Corby Fire Services

Debate between Peter Bone and Andy Sawford

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) on securing this important debate, to which the excellent Minister with responsibility for fire, resilience and emergencies will respond.

As the hon. Gentleman said, east Northamptonshire relies a lot on the fire service in Corby and we share that fire service. There is a consultation going on so the House should not think that the proposed cuts will definitely happen. Listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, the House might have got the impression that Corby would go down from two pumps to one pump if the consultation suggestion were implemented. That is not the case. The consultation suggests that the second pump at Corby is replaced by a Cobra two-man intervention vehicle, so there would still be two pumps there.

I declare an interest. Ever since I was elected in 2005 I have shared a close interest in the fire service in north Northamptonshire, one of the reasons being that when I was fighting to be elected for the first time, the Labour-controlled county council was proposing to close a fire station in my constituency. We fought hard against that and after the general election, when I was elected, we managed to save the fire station. Never under the Conservative-controlled county council has a fire station in Northamptonshire been closed.

I pay my tribute to the men and women in our fire service in Northamptonshire. I also pay tribute to the people who run the fire service in Northamptonshire. They are leading the world with new technology. The Cobra intervention vehicle is new technology. What it does in certain circumstances is a quicker method of saving lives. It will also prevent flashbacks that kill firefighters. There is a significant role for the intervention vehicle. To the Government’s credit, that has been funded entirely by central Government; there has been no cost to the taxpayer in Northamptonshire. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that thousands of new homes are being built in Corby and across east Northamptonshire, and the number of businesses is expanding rapidly. In fact, only today I was with the Transport Secretary at Chowns Mill in my constituency, where we looked at the new roundabout improvements and road improvements that stretch between my constituency and Corby. They are being put in place because of the expansion in the number of houses and businesses. We have also had the Government’s announcement of the Rushden Lakes development—a huge retail and leisure park that will of course result in more fire risk.

The hon. Gentleman was right to read out what his constituents are saying. Since I was first elected, I have run a so-called listening campaign. That is being copied by Tom Pursglove, the excellent Conservative councillor in Corby whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The idea of a listening campaign is to go out and listen to what people are saying, as the hon. Gentleman has done, reflect on it, and then campaign on it. People in Corby and east Northamptonshire clearly want more fire cover for our area; I think he said that one of the people he mentioned said so.

That is why earlier this year Tom Pursglove and I launched our More Fire Cover campaign. Everybody in Corby has had a card from Tom about that and I have distributed leaflets in my constituency. We are arguing for more fire cover, not less. I have met the chief fire officer and the firefighters of green watch in my constituency. I have seen the Cobra intervention vehicle in operation and heard the firefighters praise it, but I do not see why it should be a substitute for one of the pumps at Corby. It should be an additional vehicle that can cover Corby and east Northamptonshire. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was recently a very large fire locally, and of course the two pumps from Corby got there quickly, but would it not have been better if we had had three pumps?

The More Fire Cover campaign that Tom and I have launched is getting widespread support. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the local firemen’s petition at Corby fire station. Tom has been to meet the firefighters there and signed the petition. In political terms, there is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and me in that we want things to improve, but he is wrong because just two pumps are not enough—we need three. The question is how we pay for that. The capital cost of the intervention vehicle has already been paid by the Government, so there is no cost to local taxpayers for that—there are only the running costs.

We need this extra vehicle because of all the new homes and businesses that have been built and created in east Northamptonshire and Corby, so the logic is that the funding should be connected with that expansion. That is exactly what the Government provide through the new homes bonus. This year, Corby borough council will get £2.6 million to spend on infrastructure measures that support the local community. I cannot think of anything more important than fire cover, and only a fraction of that £2.6 million would be spent in providing, in effect, the cost of an additional two firemen.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed that idea. I think it was because Corby borough council has massively overspent, by £13 million, on a project involving offices and a library complex. In the past 18 months, it has also spent, bizarrely, a third of a million pounds on temporary staff. We hear about the campaign for no zero-hours contracts, but it is all a bit topsy-turvy at the council. If it put its house in order, part of the £2.6 million could be spent on supporting the two extra firefighters we would need to operate the Cobra intervention vehicle as an additional pump. It would be based at Corby—I am quite happy with that—but serve the whole of east Northamptonshire.

After this debate, I would like the hon. Gentleman to join me and Tom Pursglove in supporting a bipartisan approach to more fire cover in our area.

[Andy Sawford]

The hon. Gentleman proposes that the new homes bonus be used to provide resilience across the area. His claim to participate in this debate is that Corby’s fire station serves some of his own constituents and provides resilience in the north of the county. He will certainly accept that it serves my constituents in Oundle, Irthlingborough and Thrapston. Is he recommending to the leader of East Northamptonshire district council that it should make a proportionate contribution, and has he made a similar recommendation to Kettering and Wellingborough councils? What contribution does he expect Northamptonshire county council to make, because it would, of course, be entirely wrong for Corby to fund his proposal to meet the needs of his constituents?

[Mr Bone]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Perhaps he is moving towards my and Tom’s listening campaign. The reason we need this extra resource is the expansion in the number of houses and businesses, mainly in Corby. I think the hon. Gentleman would accept that, without that expansion, we would not be so worried about getting more fire cover.

However, because the issue is being driven by expansion in the borough of Corby, it is right that it should be the borough of Corby that contributes. I say that because the new homes bonus is linked to the number of houses being built. If all those houses were being built in east Northamptonshire, I would argue that east Northamptonshire should contribute, but they are not being built there; as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, they are being built in Corby.

[Andy Sawford]

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman’s contribution is that he is purporting to speak about his own area when in actual fact he would much rather talk about Corby, which his constituents find perplexing. He would be welcome to stand for Corby in the future—we would send him packing in the same way as we did the last candidate with whom he trooped around my constituency. We will do the same to the next one. If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about my area, he would know that a significant amount of the expansion is in east Northamptonshire district, not Corby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

We are just going to have to disagree on that point.

[Andy Sawford]

It is a factual point.

[Mr Bone]

All I will say—I do not think the hon. Gentleman will query this—is that a £2.6 million new homes bonus is being given to Corby this year. The great thing about the new homes bonus is that it will increase every year. I think that Northamptonshire county council realises that a new fire station will be needed somewhere in east Northamptonshire in the future, but it is illogical to reduce the fire cover for Corby and east Northamptonshire at this moment in time.

Other ways of saving money are being considered, and this is where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. For example, the police are moving into Rushden fire station, which the Conservatives fought so hard to keep and Labour wanted to close. It will be a shared facility, which clearly will save money both for the fire service and for the police. It is a little unfair, therefore, to suggest that the fire and rescue service is not looking at other options.

[Andy Sawford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Andy Sawford]

I would be stunned if the hon. Gentleman could find in the county council’s medium-term financial plan—it needs to make a saving of £1.6 million over three years, with a 7.5% reduction each year—a saving in his area that is anything other than the cut to the number of Corby’s fire engines. I cannot find such a saving.

[Mr Bone]

I just gave the specific example of Rushden fire station housing the police. We need to consider doing much more of that sort of thing and look at the whole estate. Coming back to tonight’s topic, the puzzling thing is why the hon. Gentleman, who is usually quite happy to support the expansion of services, does not support the proposal to use just a little of Corby borough council’s new homes bonus money for this purpose.

[Andy Sawford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

I will in a moment, but it might help the hon. Gentleman if I finish this point. The reason he does not support the proposal, of course, is that if we have a Labour Government after the next general election, they will abolish the new homes bonus, so Corby will immediately be £2.6 million worse off.

[Andy Sawford]

The new homes bonus is simply a partial replacement for the grant to Corby borough council and other local authorities that has been cut. It is only right that we once again link the resources that local authorities have with need by returning the funds back into grant. That is our proposal. Corby will not lose out from that because it has substantial need.

The hon. Gentleman has inferred that I am opposed to the expansion of Corby fire station. He presents all sorts of Aunt Sallies and tries to distract people in my constituency and treat them like fools. They can see that what is really on the table is the proposal to cut one of the two engines. I am fighting to stop that. He is trying to get my constituents to look away, to distract them and to pretend that that is not happening, but before we know it, that cut will have been implemented. I have at no time opposed the expansion of the service. I would be happy to see it expanded, but right now I am fighting the battle in hand with the Tory county council that he supports, which wants to cut my fire engine.

[Mr Bone]

It can hardly be suggested that I support the proposal from the county council. I am doing exactly the opposite. Neither can it be suggested that Tom Pursglove is somehow supporting the Tory line, when he has signed the petition for the firefighters and is running a campaign for more fire cover in Corby. I just do not see the logic in the hon. Gentleman’s argument.

Rushden Lakes and Skew Bridge (Planning)

Debate between Peter Bone and Andy Sawford

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

First, I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me tonight’s Adjournment debate on the Rushden Lakes and Skew bridge planning application. This is the most important issue that has affected my constituency in the nine years that I have had the great privilege and honour of representing the people of Wellingborough and Rushden.

I am also delighted that we have on the Treasury Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is of course the Minister for planning. My hon. Friend is rightly regarded as one of the most radical and innovative thinkers on the Government Benches, and while I do not always agree with him, more times than not I do. He is certainly prepared to make people think and to challenge the status quo. What is more remarkable is that he has been able to continue to do this while he has been a Government Minister. I also want to thank Eliza Richardson and Harriet Pentland for their help with the preparation of this speech.

Tonight’s Adjournment debate is unusual: it is not one of those debates that slams the Government for not doing something, claims that they are not listening, or demands that they spend more taxpayers’ money. It is a joyous occasion: a celebration of localism working. It is a celebration of a Conservative-led campaign that has succeeded; and it is a celebration of part of my constituency being transformed.

Rushden Lakes and Skew bridge was a major planning application in the east Northamptonshire part of my constituency. The site lies to the west of Rushden, within the River Nene valley, with the river and gravel pit lakes as its northern boundary and the A45 as its southern boundary. The size and nature of the application meant that it was called in by the Department for Communities and Local Government. That resulted in a public inquiry, which was held on 25 to 28 June, 2 to 5 July and 9 to 12 July 2013. The planning inspector reported on 14 November 2013.

The hybrid planning application comprised a full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive-through restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitors centre, restaurants, boathouse, together with proposals for access and an entire outline application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved; plus the removal of a ski slope and associated levelling, landscaping, habitat management and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop.

I am pleased to say that at 9.30 on Thursday 12 June, the Secretary of State approved the application. That is tremendous news for my constituents. Rushden Lakes will benefit not only Wellingborough and Rushden but the whole of Northamptonshire.

The delivery of Rushden Lakes is clear evidence that our long-term economic plan is working not only for the country, but for Wellingborough and Rushden. It shows that a Conservative Government, a Conservative MP, a first-class Conservative candidate in Corby and east Northamptonshire and local councillors and Conservative activists all working together have delivered a massive investment in east Northamptonshire.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

I do not intend to give way in this debate because of the amount of issues that I want to cover tonight.

Contrast that with 13 years of Labour when we did not see any investment in east Northamptonshire; we just saw public services shut down. This development will bring 2,000 permanent new jobs to the area alongside fantastic new retail, tourist and leisure facilities, including a leisure club and a hotel as well as many retail units.

There are also plans for: a wildlife and recreational area with facilities for bird watching, cycling and boating; waterfront restaurants; a hotel and crèche; a lakeside visitors centre; and a home and garden centre.

It is fantastic to see the potential of a previously unused, brownfield site that has sadly fallen into disrepair finally being unlocked and developed for locals and tourists to enjoy. Not only will they have a fantastic range of shops on their doorsteps, but they will be able to make the most of the River Nene and the wildlife that the area has to offer.

Too often, Rushden has been overlooked for investment. That was particularly true during the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. This development marks a new beginning for Rushden and the surrounding area. Rushden Lakes will serve to bolster further the local economy’s already growing employment rate. Official figures show that unemployment has fallen dramatically in north Northamptonshire over the past 12 months. In Kettering, unemployment fell last month from 2,269 to 1,590—a drop of 679 or 30%.

In Corby, unemployment is 1,868 compared with 2,754 a year ago—a fall of approximately a third—which means that 886 families now have a breadwinner.

[Andy Sawford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Bone]

I am not giving way tonight.

In Wellingborough, the figures are even better. There are 1,904 people unemployed compared with 3,003 a year ago, which means that 1,099 people have gained work, with a drop in unemployment of well over a third. The three constituencies of Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough will benefit even more from the 2,000 jobs that will be created by Rushden Lakes. The Prime Minister’s long-term economic plan is clearly working in our community.

Rushden Lakes is a development that has overwhelming local support, and it is one of the biggest issues on the doorstep in my constituency. It is a key part of the joint listening campaign that I run in Wellingborough and Rushden, along with Tom Pursglove, the Conservative party’s superb parliamentary candidate for Corby and east Northants. The philosophy behind that campaign is quite simple. Instead of politicians telling local people what they should care about and what they should think, the reverse is the case. I in Wellingborough and Rushden and Tom in Corby and east Northants, spend a great deal—

[Andy Sawford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He continually refers to my constituency.

[Mr Bone]

I am not giving way. I will tell the hon. Gentleman this: he should be at Kettering hospital getting the splinters taken out of his backside for sitting on the fence for so long over this matter.