House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Feb 1991

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lofthouse : I am sorry, I cannot do so because I have little time left.

Three of the nine special units that will be lost are in my constituency. They carry specialised equipment such as a thermal imager, Viking suits, heavy cutting equipment, primary

decontamination equipment, lighting generators, air bags for lifting equipment and paraguard stretchers. Those units are vital not only in my constituency, in which are situated the chemical plants of Hicksons at Castleford and Croda at Knottingley, large pits and the junction of the M62 and A1, but in constituencies throughout west

Column 126

Yorkshire and elsewhere. The main loss will be the skilled and highly trained men who operate those necessary machines, and that is nothing but a scandal.

If, as seems likely, the fire authority agrees to set a revenue budget at the maximum permitted to escape poll tax capping--£49.9 million--it will still leave a £3 million shortfall. With recruitment already suspended and savage one-off savings made in premises and supplies, the cuts will bite hard. Yet West Yorkshire's level of expenditure is determined largely by the need to provide fire cover to Home Office standards. The fact that the SSA takes no account of the cost of complying with those standards illustrates the absurdity of the present Administration's approach to local government finance. West Yorkshire is effectively being penalised by one Government Department for doing the bidding of another.

The need for a just formula for calculating SSAs that recognises Home Office approved establishment levels and local settlement patterns should be self-evident. Of course, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see, and there is genuine concern among many fire-fighters in west Yorkshire that Ministers have sought to squirm off the hook by exploiting the decisions of Her Majesty's inspectors, who have been investigating where cuts and efficiency savings could be made. I understand that in 1986 the Home Office revised the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate to require inspectors to make an assessment of "value-for-money" spending in brigades. In West Yorkshire, that has now led the inspectors to link underfunding of the brigade to a mysterious and hitherto undiscovered over-provision of fire cover. The future of five fire stations and a number of special appliances, such as emergency tenders and hydraulic platforms, was therefore called into question. It is rather strange that Her Majesty's inspectors should have called into question the need for such equipment.

The Home Office has suggested that it will support west Yorkshire's case for proper funding if it firmly addresses HMI's concerns. In simplistic terms, via the HMI, the Government have found a way to justify their assault on the fire service budget. The minimum required to satisfy the HMI may be the closure of Sowerby Bridge fire station, the withdrawal of nine specials and the loss of 137 jobs--60 of them in my area.

Given that the brigade is busier than ever and was established on a tradition of efficiency and thriftiness, I find it hard to accept that, overnight, surplus fat has appeared. Operational calls attended by the brigade increased by 30 per cent., from 29,027 to 37,967 between 1987-88 and 1989-90. In the same period, the number of fires increased by 38 per cent. to 16,845 and the number of people rescued by 35 per cent. to 104. Forty-five people lost their lives during fires in 1989-90--an 80 per cent. increase over the 1987-88 period. How can fire and police authorities be expected to maintain an effective service, in accordance with Home Office guidelines, and at the same time work within the present budgets and capping arrangements? In my view, and in the view of the fire service, if the Government's capping arrangements are rigid, there will be loss of life. On the police side, we shall see an increase in crime. We have seen what has happened in London today. We cannot afford to allow our police to run down.

Column 127

On 13 February the Home Secretary sent a letter to police authorities. For the life of me, I do not know what the Government expect the police authorities to make of it. The third paragraph says :

"It is now for each authority to set its budget. In doing so it should take into account all relevant considerations including its statutory duties, the approved level of police manpower, the Government's intended capping criteria, the need as appropriate for expenditure restraint, and the scope for greater efficiency. Within this context I expect metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets at a level which maintains operational police manpower at the level which I and my predecessors have approved, and I do not expect this to be done by moving police officers into posts held by civilians. I also expect police authorities to pursue vigorously a policy of streamlining administration, cutting out waste, and maximising value for money."

The Home Office is asking a chief constable and others to do precisely what the Home Office does not expect chief police officers to do.

If the authorities budget over and above the capping guidelines, they will be threatened with capping. If they stick to their budgets and end up being capped, they must continue with the administration and circulation of the poll tax and that could cost each authority about£1 million. That money would be a complete waste. If the Minister cannot give me full assurances about the matter tonight, I hope that he will meet a small deputation from south and west Yorkshire and will give further consideration to our requests.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister fails satisfactorily to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), my hon. Friends will be pressing for a wider debate in Government time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : That is not a point of order for the Chair.

11.15 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key) : Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on securing the debate. He made a courteous and powerful case on behalf of his constituents and I listened carefully to what he said about the police and fire services in west and south Yorkshire. It may help the House if I briefly explain how we have reached this position.

I acknowledge fully the contribution of the skilled and highly trained policemen and fire-fighters throughout the country. My dedication to progress in both those services is beyond question. I have for many years as a constituency Member been keen to promote the interests of both those services and of the ambulance service in my authorities.

During last year's capping round, many authorities suggested to us that in future we should make an early announcement of the criteria that we intended to adopt for charge capping for a year, well before authorities came to set their budgets for that year. This year we have done just that, as authorities requested.

On 31 October last year, at the same time as he announced his proposals for the revenue support grant settlement for 1991-92, my right hon. Friend the Member

Column 128

for Bath (Mr. Patten) announced his intentions for capping in 1991-92. He made clear then that he was prepared to make full use of his powers to cap authorities' budgets if necessary, to ensure that the benefits of the extra £3 billion which we were making available for 1991-92 were passed on to charge payers, rather than to fuelling excessive spending. With such an advance indication of our capping intentions, any authorities which in the event would be capped would have put themselves in that position with their eyes open. I shall be delighted to meet this week hon. Members who represent the authorities concerned if the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford would be kind enough to contact me, and we can discuss the issues.

Since October, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have on several occasions made it clear that the Government stand firmly by our capping intentions. I do so again tonight. I want also to remind the House how the capping machinery works.

Having made clear our intended criteria, it is now for authorities to fix their budgets in that knowledge. When they have done so we must consider those budgets and make our statutory decisions on the criteria to be used. Those criteria will determine which authorities are capped.

At the same time, we must propose the numerical level of the cap for each capped authority in the light of the information we have about its individual circumstances. That authority then has 28 days within which to accept the level of our proposed cap or to suggest an alternative. Only thereafter if an authority has not accepted our proposed cap do we bring forward to this House an order finally fixing the level of its cap.

A number of metropolitan authorities have now set their budgets. Two fire authorities have now set budgets at or below the level of the intended criteria. Tyne and Wear fire authority has set it at the level and Greater Manchester has set it at about 2 per cent. below the level.

Mr. Lofthouse : I again draw the Minister's attention to the letter in which the Home Secretary says that he expects metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets at levels which maintain police manpower at the level which he and his predecessor had approved. Does that mean that if authorities set their budgets at levels which allow them to maintain that manpower they will not be capped?

Mr. Key : My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment must bear that important point in mind. We must also pay attention to the Home Secretary's decision, and will do so. I shall shortly return to the principle of that point.

I remind the House of the meaning of the intended criteria. They would mean that authorities that budget well above their standing spending assessments would be allowed a smaller budget increase than those budgeting nearer to their SSA before their budgets fell within the criteria. Most importantly, the intended criteria mean that no authority spending next year at or below its SSA will be capped. I remind the House that the settlement for 1991-92 which the House approved on 29 January means an increase of 19.4 per cent. in total SSAs, and an increase in total external support of 12.8 per cent., or almost £3 billion. This is generous and realistic.

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield) rose --

Column 129

Mr. Key : I shall not give way because the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford did not give way and explained why. It would be unfair of me not to follow his example.

The House will wish to know what the settlement means for police and fire services. For the fire service, we have an increase in provision of 16 per cent. compared with 1990-91. For the police service the increase is approaching 12 per cent. These are not inconsiderable sums, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the levels of provision which the Government have made available for these vital services are appropriate and sufficient. The settlement demonstrates once again that we are committed to ensuring effective and appropriate police and fire services throughout the country.

I should draw the House's attention to the fact that what we are providing takes account of increases in establishment approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. For 1991-92 he has approved an increase of some 700 uniformed officers across the country. He did that on 20 December last. The House may wonder why, only two days earlier, the chief constables of the six metropolitan areas were suggesting that, even with spending above SSA, far from there being increases in staff, there would need to be reductions. I find this contradiction difficult to resolve.

With this in mind, it is useful to look at the facts. Between 1979 and 1990, police strength in south Yorkshire increased by some 400 men and women to 2,969, while in west Yorkshire it increased in the same period by some 550 to 5,285. Yet we are told that it will be necessary next year to give up almost the whole of these increases achieved over 12 years. What, one may ask, could have led to such a drastic reversal of fortunes? The answer, we are told, is that it would actually be a result of being able to increase budgets by 7 per cent. in the case of west Yorkshire and 9 per cent. in the case of south Yorkshire.

The 7 per cent. increase is not an allowance for inflation. The key is the starting point. We do not accept that we should simply take last year's budget for an authority and allow an increase for inflation. West Yorkshire's budget for this year is just under 10 per cent. above its SSA. That is the level of spending that we consider appropriate to provide a standard level of service.

Many of the arguments advanced simply do not stand up. The House may wonder whether this is an example of the type of scaremongering story to which we have become accustomed from other authorities, but not, until now, from this quarter.

During the debate on the settlement, my right hon. Friend graphically illustrated how this sort of thing has happened in the past. He quoted from the NALGO publication "Public Service". It had carried out a survey of what actually happened in some of the authorities whose

Column 130

excessive budgets we capped last year. Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million, with no compulsory redundancies. Bristol's budget cut was £7.6 million.

Mr. Hinchliffe : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate is about West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, not Rochdale or the other authorities that the Minister has mentioned. Will the Minister address the issue of the 10 per cent. cuts in West Yorkshire?

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The Minister is in order.

Mr. Key : Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million, but with no compulsory redundancies, and Bristol's was cut by £7.6 million with no redundancies, no cuts in services and no charge increases. With this experience, the House may ask how can charge payers have confidence in their police and fire authorities?

Let me continue with my explanation of what the settlement means for those authorities. As the House may know, detailed methodology for SSAs has been adopted only after extensive analysis and research and after discussions with the local authority associations. For police, the distribution is based on the authority's approved level of police manpower. For fire, there is a number of indicators in the formula, including population, fire and false alarm calls, density of population, and a measure of the proportion of the area with a high fire risk. In essence, the end result is that for each authority there is a figure representing the measure of expenditure which would be appropriate for that authority to incur, in its particular circumstances, to provide a standard level of service. We were satisfied when we took our decisions, and remain so, that the police and fire formulas for SSAs are fair and appropriate.

When I meet the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford later in the week with his colleagues, I shall be glad to discuss these points. I very much hope that we can have a discussion. They will not be part of a capping delegation. We hope that by then his authorities will have set their budgets. I very much hope that we can continue to have confidence in the excellent service of the police and fire authorities in his constituency and across the country.

It is important to stress that we consider the particular circumstances of each authority and are concerned to provide a standard level of service across the country. We remain satisfied about the decisions that we have taken, but we cannot make final decisions on capping until budgets are set- -that is laid down in statute--and we shall do so with every consideration.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker-- adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned at twenty- six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Written Answers Section

Home Page