| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.53 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Before I discuss the future of Shooters Hill fire station, I too should like to express a few words about
the recent tragedies in Avon and Gwent. Today is the funeral of retained firefighters Kevin Lane and Stephen Griffin, who died so tragically last week in the course of a search-and-rescue attempt at a house fire in Gwent.On Sunday, we had the death of firefighter Fleur Lombard in a supermarket fire in Bristol. I am sure that I speak for the House in expressing our sadness at that tragic loss of life and extending our sympathy to their families, friends and colleagues at this time.
I know that the fire service will be considering as a matter of urgency what lessons can be learnt from those fires. Such incidents, and the one involving station officer Michael Mee in West Yorkshire, who drowned while trying to rescue a child over the Christmas period, remind us yet again of the selfless bravery of the fire service.
The courage of our firefighters and other qualities of the fire service were recognised in a report by the Audit Commission last year, entitled "In the Line of Fire". The commission stated that the fire service could be proud of its record in responding to incidents; has high levels of skill and professionalism; is staffed by able managers and courageous front-line staff; and is held in great esteem by both the general public and individuals who have needed its assistance. The Government wholeheartedly endorse the commission's comments.
I understand the concern that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and his constituents feel about the quality of their fire service and the sensitivities that must inevitably surround any proposal to close a fire station. The hon. Gentleman was present at last week's debate initiated by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), on the future of Downham fire station. That station, like Shooters Hill, has also been recommended for closure by a fire cover review conducted by London fire brigade. Therefore, I shall have to repeat some of the points that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), made in responding to that debate.
The key point, which I must stress at the outset, is that statutory responsibility for the provision of an effective and efficient fire service rests with the fire authority--in this case, the London fire and civil defence authority.It is for the fire authority to keep its fire cover provision under review and to set a budget that will allow it to meet its statutory and other obligations and, in particular,to provide a service that meets the national recommended standards of fire cover.
The hon. Member for Woolwich referred to the funding of the fire service. As he knows, the fire service is a local authority service, which is funded, like other local authority services, through the revenue support grant, national non-domestic rates and the council tax. There are three underlying issues in relation to fire service funding: the total public expenditure provision for local government; how that total is distributed in terms of standard spending assessments among local authorities; and the criteria for council tax capping.
The Government concluded that for 1996-97 the total fire service element of standard spending assessments in England should be increased by £17 million, that is,by 1.5 per cent., from £1,168 million to £1,185 million.In the Government's view, the settlement was realistic.The fire service, like other public services, must operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is important
that fire authorities continue to keep their service under review and redeploy resources or reorder their priorities as necessary.
When the Audit Commission looked at the fire service, it commented that the savings that it could identify were lower than it normally identifies in major studies of local government services. It ascribed that in part to the fact that the service was generally well managed at brigade level. None the less, it found that significant savings were possible if best practice was adopted by all fire authorities; and it made a number of detailed recommendations in a management handbook, which should help brigades carry out their responsibilities in the most cost-effective manner.
Of course, the revenue support grant that is allocated to individual fire authorities depends not only on the total provision, but on the distribution formula. It is a matter of general policy, agreed with the local authority associations, that we should review the formula every year and that we should use the most up-to-date data. With any proposal to change the formula, the problem is to find an alternative that does not unreasonably increase the grant to some brigades and disproportionately reduce it to others. However, the Government are always willing to see what improvements can be made. We looked carefully with the Department of the Environment and the local authority associations at the formula for the fire service element of standard spending assessments, and we decided that the formula should be adjusted to include factors for fire safety enforcement, fire safety education and firefighters' pensions. That is in line with the recommendations of the Audit Commission.
As result of the inclusion of those new elements and the updating of the data in the formula, the London fire and civil defence authority's standard spending assessment, including capital financing, will increase by £1.1 million in 1996-97. The London fire and civil defence authority has benefited in previous years from the process of reviewing and updating the formula. For 1996-97, its increase in revenue support grant is lower than the national average, primarily as a result of updating the data in the area cost adjustment. That factor is included in the formula to compensate for the additional costs of providing services in the south-east. On the latest data from the new earnings survey, those costs have gone down.
Under the proposed capping criteria, the authority will be able to set a budget for 1996-97 of up to £5.1 million more than in 1995-96. I understand that London has chosen to fund expenditure in the current year of£4 million above its capping limit by the use of reserves.It was, however, its choice to do that, rather than to make the savings necessary to stay within the cap. The authority was aware that, under the relevant legislation, permitted expenditure increases are calculated on the previous year's budget requirement, net of reserves. To do otherwise would defeat the object of the legislation, which is to keep a firm grip on public expenditure.
It is now for the London fire and civil defence authority, following the settlement and the proposed criteria for council tax capping and in view of its overall financial position, to decide how much to spend on its fire service for 1996-97 to meet its legal obligations. That includes its obligations in respect of firefighters' pensions and to implement improvement notices issued by the Health and Safety Executive.
If the authority should take the view that it is necessary to set a budget above the proposed capping limit to fulfil its statutory obligations, it is open to it to set a budget above that limit and to make out a case for redetermination of the cap. That is the authority's responsibility and the success or otherwise of any redetermination application would depend on the quality of the case.
Alternatively, the authority could decide to draw further on its reserves. I note that, according to its director of finance and information technology, its general reserves of £20 million are "relatively high" for an authority of its size.
The authority can also seek to identify further efficiencies without reducing fire cover below the national recommended standards. It has to strike a balance between demands to provide a high standard of fire cover and the need to ensure that the service makes the best use of its available resources.
I am aware that the authority has, as part of an overall three-year strategy, including the implementation of its fire cover review, already identified potential net savings of about £3.5 million in 1996-97, which could rise to between £6.5 million and £7.5 million a year by 1997-98.
I come to the Government's role in the assessment of fire cover. Under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is required to be notified of the fire authority's establishment--the number of its fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting posts--as at 1 January each year. The fire authority may not reduce its establishment--although it can increase it--without his consent.
The Home Secretary has a specific and limited role in considering applications under section 19. He grants approval where the following conditions are satisfied: first, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail and with adequate time,to enable any interested party to make representations. Secondly, the representations must have been considered by the fire authority. Thirdly, after taking advice from Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate, the Home Secretary must be satisfied that the national recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained.
It is not the role of the Home Secretary to decide whether the proposals that a fire authority makes represent the best arrangements for fire cover. Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate is available to advise the authority on that matter. Ultimately, however, responsibility for fire cover rests with the fire authority, which is accountable in law for the service that it provides.
Although there is no statutory right of consultation about section 19 applications, we have made it clear in guidance to fire authorities that we consider it desirable
that they should undertake proper consultations. It has also been made clear that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider representations in addition to those already forwarded to the fire authority, provided that the individual or organisation concerned forwards those representations promptly on being advised that a section 19 application is to be submitted.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |