| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now turn to the next debate.
Hornchurch Fire Station
12.30 pm
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch): I thank Madam Speaker for choosing this debate, which is a very important one for the people in the area represented by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Romford (Mrs. Gordon). I also thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who will reply to the debate.
I have been involved in the campaign to keep Hornchurch's second fire pump from even before the cut was announced--as there had been some indication that there would be such a cut. In the past three or four months, there has been a magnificent campaign--particularly by the Hornchurch fire fighters, who led the campaign, and by the people of Hornchurch--against the cut. A few weeks ago, we had a public meeting outside the fire station that attracted about 1,000 people, who were primarily from Hornchurch but also from Romford and Upminster. Previously, we had a public meeting that attracted about 200 people.
I have received about 1,000 letters on the issue, including one recently from officials and representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, who object to losing the engine both on health grounds and because of the area's many nursing homes--particularly in the more far flung and vulnerable parts of the ground--and other health facilities, such as our two hospitals and many doctors' surgeries. Two particularly far-flung nursing homes are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster.
Recently, Hornchurch fire fighters and I handed in to No. 10 Downing street a petition containing the names of 40,000 people who want to keep the second pump at Hornchurch. We also handed in to the London fire and civil defence authority, on Albert embankment, approximately 12,000 consultation leaflets that had been completed by local people, all of whom were against the cut and said that they were willing to pay more, in council tax and perhaps in other charges, to keep the fire pump in Hornchurch.
All of those representations have been ignored by the London fire and civil defence authority, which has treated the people of Hornchurch contemptuously. Tony Ritchie, the authority leader, and other authority members have simply brushed aside the opinions of the people of Hornchurch and those living in other parts of the ground, saying, "We're going to get rid of the pump anyway." They have been absolutely contemptuous.
Hon. Members should remember that since 1986, 63 pumps have been cut from Greater London fire stations, 14 of which have gone since the Docklands bomb--on a night when the London fire authority was pulling in pumps from as far away as Essex and Surrey. The cuts make us wonder whether we could cope in London if there was another, similar massive disaster. In addition to previous cuts, the LFCDA is planning to cut another five pumps across London. Today, however, I am dealing specifically with the Hornchurch pump.
The London fire authority has a £5 million reserve in the bank and, in the current financial year, an underspend of £6.5 million. Very likely, there will be an underspend
also in the next financial year. I therefore cannot understand why the authority insists on cutting the Hornchurch pump or the other four pumps. I shall certainly watch the future career of Tony Ritchie with great interest.
My ground of Hornchurch is one of the biggest--the second biggest--in Greater London. We have had two appliances since 1936, when Hornchurch was still a village. Many older people in the area still refer to Hornchurch as a village. In 1936, both Rainham, in the south, and Upminster were also tiny villages. Since 1936, there has been an enormous expansion not only in the population, which has increased many fold, but in roads. We now have the M25 and the A127, on which the Hornchurch pumps spend a great deal of time. Hornchurch's pumps spend a lot of time covering the A13 and the A12 also, although they are not in our ground. All of those roads are hugely busy, particularly at rush hour, taking people in and out of London.
There has also been enormous industrial development in the ground. The Fairview estate, for example--which is in the south of my constituency--often has to be covered by the Hornchurch pumps. Ferry lane, which also is in my constituency, frequently has fires and problems that must be attended by our fire brigade. All those developments--including increased industrialisation--have occurred in the past 50 years.
Traffic jams on the big roads--particularly the A13, A127 and M25--often entail enormous tailbacks. People leave the main roads, go on to back roads that they do not know very well, drive too fast and have accidents. Therefore, there are major problems on the back roads that also have to be attended by the Hornchurch pumps.
In the past few years, risk categorisation in the borough of Havering has been greatly reduced. At one time, parts of Romford were A risk, and Hornchurch was generally B risk. Now, the ground has nothing but C and D risk areas. That is unfair. Even on the basis of current risk assessment, there is no reason why Hornchurch and Romford should not be categorised as B risk. Arguably, parts of Romford should be classified as A risk.
Currently, the Home Office is conducting a fire cover review. I argue today--as I did in a previous debate on the subject--that, until the review is completed, there should be a moratorium on cuts in front-line fire cover in Greater London. I hope that the review will recommend using risk-based assessment. However, until the review is finished, we shall not know the future basis of fire cover. I believe that the use of risk-based assessment will ensure that there will be at least two pumps at Hornchurch for ever and a day.
In the past two years, the number of two-pump call-outs at Hornchurch has increased from 396--in 1997--to about 430 last year. There is not yet a definitive figure for 1998, but it will be at least 430. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in the number of two-pump calls, which is the crucial factor when considering cutting the second pump at Hornchurch fire station. Last year, the total number of calls was 1,410--not 960, as the fire authority claimed--which includes calls to fires in other grounds.
I put those figures to the authority leader, Tony Ritchie, but he failed to respond to them. At a meeting well before Christmas, I told him the figures; he failed to respond. Shortly before the meeting at which the authority decided to proceed with the cut of five pumps, I again gave him
the figures; again, he failed to respond. If he is prepared to treat a Member of Parliament like that, I wonder how he treats members of the public who approach him saying that they do not want any more cuts in the fire service. It makes the mind boggle.
In the past two years, the number of fire deaths in London have increased by one third. I cannot believe that that crucial fact--the huge increase in the number of fire deaths--is completely unconnected to the fact that there have been so many cuts in the London fire service. If we continue cutting, we shall have more loss of life and more serious injury.
Only last night, I discovered that--according to Hornchurch fire fighters--on Saturday, 30 January, Hornchurch was without fire cover for three hours: the station was empty, the pumps were out and no cover was provided by other stations. If Hornchurch is already going without fire cover for three hours on a Saturday--which is surely one of the station's busiest times--I should think that even the idea of cutting Hornchurch's second pump is simply dicing with death.
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing this debate and I endorse and support what he has said. Hornchurch fire station serves part of my constituency, as my hon. Friend said, and in particular Emerson Park, Cranham, Upminster and part of Harold Wood. That is a large area. In terms of area covered, my constituency is one of the largest in Greater London. It is no coincidence that Hornchurch fire station serves such a large area.
My constituents are very concerned at the chief fire officer's recommendation, which has now been endorsed by the London fire and civil defence authority. I share their concern. Like my hon. Friend, I live in the ground covered by Hornchurch fire station. I have been inundated by representations and messages of support for the campaign against the decision. My postbag is full of complaints from constituents; I am lobbied every time I walk down the high street and my friends and neighbours constantly raise the issue with me. It is a big issue in the area.
I had the opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago on the London fire services obtained by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I raised a number of points to which my hon. Friend the Minister helpfully said that he would respond in writing. I look forward to his response. I shall not repeat those points today, as I know that time is short, but I take this opportunity to request an early meeting with
my hon. Friend the Minister to make further representations to him on behalf of my constituents, who are very worried. In the mean time, I urge him to consider the enormous number of representations that I know are being sent to him and to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
There is a strong case for a postponement of the decision. I know that the risk-based assessment for fire cover is being reviewed. Changes in the London emergency services will come about as a result of the Greater London Authority Bill. I know that the finances of the LFCDA could tide us over until those changes happen.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |