand for the fire services to provide emergency cover to road traffic accidents on the M25, which runs through many of the areas that will be affected by the proposed pump withdrawals?
Has the Home Office done any research on the resource implications of the proposed shift from risk-to-property assessment to risk-to-life assessment, and with what result? What impact will that have on the fire cover standard, which underlies the proposals made by the chief fire officer for London?
I also want to ask the Minister about resources and efficiency savings. I am surprised that not one of the speakers in the debate referred to the fact that the Government have imposed a 2 per cent. efficiency saving per year for three years, which has of course exacerbated the shortfall of income against revenue currently experienced by the London fire service. Did Ministers know that there had been a 5.6 per cent. pay increase for the fire service when they were setting that 2 per cent. efficiency saving? Did they know that pension costs already accounted for over 20 per cent. of revenue and were getting worse? I agree with much of what has been said about the need to deal with pensions. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to debate that on another occasion.
Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to use up to £4.5 million of the London fire service's reserves? Does he accept, however, that that could not be repeated? Does he agree with those who express concern about the need for the new Greater London authority to have some reserves? How will Ministers measure whether the 2 per cent. efficiency increase has been delivered and not merely reflected in cuts and use of reserves? How does the Minister anticipate that the 2 per cent. efficiency savings will be delivered in years two and three?
I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town, but I am concerned that some of the comment in the Fire Brigades Union's latest magazine on the scale of potential cuts as a result of the second and third years of efficiency savings was rather alarmist. Perhaps we can address that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |