Tuesday January 24 2012

I’d like to ask the minister to meet me, colleagues from the West Midlands and members and officials from the region’s Fire Authority to discuss the way our fire service is funded

The Prime Minister promised that front-line services would be safeguarded, yet the services my constituents receive are being affected as a result of central Government cuts.

I’m worried that there is substantial risk of some authorities having less funding than is required to fulfil their duties. 

When Sedgley Fire Station in my constituency closed three years or so ago, the station in Dudley got an extra targeted response vehicle, in addition to its two engines.

Under the new proposals one engine will go and the TRV will be replaced by a Brigade Response Vehicle, an adapted Range Rover, leaving Dudley with one engine and the BRV

When Sedgley closed down they said that parts of Sedgley would be covered by fire engines from the Tipton station, but that is also going to lose an engine.  

All Fire and Rescue Services were expecting to face cuts as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, and had been planning well in advance in order to protect the level of service provided to our communities.

However, these cuts have presented some with more of a challenge than others.

There are five key issues;

·           The unfairness of the settlement

·           The illogical formula used to calculate the settlement

·           The penalty different services pay for maintaining low council tax bills

·           The lack of consideration given to savings that have been made

·           And a lack of clarity of the last two years of the four year period

First, let me set out why the settlement is unfair

In October 2010, the Chancellor announced an average cut of 25% to Fire Service formula grant over the next four years. This was expected to be a tougher settlement for those services (such as THE West Midlands) with a heavier reliance upon formula grant, but we were told it would be fair.

When the exact figures were announced for each service, it was immediately obvious that these cuts were anything but fair. Some have been handed increases in their formula grant over the two year period, while others have been handed severe cuts, West Midlands amongst them.

And if you look at ‘Revenue Spending Power’, it’s clear that the West Midlands Fire Service was hit hardest of all, with cuts at twice the national average

The total budget for West Midlands Fire Authority for the current financial year 2011/12 is £112.3 million. The total budget for the next financial year 2012/13 will be £109.8 million

Even taking into account the effect of proportion of council tax to grant and the small ‘special grant’ to encourage a council tax freeze, some brigades – like Cheshire, for example, which happens to cover the Chancellor’s constituency - will actually receive more money in formula grant in 2012/13 than they received in 2010/11.

Cheshire is getting more than £400,000 more in formula grant, Essex is getting an extra £700,000 and Hampshire £800,000

As a result, Cheshire’s total increase in Revenue Spending Power between 2010/2011 and 2012/2013 is 1.84% or £800,000 extra in cash. Essex’s budgets are going up by 2.4% and Hampshire’s by 2.64%. So when it comes to the fire service it’s absolutely clear that we’re not “all in it together”

Second, the formula ought to be reviewed to take local factors into consideration:

The formula used to decide upon this settlement does not take account of a number of key considerations.

For example, many of the most deprived areas are amongst the worst hit, despite there being a well established link between deprivation and fire.

Four of the top five most deprived fire authority areas in the country are metropolitan brigades, and these have been handed the heaviest cuts.

Part of the reason WMFS stand to suffer the most is that we maintain the lowest council tax precept in the country, at just £47.83 for a band D property, compared to as much as £87.84 people in County Durham

Therefore, we are more heavily reliant upon formula grant than others, and therefore receive a higher cut to our overall ‘Revenue Spending Power’.

What’s more, part of the difference has been caused by the government’s decision to award a ‘specific grant’ to fire authorities (and councils) equivalent to a council tax rise of 2.5% if they freeze their council tax this year.

This has benefited those with higher council tax levels, as they received proportionately more.

There has also been no consideration of the reforms and efficiencies already made by services when calculating the cuts.

Led by Councillor John Edwards, the authority has already frozen all recruitment for the last three years.

Uniformed staff numbers are reducing by 60 each year

One fire station has been closed and a fire engine removed

 ‘Dual crewing’ of appliances being undertaken to cope with falling numbers of fire-fighters which means that specialist appliances are ‘off the run’ when crews respond to other calls

As we are seeing in Dudley, smaller response vehicles are being piloted to reduce costs

There is a review of senior management underway to reduce numbers and costs

In fact, all sections of the service are being reviewed to reduce costs:

All allowances and expenses are being reviewed, office space is being reduced, empty offices are being sub-let and the force is attracting sponsorship and working with other organisations to save money as well.

All of these savings – along with new crewing systems, reduced cover, these new, smaller appliances – show that our fire service is doing everything and more that could be asked of it by the government, and no one knows from where further savings could be found if the government cuts the funding the force receives in future years

So can the minister tell the House whether other Brigades have yet made savings like this because as I understand it, some Brigades that have not undertaken such reform – such as London, for example - have been cut by far less?

All of this shows why we are so worried about the last two years of the CSR - because, Mr Speaker, unlike for the rest of local government, the cuts are what they are calling “back-loaded” – ie a higher proportion of the savings will have to be found in years three and four than in years one and two.

If this pattern of unequal cuts to West Midlands FRA continues in years 2013-2015 we would receive a further reduction of twice the national average amounting to 26% bringing our total cut to almost 39% in the four year period. This would mean further cuts of almost £22 million.

So can I ask whether the minister would be prepared to meet myself, colleagues and representatives of the fire authority to discuss whether a fairer distribution of resources would safeguard services like those in Dudley which are being hit hardest?

And will he consider the case for safety net payments to be made where the funding would otherwise be below that required by a force to meet the Integrated Risk Management Plan.

Ends