| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.28 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham): I welcome the motion, for just one reason. I appreciate the opportunity that it gives me to pay tribute to the professionalism and the courage of the men and women in the fire service, and particularly those in the fire brigade that covers my area, the London fire brigade. I am surprised, however, that the Opposition should wish to spend their time attacking the operation of the fire service, for there is nothing to attack--certainly not the men and women who risk their lives to save others, the efficiency of the organisation behind them, which the Audit Commission praised so highly, or the safety of cover provided. Her Majesty's fire inspectorate sees to that, and there are minimum safety standards, with the vast majority of fire services providing cover well in excess of that. I should not be entirely surprised at the Opposition going down that route, bearing in mind their quite scurrilous attempt to run scares and play on false fears that they, along with certain officials in the Fire Brigades Union in my area, have conjured up.
People were induced to sign a petition--I have nothing against people signing petitions--on the reorganisation of the London fire brigade. The only problem is that when people were asked to sign it, they were told, first, that cuts were coming but not that those suggested cuts were only the initial response of the Labour-controlled authority, which it later significantly reduced. Secondly, people were told that the cuts were coming from the Government, which was not true, because the reorganisation plans were drawn up by the Labour-controlled London fire and civil defence authority.
Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North):
Is my hon. Friend aware that the LFCDA had about £27 million in reserve? Is he further aware that the London fire brigade was considering purchasing a helicopter for the chief fire officer at enormous expense, which would have incurred enormous running costs, while at the same time considering closing fire stations and doing away with some appliances? It is quite disgraceful.
Mr. Merchant:
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The £27 million about which he spoke, which even the LFCDA's finance officer said needed to be drastically reduced, ought to be set against the £6 million or£7 million that it claimed it had to save and was trying to cut from its running budget. In other words, it has far in excess of what it said on which to draw, to cover the deficiency that it said existed.
People who were asked to sign the petition were misled about that and also led to believe that there would be reductions forthwith. Yet any plans for reductions in fire
cover need the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. That approval is given only if Her Majesty's inspectors consider that the reductions are safe.
Thirdly, people were shown lists of proposed closures, all of which have been lifted, and reductions, a large proportion of which have been withdrawn, but not told at any stage of the extra pumps being introduced at some stations and of the new stations that were being planned. It is not surprising that people signed that petition. They signed it in false knowledge, with false expectations, so the petition is invalid.
In my constituency, cover will be improved in the final plan that has been forwarded to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I thank the London fire chief for achieving that. At Beckenham fire station, there will be fewer off-ground calls principally because an extra pump is being installed at West Norwood. That, too, will help my constituency because its western side, which abuts the Norwood and West Norwood fire station area, will receive better cover. Otherwise, the cover in the immediate boundaries of my constituency will remain the same, including in Downham, where the proposed closure of the fire station has been withdrawn.
I freely acknowledge that there is a wider picture, too. I also acknowledge that there is a need for some change. People are always afraid of change, but in the fire service, as in other areas, change is necessary at times because circumstances, such as where people live and the nature of risk, also change. I am all in favour of that being regularly reviewed.
The London fire chief very honestly and professionally faced those facts when he drew up his recent report on future fire cover. He said that the
that is, from some of the county councils that then existed. It is that long since the location of the stations was closely examined. He says that the cover has been largely unchanged for many years and states:
Plainly, improvements could be brought about by some change there. His report also states:
That is elegantly put. The report continues:
He says that such stations may become surplus to requirements when an opportunity arises of a site to replace two stations by one that is more centrally located. That makes sense.
One other example among many that I should like to share with the House is a description of the present cover on the river. The fire chief states:
That all shows that not everything needs to be changed, nor that there must be drastic cuts, none of which has been suggested. The report suggests a need for constant
change and improvement, which are part of dynamic fire cover. That is what the fire chief, the expert, says, and I am happy to agree.
There must be no cuts for financial reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) said in his intervention, the London fire brigade is well funded by Government grant and by constituent authorities and has £27 million in reserve. I do not for a moment suggest that the reserve should be drawn upon, but in view of this year's deficit, there are ample funds. The minor changes in cover that the authority suggests should successfully achieve the objective of meeting the budget and providing high-quality cover.
The authority's first responsibility must be to provide high-quality cover, but it also has a responsibility to the taxpayer to achieve value for money. I am surprised that anyone should question that. I am in favour of achieving that as long as the quality of cover is not jeopardised, and I think that that is what the fire chief is striving to achieve. I commend him for that.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
There is no greater hypocrisy than to praise men and women who put their lives on the line and refusing to pay their dependants pensions. It is also hypocritical to say that they provide a marvellous service while refusing to fund their pension entitlement or the college that will train them, and refusing to make provision for the new unitary authorities that will have great difficulty in funding the changes. Above all, it is wrong to make it impossible for firefighters, who every day of their lives protect our constituents, to provide a high-quality service. There will not be replacement of their equipment, training or the necessary funding.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North):
I congratulate everyone who has taken part in the debate on this important subject, which we chose because, throughout the country, there is much concern about many aspects of the fire service.
It is a pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins) on his maiden speech. I have listened to many such speeches--I made one as a by-election victor--but his speech was witty and in keeping with the best traditions of the House: it was, of course, entirely non-political. I in particular and, I am sure, hon. Members look forward to many more speeches from him. I am sure that his stay in the House, like that of one of his distinguished predecessors whom he mentioned, Sir Thomas Guy, will be long.
"present pattern of stations is inherited from predecessor authorities"--
"It did not take fully into account the overall pattern of cover across the whole area."
"A number of the older stations were built in an era when fire cover was provided by horse-drawn, steam-operated appliances or in the earliest days of the internal combustion engine."
"As such, they were built close together to provide a suitable level of cover before the development of the present Home Office guidance on fire cover."
"The service offered at present through the very nature and design of the vessels is considered to be inefficient and expensive with the fire boat frequently taking so long to attend the fire call that the incident is handled by other appliances and crews and the fire boat is turned back before actually reaching the incident."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |