were gutted by the fire. In the words on the Chief Fire Officer for Kent,
“......it was mainly due to the prompt actions of staff and pupils that casualties were avoided.”
We do indeed owe a great debt to the professionalism and prompt actions of staff and the alertness of the child who first spotted the signs of fire. But we cannot presume that this will happen every time.
Yet there is one simple step that could be taken which could make a huge difference where fires occur in schools.
Again, as the Chief Fire Officer said about Lympne,
“If the school had been fitted with a properly designed and installed sprinkler system the fire may have been controlled if not extinguished in its early stages thus preventing the total loss of the school.”
And, of course, making it much easier to save lives.
It seems to me that the case for the installation of sprinklers, particularly for new and extensively refurbished schools, is overwhelming. They have proved very successful in the United States and, because of the reduction in insurance premiums, would actually save money over time, quite apart from the obvious saving of the cost of replacing schools like Lympne.
To their credit, Kent County Council has said that the replacement of the school buildings at Lympne will incorporate a sprinkler system.
The County Council and Kent Fire Service are also in discussions with the aim of fitting sprinklers in all new and refurbished schools in the county in future.
But that forward-thinking approach is not the norm amongst other Local Education Authorities.
So it was very disappointing that the Minister, in replying to the debate last Thursday, refused to give any assurances that sprinklers will be made compulsory in future. Instead a complicated risk assessment procedure is to be introduced which might well mean that schools like Lympne would still not have sprinklers installed.
I shall continue the campaign and hope the Government will think again.
|
