It is pleasure to open the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Williams.
May I first thank my right hon. Friend John Healey for all the work he has done on the funding cuts in metropolitan authorities? Those who have been following the issue know the sheer amount of work he has done to build cross-party consensus. That includes organising meetings, especially with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Robert Neill, who has responsibility for the fire services. I also thank those right hon. and hon. Members who are attending the debate, as well as those who could not attend, but who have been campaigning on this issue.
I want to pay special tribute to Steve Morris, who was part of the green watch at Bolton central fire station. He was part of a nine-man crew that was called to attend a fire at a house in my constituency. The narrowness of a nearby alleyway meant that the fire brigade vehicle could not get near the house, and the hose was not long enough to get into it. Steve and three other brave firefighters therefore ran towards the house, taking a massive risk. Steve said that
“when inside searching for occupants there was a flash and I realised that my uniform was on fire. I was like a human torch. The skin on my face felt like it was melting and my gloves had shrunk on to my hands.”
Steve was unconscious in hospital for seven weeks. After he woke up, he stayed in hospital for a further eight months and had numerous operations. He suffered burns to 52% of his body and had to have all his fingers amputated. He also broke an elbow and damaged his spine, and he had to learn to walk again. I know the family he tried to rescue—Mrs Begum, aged 71, and her granddaughter Alana, aged four, who was visiting from Australia. Mr Morris is now married to his long-term partner, Pauline, and he is still contributing greatly to the community.
Today’s debate is about recognising the special work of firefighters and the daily risk that they take on our behalf. I hope we can continue to build the spirit of cross-party consensus on this issue—for them and for ourselves. I am sure the Minister, too, is concerned about the safety of our citizens.
The background to the debate is the settlement for the six metropolitan fire authorities—I will refer to them hereafter as the mets—which have been adversely affected by the funding proposals. In purely alphabetical
order, they are: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.
The six mets serve 11 million people, and that does not include the transient population. The mets provide more than 50% of professional full-time firefighters. In the event of a major national disaster, the mets would be expected to provide half our national resilience capacity, as they have in the past.
If the cuts proceed in the present format, services will be unsustainable, leaving the UK more vulnerable. The risk and the economic effect of disasters would be significantly greater in the met areas. The Trafford centre in Greater Manchester is the largest industrial estate in Europe, and two of the biggest football clubs in the world are in the same area.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining today’s debate which, as Members can see, has generated huge interest. Does she share my concerns about the resilience of the fire service? Last year, we had the disturbances in Greater Manchester—in Salford and Manchester—and there was also the possibility of national incidents. Does she feel that the unfairness of the settlement could result in a reduction of our resilience and our ability to tackle such challenges?
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Greater Manchester also faces the threat of possible terrorist attacks.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Trafford centre and the football and cricket grounds in my constituency, and we should add Trafford Park industrial estate. We therefore have a number of high-profile, high-risk sites, and it is important that they are protected and resourced. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that if we can deploy resources only to those high-risk, high-profile sites, there will be no back-filling to other less risky sites, which will mean that smaller incidents will escalate and become larger and more dangerous?
I entirely agree. As my hon. Friend eloquently put it, other areas will be given lower priority.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate, and I pay tribute to all our firefighters, both full time and part time. Leaving aside the proposed cuts, does the hon. Lady agree that another issue that will definitely compound this situation is whether Europe gets its way on the working time directive?
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the issue he raises is debatable. Obviously, it is a European directive, and I do not really want to get into that issue.
In an endeavour to be helpful to all Members—[ Interruption. ] I hope the hon. Lady will take it in that spirit. I hope Members will find it helpful if I say that it remains the Government’s firm intention to protect the opt-out
from the working time directive, which is rightly accepted—I hope the hon. Lady will agree—as a critical issue for the fire service. I hope she will forgive me for taking the opportunity to get that on the record early in the debate.
The mets have the most fire calls per head of population, as well as the highest levels of deprivation, which everyone accepts is one of the single biggest determining risks in fires. The met areas also have concentrated conurbations, with many streets full of terraced houses, offices, and other buildings. The risks in the mets are therefore greater than in the leafy suburbs.
With all the challenges they face, the six mets have been very responsible and prudent with public money. They have already delivered 62% of the savings in the fire budget across the two years of cuts, and they have done that with a minimum impact on front-line services. The cuts planned for future years are unsustainable and would lead to life-threatening reductions in fire cover and national resilience capacity. Fire services have already cut out the fat, and they will soon be cutting to the bone—I hope the vegetarians among us will forgive my analogy.
I add my voice to the congratulations given to my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. Is she aware that the chief fire officer of Merseyside, among others, has made it clear in briefings that he is concerned that if the cuts go ahead, even on optimistic assumptions about the impact, he will be in danger of not being able to meet his statutory obligations?
I agree with the hon. Lady. The chief executive of my fire authority says the same thing. I was going to talk about the cuts using the example of Greater Manchester fire authority, because that relates to my constituency.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate, and on her conduct of it. I am full of praise for what she is doing. It is difficult to understand why the review formula should mean a 13% fall in the financial grant to the West Midlands over the past two years, which compares to a figure of 6.5% nationally, and why the met areas, and certainly the West Midlands, have been picked on and victimised as we have.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate, and I pay tribute to the firefighters. Obviously, she and I will not agree on the general need to reduce public spending, but does she accept that there are concerns on both sides of the House about the equity between metropolitan areas, the London area and the shire counties? I thank the Minister for agreeing that fire officers can speak to civil servants to deal with the details of the formula, but people on both sides of the House will be concerned to see that the outcome is more equitable than it has been to date.
Again, I entirely agree. I am just about to come on to the unfairness of the cuts to Greater Manchester fire authority, as compared with, say, Cheshire.
Greater Manchester is one of the largest brigades in the UK, covering 500 square miles and serving a residential population of 2.5 million. It is on track to make £12.5 million of savings, but to achieve that and carry out further cuts it can crew only 59 fire engines during the day and 55 during the night. To crew a fire engine 24 hours a day all year round costs £750,000. As a result of the cuts, 15 fire engines will become unavailable for use. During a dry spring or summer, the brigade can regularly have 40 fire engines committed to fires across the moorlands, protecting roads, villages and homes and areas of outstanding beauty. Greater Manchester fire authority will simply not be able to maintain minimum cover for town and city protection. Nor will it be able to do preventive work such as the 60,000 home safety visits it completes each year. That work has had a profound effect on reducing the numbers of accidental fires. The service will not be able to do the work with young people and children that has led to significant reductions in deliberate fires, and to lives being turned round. he mets, as well as the right hon. and hon. Members present, are asking for a fairer allocation of funds across all fire authorities.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is not it ironic that the most efficient fire authorities, in the places with the highest levels of deprivation and the highest risk of fire, are the ones whose budgets are being cut furthest, whereas some more affluent authorities, which are less at risk, are being given an increase? Does not that show how bad the system is? It is up to the Minister to defend that system, and move away from a situation in which fire officers cannot work out how he reached his figures.
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point.
We need either a risk-based grant approach, with a more even and fairer distribution of cuts across the fire and rescue services, or an alternative method of additional uplift funding to the mets that recognises their wider contribution to the safety of our societies and communities. I ask the Minister to recognise the unfairness and the unsatisfactory nature of the current grant mechanism.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate, and I hope that the Minister is listening to this part of it, as well as the part to which he responded earlier. The key issue seems to be that in the past we have received greater efficiency savings from the mets; and we have had bigger cuts in the first two years of the current spending review. The important thing now is to make sure that we do not get bigger cuts in the next two years. That preventive work must continue. There are high-risk steel works in my constituency, as well as the deprivation that my hon. Friend has discussed. We cannot have a reduction in the number of fire engines and stations that cover those important responsibilities.
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point.
Greater Manchester fire service has had to make cuts, and it has done so. Now it must make a 9% cut, whereas Cheshire will get a 2% increase. Many right hon. and hon. Members have made that point this morning. A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that the only explanation for the disparity is that most of the Members of Parliament in Cheshire belong to the coalition parties, and most Members of Parliament in Greater Manchester are Labour. I hope that that is not the case. I have deliberately tried not to go into too many statistics and percentages, which I know the Minister will be well aware of. I have tried to make a case for the mets, and I hope that the Minister will consider the matter fairly and judiciously. I will not speak any longer, because so many right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
Order. A large number of hon. Members have written in—nine at least—so I appeal to them to keep speeches short. The screens at the back of the Chamber are being attended to. We do not have a Government Whip present, although I thought that Mr Brady might have abandoned his distinguished career for the delights of the Whips Office; but clearly he has not.
I call Ian Austin. [ Interruption. ]
I am grateful, Mr Williams. I am sorry; I thought you would call someone over on the Government side first.
In my constituency, Sedgley fire station has already been closed, as a result of the cuts and savings that West Midlands fire service must make. When it closed, Dudley station was allocated an extra targeted response vehicle, so it had one of those—it is basically a smaller fire engine—and the two standard engines that it had before. Now it will lose one of those, and the targeted vehicle will go as well, to be replaced by a Range Rover. When Sedgley closed, we were told that other parts of my constituency would be covered by fire engines from Tipton station, but that will also lose an engine.
The background is that when all fire and rescue services were expecting to face cuts as part of the comprehensive spending review, they planned well in advance, to protect their communities. However, when the exact figures for each service were announced, it was immediately clear that the cuts were anything but fair. As we have heard, some were handed increases to their formula grant, whereas others were handed cuts, such as West Midlands, which is being given the biggest cut to its revenue spending power—7.73%—of any brigade in the country. Even taking into account the effect of the proportion of council tax to grant and the small special grant to encourage a council tax freeze, a number of brigades still receive more money in formula grant than they received in 2010-11. Cheshire is an example.
In addition to the unfair way in which the grant is calculated, it is based on an illogical formula, which does not take account of a number of key considerations. As we have heard, many of the most deprived areas are among the worst hit, despite the well-established link between deprivation and fire. Four of the top five most
deprived fire authority areas in the country are covered by metropolitan brigades, and they have been handed the heaviest cuts. Also, no consideration was given to the reforms and efficiencies already made in services when the cuts were calculated. For example, in West Midlands new crewing systems have already been introduced. Cover has been reduced in quieter periods. New appliances have been brought in to deal with specific incidents. However, brigades that have not yet undertaken such reforms, such as London, have been cut far less.
On the important point that my hon. Friend is making about reform, many metropolitan authorities, including Greater Manchester, have been making reforms, reducing jobs, reskilling and redesigning the service for years. Does he agree that these proposals are incredibly short-sighted because they will cut prevention? Therefore, rather than saving money in the long term, this unfair grant settlement will increase the cost to the whole fire service.
That is absolutely right. Brigades that have not undertaken these reforms should be the ones that come under the most pressure to achieve them now. If savings have to be made, those are the areas from which they should come.
One of the reasons why West Midlands stands to suffer the most is that we maintain the lowest council tax precept in the country. It is just £47.83 for a band D property, compared with £87.84 for residents in County Durham. We are therefore more heavily reliant on formula grant than others, so we receive a much higher cut to the overall force budget. Furthermore, part of the difference has been caused by the Government’s decision to award a specific grant to fire authorities and councils that is equivalent to a council tax rise of 2.5%—if council tax is frozen this year. That has benefited those with higher council tax, as they have obviously received proportionately more.
Representatives of the metropolitan authorities have put together a series of cost-neutral proposals that will ensure a fairer settlement in 2013-14 and 2014-15. They are asking the Minister to consider implementing a flat percentage cut to formula grant, so that all fire services play their part in achieving the savings that he says have to be made. They say that that could easily be achieved through ministerial use of the floor damping mechanism and that metropolitan authorities would still shoulder the heaviest cuts over the four years.
In a briefing paper from the Association of Metropolitan Fire and Rescue Authorities, of which I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, it is stated that if the present formula goes ahead and we do not have the fair formula that we want, there will be 40 redundancies on a 13.5% reduction in grant, which is obviously a great danger to our constituents. A 27% cut over the next few years could cause the loss of 300 posts after natural wastage. Is that not a great danger to our constituents in the west midlands? I hope that the Minister will respond and recognise our concern.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government’s proposals are led by the fact that they expect people to make efficiency savings? Bearing in mind that metropolitan authorities already have the most efficient fire services, it will make any further savings more difficult to achieve. Is this not rewarding the most inefficient fire services at the expense of the most efficient ones?
That is absolutely right. In all other areas, the Government argue for reform, savings and efficiencies, yet here we find the authorities that have done the most and made the greatest savings being penalised the most. Forgive me for my cynicism, but it does seem that many of the areas represented by the Minister’s right hon. and hon. Friends are being saved from the cuts that the areas represented by so many Opposition Members are having to make.
I am one of the Government Members who represents one of the affected metropolitan authorities. Quite apart from the importance of getting fairness for all metropolitan areas, is it not also an irony that one of the effects could be to reduce the capacity of metropolitan fire services to provide surrounding counties with the support and the backfilling that are so important?
That is right. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is one of the few Government Members who are taking part in the debate, and he is absolutely right. The forces that cover metropolitan areas provide a really important service to the whole country, which is why he and his colleagues should be taking these issues seriously. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he responds to the debate later. I do not propose to say anything more beyond that, because so many Members wish to contribute.
May I put it on the record that my hon. Friend Lorely Burt is equally concerned about this matter, but she cannot make it to this debate? The fact that she is not here today does not mean that she is not concerned.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend Yasmin Qureshi on securing it.
I want to talk about the impact on Merseyside of cuts that are running at twice the national average—up to 12% over two years. As colleagues have said, Merseyside already has a highly efficient service. My question to the Minister is how on earth does it make sense to make cuts at double the national average in Merseyside, West Midlands, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, Nottinghamshire, Cleveland, Cambridgeshire and Shropshire, with Greater Manchester only a fraction below the figure of those other mainly metropolitan
areas, while making real-terms increases in funding for Devon and Somerset, Dorset, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Essex and Hampshire. Is there not a pattern emerging about the nature of the authorities that are facing these double-national-average cuts and the authorities that are seeing real-term increases? I will leave it to Members to draw their own conclusions.
How can authorities such as Merseyside deal with that 12% cut when they have already made the savings over a number of years? Perhaps the Minister can also answer the point about why they have had that cut, while others have had increases at the same time. Merseyside has made the back-office and management savings, put in place a three-year pay freeze and taken money from the dynamic reserve.
The issues of resilience capacity and heavy industry that we talked about in Greater Manchester are also true of Merseyside. Just down the road from my constituency are the docks, which are surrounded by residential areas. Therefore, in the event of a major incident, not just the industrial areas but the nearby residential areas would suffer. Without the necessary back-up, how can those areas be protected?
The plans for future years make various assumptions. The chief fire officer has already assumed the pay freeze, a 4% council tax increase and the fact that no additional contributions will be made to the pension, yet he is still short by £8.5 million. Merseyside has made the savings that it can. If further cuts are double the national average, as they have been so far—the national average is £8.5 million—goodness only knows where he would go to make those savings.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the chief fire officer would be in the invidious position of not being able to meet his statutory obligations to keep the people of Merseyside safe?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the question that arises for the Minister is exactly how does he define what the statutory obligations are for the metropolitan authorities, such as Merseyside. What level of service does he deem to be necessary to protect the people of Merseyside and the other metropolitan areas?
In the Minister’s written answer to my parliamentary question, which I received only this week, he said:
“It is for elected members of each authority to determine such matters, acting on the professional advice of their principal officers and following full consultation with the local community.”—[Hansard, 5 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 485W.]
May I tell him that the professional advice of the chief fire officer of Merseyside and his colleagues is that it is not possible for them to maintain the current service on the funding settlement that the chief officer has already received, and it will be even more impossible for them to protect the community that they serve given the proposed future cuts? In addition, I can tell the Minister that the local community do not accept that these cuts should be made at all. In fact, they say that none of the cuts should be happening and that they want to be protected by the fire service. However, they are also aware that, with cuts of this nature, it is impossible for the chief fire officer to maintain the level of service that is needed.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given what the chief fire officer of Merseyside has said about the inability to do his job, it is incumbent on the Minister now to stop and freeze the changes in the system and to get his own officials to talk directly to the fire officers who have been affected by the cuts, so that we can maintain public safety and protect lives in our areas?
That is exactly right, and the Minister should be doing exactly what my hon. Friend suggests: listening to the chief fire officers, taking on board their concerns, considering what service is actually needed in each metropolitan authority and ensuring that that service can be supported by the funding that he provides. Otherwise, we run huge risks.
We have already heard about the inability of the fire services to continue preventive work, such as fitting smoke detectors, which saves many lives and has reduced the number of deaths in homes over a number of years. If that work does not continue, there is a grave risk that that very welcome reduction—a move in the right direction—will be reversed, with all the danger that is implied. Of course, the fire services not only carry out preventive work; they also have the ability to respond to call-outs. It will take only one major incident in any of the metropolitan authorities to show the folly of these cuts.
As a number of Members want to speak, I will draw my remarks to a close, but I urge the Minister to look at the impact of these cuts, which in Merseyside and many other metropolitan authorities is double the national average, to listen to what my hon. Friend Mr Watts has said and to go back to the drawing board and reinstate the funding, so that the fire services can protect the communities that we represent.
Thank you, Mr Williams, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend Yasmin Qureshi on securing this debate. I also want to mention the constructive way that the debate has been conducted until now. I hope that the tone that I will strike will not be too different from that of others who have spoken, but it is important that I place on record the feelings of people from across Merseyside.
Before I do so, however, I think that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties will join me in praising some of society’s bravest men and women, who work as firefighters in all four corners of the country. Firefighters do the most difficult of jobs in the most difficult of circumstances; they are never questioning but always relentless. There is no greater exemplar of that fine tradition than the Merseyside fire and rescue service. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to Britain’s firefighters and long may that continue.
Today I speak not only as the MP for Liverpool, Walton, but as a son, brother, husband, father, motorist, home owner, property owner and frequent user of public transport in and around our great city of Liverpool, including our world famous “Ferry Across the Mersey”,
and I hope that the man responsible for that song—the great Gerry Marsden—soon recovers from the bout of pneumonia that he is currently suffering from.
Merseyside fire and rescue service does not just put out fires; its officers also save lives on our roads and in our factories and offices, and they protect people using the River Mersey. That is why I greatly fear what this Government have done to the service to date, as well as what they have in store for it. I sincerely hope that the dangers that the Government’s decisions will bring to me, my family, my property, my constituents and every single person who lives in, works in or visits the Liverpool city region are never realised.
My hon. Friend is talking about the dangers that people are confronted with. Does he agree that there are a lot of volatile industrial processes around the Liverpool city region and in neighbouring regions, and that these cuts will make incidents such as occurred in the Sonae factory in my constituency even more difficult to deal with, if they mean that the fire service does not have the resources to meet all those challenges?
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is on record expressing his concerns about that particular factory. I must declare an interest—my brother works there, so if my right hon. Friend does close the factory down, my brother will be unemployed. But my right hon. Friend is correct, in that Merseyside and Greater Merseyside have petrochemical industries and other really volatile industries, which need the resilience of a well-funded and well-staffed fire and rescue service.
As we have already heard, it cannot be right for the six metropolitan areas outside London to shoulder 60% of the total reductions burden, with Merseyside being disproportionately affected; some may even say that it is being deliberately targeted. The disproportionate effect on Merseyside is especially true when we compare the areas that have had grant cuts with the areas that have had grant increases. For instance, while Merseyside has received a grant cut that is more than the national average in both of the last two years, Hampshire, Sussex, Shropshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire—otherwise known as “Tory heartlands”—have each received grant increases. Whether that is just a coincidence is for others to decide, but put simply the formula is flawed and unfair.
My hon. Friend points out that many people in our metropolitan areas feel as if this Government are targeting them, not only because of the fire service cuts but because those cuts come on top of the police and council cuts. With these cuts, the biggest share of the pain is being borne by the least able in the metropolitan authority areas, and those people wonder why the Minister is taking this unfair view of the metropolitan areas’ problems. It is up to the Minister to address that feeling. Those people are asking, “Why is this Government targeting, once again, the poorest areas in Britain?”
Of course my hon. Friend is right. With regard to what has happened on Merseyside—I can speak for Merseyside in particular—we have had the largest and deepest cut to our grant settlement from Government. That has been a cut to our police grant,
fire grant and just about every other supporting grant that we received from Government. We have seen the largest and deepest cuts. Again, I ask, “Is that a coincidence?” As I said before, it is for others to decide, but I would say that it is a strategic decision to balance the economy on the backs of the poorest.
In 2011-12, Merseyside’s grant cut was almost twice the national average and for 2012-2013 Merseyside’s grant cut will be more than three times the national average. That means that our total grant has been cut by £9 million in the first two years of this disastrous and desperately unfair period covering the comprehensive spending review. I believe that that is dangerous; the Minister knows that it is dangerous; the Prime Minister knows that it is dangerous; and the people of Merseyside know that it is dangerous. There is grave uncertainty around the Merseyside fire and rescue service, as we wait for the Government to announce the grant figures for the third and fourth years of the CSR period.
It is not just the metropolitan areas that are being affected. I realise that this debate is about those areas, but these cuts also impact on other fire and rescue services, including the Northumberland fire and rescue service. I just want to put something into context. All my hon. Friends and the hon. Members who have spoken have described the cuts in percentage terms, and in percentage terms they are absolutely horrendous. But can we just put the cuts in terms of the cost to human beings? Until now—that is, in 2010 and 2011—there have been 1,000 job losses in the metropolitan areas’ fire services and it is estimated that there will be an additional loss of 2,000 front-line posts, 50 fire stations and 100 fire appliances if these cuts go ahead. What message does that give to the firefighters—those brave men and women who run towards fires when everybody else is trying to run away from them—and to the general public?
My hon. Friend has asked a question, which I will answer in relation to human beings. Our fire and rescue service on Merseyside is contemplating losing 150 firefighter posts, potentially through compulsory redundancies. That has never happened in our local authority’s history. Five fire stations are currently being earmarked for closure, including the Aintree fire station, adjacent to my own constituency. In addition, 11 fire engines will be removed from front-line response under the proposals. Five fire engines have already been removed—reduced from 42 to 37—as part of phase 1 of CSR. The cuts will reduce overall front-line operational capability to 26 engines, a reduction of nearly 40% since the start of CSR.
My hon. Friend has given us stark figures in relation to the cuts that Merseyside fire and rescue service is about to impose. Does he agree that that is on top of losing more than 500 firefighters since 2002, and that the funding proposals will compound the very serious problem that we face?
My hon. Friend makes an important point, highlighting the cumulative impact of all the cuts on areas such as Merseyside. It has been debilitating for
the people in the fire and rescue service who go out and put their lives at risk every single day. For the good of the people of Merseyside, for the good of their safety and for the good of common sense, I urge the Minister to please stop this uncertainty. All we want is for the Minister to do as he said he would: make cuts that are fair. I want him to reassure me and the families in my constituency that response times will not double from five minutes to 10 because of reduced capacity.
We have come to expect a certain level of arrogance from the Prime Minister, but this Minister knows all too well the dangers of a complacent approach to the fire and rescue service and the impact that the cuts will have on operational preparedness, national resilience and our communities’ safety. It is time to get real and stop gambling with the safety of Merseysiders.
Order. I intend to start the wind-ups at 10.40 am. There are currently seven Members indicating that they wish to speak, six of whom have written. Please be brief.
I congratulate my hon. Friend Yasmin Qureshi on securing this debate. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend John Healey, who has done so much to co-ordinate the concerns of Members of Parliament and fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan areas.
The truth is that in good times and bad, there will always be a row about grant redistribution. Leaving aside the political inclinations of any particular Government, there is a balance to be struck between the sparsity of rural areas and the disadvantages and high risks of urban areas. In more than 30 years’ involvement in council and parliamentary politics, I have never seen such a grotesque distortion of grant allocation to metropolitan areas.
The six metropolitan areas serve a quarter of the population of this country outside the capital. They carry the highest risks in terms of fires and other emergencies, and they make a major contribution to national resilience. Yet in the first two years of this spending period, they have been expected to make 62% of the overall cuts that are required. By any measure, that is grossly unfair. It cannot be repeated in years 3 and 4 of the spending period.
I want to pay tribute to the fire and rescue authorities in this country, particularly Greater Manchester fire authority, chaired by Councillor David Acton. The fire authority has made its concerns known to Government, but it has also got on with the practical and difficult task of making the required cuts, while doing everything that it can to protect the front line.
Does my parliamentary neighbour accept that not only Councillor David Acton has been making that case? Before him, Councillor Paul Shannon, who led the fire authority for two or three years, made the exact same case to Ministers.
He has described the unfairness of the grant allocation as scandalous and unjustifiable. He put the case very strongly to Government.
The hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record. I stand by my remarks about Councillor David Acton. As the new chair of the authority, he has taken on the task with incredible strength, at a difficult time, when he faces so many difficult decisions in terms of the cuts that we face.
I also want to pay tribute to Gary Keary, a constituent of mine who chairs a branch of the Fire Brigades Union in Greater Manchester. He typifies the FBU’s approach in Greater Manchester. It has campaigned against the cuts and made the public aware of the implications of the cuts, but it has also been prepared to work constructively with the authority and with management to protect the public and minimise risk wherever possible. The cuts made in Greater Manchester have been largely back-office and management cuts, but they have also affected the front line, which I will come on to in a second.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the FBU. To get its view on the record, I will read a quote:
“The FBU is clear that these cuts will wreck the fire and rescue service. They are not being made on the basis of needs or risk. They have decided arbitrarily to meet the government's forced-march deficit reduction target. The cuts will put the public and firefighters at risk.”
That is the view of FBU branch secretaries across the country and in metropolitan areas.
Such views are echoed in Greater Manchester as well. Of course, the FBU and its members have done their very best to make sure that the front line of the service is protected as far as possible and that the risks to the public are minimised.
In my own constituency, the front-line cuts that have had to be made, even in years 1 and 2, will make a substantial difference. In the Wythenshawe fire station, the number of staff available 24/7 will be reduced from nine to eight from
A similar level of cuts in 2013-14 and 2014-15 would be an absolute disaster for my constituents and for the constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members here. In Greater Manchester, an equal share of the cuts required nationally in those two years would mean cuts of £24 million. If the same distorted criteria are used in 2013-14 and 2014-15, the cut required would be £38 million—a difference of £14 million. That would have disastrous consequences for my constituents and for others.
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents. As an MP in a metropolitan borough in the west midlands, I support what he is
saying in terms of ensuring that any future cuts should be made evenly across fire authorities. However, does he agree that West Midlands fire authority has been a significant beneficiary of the damping mechanism that has been put in place? Will he join me in asking the Minister to give greater clarity on how that damping mechanism is going to be applied in future and whether the same criteria will be applied?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I welcome his support for the overall thrust of the argument, which is for fairness in the allocation of grants in the final two years of the spending period, which we have not seen in the first two years. I encourage him and all his colleagues to discuss constructively with the Minister the best way forward. We all hope that the Minister will have constructive things to say when he winds up the debate.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the settlement as a grotesque unfairness. He has made a powerful case this morning. Is he aware of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s own figures that say that, in areas of deprivation where there is high unemployment, where people live alone and where there are many disabled people, someone is perhaps four times more likely to be in a fire? Apart from the unfairness of the settlement, it is actually downright dangerous. On its own figures, the Department ought to review, as my right hon. Friend says, this grotesquely unfair settlement.
I am aware of the higher risk, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has placed it firmly on the record. I am clear that, if the unfair grant distribution is applied in the final two years of this spending period, my constituency and others will lose appliances, staff and fire stations, imposing huge risks on our constituents’ lives. The grant allocation must relate to risk, and must take account of the national requirements for resilience and responses to emergencies.
I congratulate my hon. Friend Yasmin Qureshi on securing this vital debate. For the people in Tyne and Wear, the issue is a real worry. The main work done by the fire service in our area includes covering two major trunk roads: the A19, which leads to two tunnels under the Tyne, and the A1. The A1 western bypass, which runs through my constituency, is 200% above its planned capacity. It is the third most congested road in the UK. Due to the state of the road, despite the fact that it is a dual carriageway, the speed limit is 50 mph along the A1 throughout my constituency. That is partly due to the number of road traffic accidents that the fire service must deal with. We have industrial sites, chemical plants, gas production plants, ports, rivers, offshore installations, high-rise flats and many areas of deprivation, to which my right hon. Friend Hazel Blears referred a minute ago.
What do we in the Tyne and Wear area face? I have had discussions with Iain Bathgate, the retiring fire chief, and Councillor Bob Heron, with whom I had the privilege to work for 20 years as a coal miner, a job in
which we knew a thing or two about the risk of fire. They have told me categorically that over a four-year period, Tyne and Wear fire service is facing a 35% budget cut. To try to resolve that, they have engaged in discussions with Ministers and the civil service. When the fire service and elected officials have asked, “What do we do?”, the response is, “Make cuts to the back office.” The fire service chief said, “Let’s pretend I can run a fire service without any back-office staff. If I do that, I can save 17% of the budget, which means I am halfway to where you need me to be. What can I do?” The response was, “You have to manage it,” with no more information.
The fire service has already been managing it. Over the past few years, more than £8 million in savings have been made, which has included 109 front-line firefighters losing their jobs. Last year alone, we lost an appliance at Birtley fire station in my town. I worry that we will end up with an emergency-only service. I have no doubt that the great men and women in the service will make it work and do their best, as all our public servants do, to ensure that service is provided, but what will happen to the community?
This is a debate about community. I remind the Minister that his is the Department for Communities and Local Government. I will give two examples. The town of Birtley in my constituency has a boxing club. It was founded 30 years ago, with the support of the fire service, the police and the schools. They realised that prevention was the main thing, so they set up the boxing club. Part of the remit for the young lads who went to the boxing club was that they had to go to school and perform well. The young men coming through are now representing the country, but first and foremost they are being trained in how to behave properly, have self-respect and self-esteem and help care for the community.
Likewise, Chopwell, in a more remote part of my constituency, is surrounded by some of the biggest forests in the north of England. We had a huge problem with young people setting fires up there. The retained fire service in that part of the world has become the community centre for young people. It is a brilliant place. Last year, it was burgled, and the community insisted on holding a social to raise funds. The firemen said, “Look, you don’t need to. We’re insured,” but they said, “We’re having it,” because of their respect. My worry is that we will lose that link. It is a genuine public service.
I say to the Minister that the D in DCLG does not stand for “decimate the service”. The C does not stand for “cut terms and conditions for the work force, including pensions”. The LG does not stand for “all we have to do is let go of thousands of dedicated public servants”. The real story is that it is all part and parcel of the present Government’s drive against the public sector. It is an ideological drive to get the public sector out of the way and let the private sector fill the gap, led by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Bradford bulldog, who is determined to show that he can cut harder than anybody else, aided and abetted by the Minister. Between them, they have become the Eric and Ernie of public services. I have no doubt that the Minister has a raft of jokes to throw at us, but nobody is laughing in the fire service, and nobody is laughing in our communities.
I congratulate my hon. Friend Yasmin Qureshi on securing this debate. The more I listen to hon. Friends and colleagues, the more I feel that it is essential to say one thing to the Minister. He will have in front of him a brief prepared by his civil servants. As Ministers and former Ministers, we know that sometimes we are obliged to act as our civil servants advise, but we also know that we have discretion. I say to him at the outset that I hope that what he is hearing will lead him to go to his Secretary of State and use his power as a Minister to say, “I think we’ve got this wrong.”
As I listen to my hon. Friends, I have no doubt that the present arrangements under the funding formula have not only produced an inequitable position but will put lives at risk. People will die. I pray that that will not happen, but the Minister will know that if, as a result of the cuts next year or the year after, a number of people in any constituency die in an out-of-control fire in a school or business, an inquiry will be demanded. The inquiry will say that mistakes were made, and that the fundamental mistake was that when the cuts were introduced, not enough account was taken of the risks.
The Minister has a chance. He has some months to go to his Secretary of State and say, “I think we may have a problem with the formula we’ve been given.” It is his choice. He can do so. In Merseyside, we have already lost many firefighters. We used to have nearly 1,400; we are now down to 880, and shortly it will be 800. The coming cuts will drive us down to 650. Further cuts will be made to fire stations and to the number of engines. The question is whether it is safe to go further.
This year, there will be no pay increase, and there will be a 4% increase in the council tax precept. That means, at best, an £8.5 million cut to Merseyside. What that means in my constituency is that we will lose one fire station, almost certainly in Eccleston. Hon. Members may feel that we must all share the pain equally, but let me be clear about what the pain means. In 2004, the Merseyside fire service produced an important report in which it concluded that
“for all property fires we intend to get the first firefighting resources to the fire in 10 minutes or less”.
One of my hon. Friends has already referred to the Fire Brigades Union. I ask the Minister to reread its 2010 report, which discusses why response times matter. The report says that
“in the late stages a minute or two can make the difference between life and death”.
It also says:
“If a person has survived near to a fire for nine minutes, one minute later the fire could have increased in size by such an extent that they will be killed.”
I will tell the Minister what it will mean if the Eccleston station closes. The station serves 21,000 households, many of them disproportionately old. It serves 15 primary schools, three secondary schools and two colleges. Last year, the fire service attended 66 fires and 19 road traffic collisions. I asked the chief fire officer to give me his assessment of how long it would take for the two engines from St Helens to get to parts of Rainford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend Mr Watts. He said 15 minutes. That is five minutes more than what everybody knows is necessary to save lives. People will die.
Let us be clear. Numerous stations will close. All of that will cause problems, but when a Minister knows that the consequence of what he is doing will certainly be death, he has a huge responsibility to go to his Secretary of State and say, “If this material from the chief fire officer in Merseyside is correct—he is not a politician; I simply asked him for figures—we need to talk to him, sit down with the fire authority and look at the risks, because we are being told that people will die.” The Minister is a good man, and he has a choice. He can exercise his choice, accept the responsibilities of his office and say, “We have something wrong here, but we have time to change it.” It is his choice, and I very much hope that he has heard my hon. Friends’ remarks this morning, because the policy will cost lives.
I will keep my remarks short, because many representations have been made by hon. Friends from across Merseyside this morning.
I congratulate my hon. Friend Yasmin Qureshi on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend John Healey for his work along with other Members in campaigning on this important issue. I, too, add my voice to those who honour our brave firefighters, who risk their lives daily to protect the British people. I will focus on two points to support what some of my hon. Friends have said; I am conscious of the time and I want to allow other Members to make their contributions.
Our fire authority in Merseyside is led by Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens. He has done much work to make the cuts imposed on the fire service while protecting front-line services. That has not been easy, and tough choices have been made. Pay has been frozen for three years, and back office and management have been cut and shared. We often hear from the Government about trimming the fat. Back office functions have been severely shaved to make them the leanest of any comparable service. Reserves in Merseyside have already been spent, and innovations have been made, a list of which I will share with the Minister after this debate. The council tax precept has been raised, and 92 firefighters and 80 support staff have lost their jobs. In short, everything that could be done to ensure that the fire service keeps doing the vital work of saving lives has been done. There is absolutely no fat left to trim, and there is no low-hanging fruit to pick. Only the bare minimum remains. Despite that, our fire service is facing even more significant cuts.
We are waiting to hear from the Department in December about the next round of budget reductions. The best case scenario is absolutely sobering. As we have heard from other hon. Members, we are looking at the closure of five fire stations, including Allerton fire station in my constituency. There is the prospect of 11 fire engines being scrapped and 150 firefighter posts being lost. It is sobering to think that that is the best case scenario.
If the second phase of cuts follows in the same vein as the first, it is likely that the authority’s cut will be significantly higher than the national average on which that estimate is based. Some £17 million could be lost.
There is absolutely no chance that the cuts can be made without damaging the firefighting capability in Merseyside. We all agree that our firefighters do an incredible job. They place themselves in dangerous situations every day to protect us and save lives. We should be doing everything we can to make their job easier, not harder. We have already heard stories in Merseyside about the fire service struggling to attend all incidents now, before the second round of cuts.
With that in mind, I urge the Minister to think long and hard before he imposes huge cuts on fire services in all metropolitan areas, including Merseyside. If he is committed a national cut on that level, then I urge him to use the time between now and December to look at how it could be distributed more evenly, so that metropolitan areas are not disproportionately affected, our front-line services can be maintained, and our public can be adequately protected.
I am grateful for a late opportunity to speak in this debate. I think I am on the third version of my speech, and you will be delighted to know that it is down to one page from seven.
I would like to add my thanks to those expressed to my hon. Friend Yasmin Qureshi for securing the debate and to my right hon. Friend John Healey for liaising and bringing the mix together, and for arranging a meeting with the Minister.
As the only Member from south Yorkshire in the Chamber, I would like to place on the record the financial situation that is hitting West Yorkshire fire authority. For the first two years, the cut in grants equalled 11%, amounting to £13 million, under the unequal grant distribution introduced by the Minister. Even with an equal distribution, the cut would have been 6.5%, or £6.8 million. The difference between the two distributions underlines the task that the Minister is pushing on the fire authorities. It indicates that the fire authorities do not live in an unreal world. If they were facing equal cuts, there would be a different attitude, even though the cuts are particularly tough.
The next two years raise questions for the Minister. I join my right hon. Friend Mr Woodward in pleading with him to speak quietly but firmly to his Secretary of State about the position facing fire authorities and emergency services in the final two years of the spending review. If firmness and quietness do not work with the Secretary of State, and if nothing else works, the Minister should point out to the Secretary of State that the second and worst year of the spending review is the year of the election. In view of what the fire authorities are saying to Members about the effects of the cuts, it will not be a nice position from which to fight an election.
One year of cuts is severe, but there will be two and even three years of cuts. What happens when it hits four years? There will be 13% of cuts for West Yorkshire fire authority over the next two years. If the sacrifice were shared equally across the country, the cut would be 5%. In money terms, it would be £19.8 million over the two years instead of £12.8 million. The figure of £12.8 million is formidable on its own, and it would be that figure only if there was an equality of sacrifice.
The first set of cuts cost 170 firefighters. It caused crews to be cut and cost many support services. We are speaking about grants, but they are only one part of the picture—the revenue part. There is the expenditure part, where even after cuts, the fire authority will have to look for £9.1 million in 2013-14, and £13.7 million in 2014-15. That is after the authority has made what it—not politicians—regards as cuts that will still allow it to look the public largely in the eye and say that safety has been taken into consideration; I emphasise “largely”. We are facing those sorts of budget difficulties. On top of the 170 firefighters in West Yorkshire who will go by the end of the second year of the spending review, 380 firefighters are pencilled in to go in the next two years.
The Fire Brigades Union regional secretary, Pete Smith said:
“This will reduce our ability to respond to major outdoor fires which have damaged our moorlands and major flooding which has hit this region in recent years…There are times when we have been seriously stretched even with our current resources. These cuts risk tipping us over the edge and that will have a very serious impact on the public.”
That, from the front line, reflects exactly what my hon. Friend is saying.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I have been critical of the present cuts. I have questioned the fire chief seriously and challenged him regarding the safety of my constituents. We have a lot of back-to-back houses. The chief is closing the fire station in the area, and I worry about the safety of our constituents, in terms of the time that vehicles need to get to a fire. My hon. Friend makes a good point: faced with the final two years of the spending review, the Minister has to look seriously at this issue, including an equality of sacrifice—my hon. Friends have already referred to the strange and distorted distribution of cuts.
Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, I was able to meet the Minister. I went further than my right hon. Friend, however, in saying that I did not accept the spending envelope with which the Minister was working. The spending envelope is acceptable only if it is the Government’s will for every service to be cut by a certain amount. Because of the nature of the emergency services, provision cannot drop below a certain level without danger to the public, and to say that the emergency services are the same as libraries or other services shows a distorted set of values. I challenged the Minister about the spending envelope, and urged him, as the person who would be responsible for the consequences of any serious fires due to the cuts, to go to the Secretary of State and spell out the dangerous position that we are in.
At the meeting, the Minister agreed that his officers would meet representatives of the metropolitan fire authorities to go through the details and see whether they could accept any of the points that have been made. Let me say quietly to the Minister that I hope he will take that seriously, and that it results in a changed distribution of cuts to deal with some of the problems faced by the metropolitan fire authorities. In view of the serious points raised in this debate by representatives of big metropolitan areas, I hope that the Minister will go
to the Secretary of State and say that the policy that is being pursued is unsafe and could put a lot of innocent people in serious danger.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend Yasmin Qureshi on securing this vital debate, and I also thank my right hon. Friend John Healey for his excellent work in bringing this topic to the fore. It is a vital issue and it is important to debate it this morning.
I hope that the Minister has listened to the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber. There is a degree of cross-party consensus and concern about the impact of the cuts, and certainly the overwhelming view in the debate—and indeed across the country—is that the cuts go too far. My right hon. Friend Mr Woodward got to the nub of the issue when he pointed out that the cuts could result in people losing their lives, and that that could result in a public inquiry. Can the Minister put his hand on his heart and say that he would be in a robust position to defend the Government’s stance if such a tragedy were to occur and were followed up by a public inquiry?
The metropolitan fire authorities make the greatest contribution to national resilience in our country. To undermine that resilience in such a way is regrettable, and the Government should think carefully before they proceed. As today’s contributions to the debate have made clear, the metropolitan fire authorities have been singled out for vicious cuts. They are not the only services facing cuts; many fire and rescue authorities are confronting cuts across the country, and that will be particularly true in years 3 and 4 of the spending review. We have seen only the start of the cuts; the worst is yet to come.
The Minister was pleased to secure what he felt was a concession in that the cuts to fire and rescue services were back-loaded rather than front-loaded. We have already seen the devastating consequences of the first two years of back-loaded cuts, but the cuts will become even greater, which paints a very worrying picture. It simply will not do for the Minister to stand up and use the Pontius Pilate defence—I know he has also used it in written responses to right hon. and hon. Members—and say that it is for locally elected representatives to determine how they deploy their budgets. If locally elected representatives do not have the money in the first place to allow them to deploy their budgets and meet their statutory responsibilities, it will not do for the Minister to say that it is a matter for local areas.
Having looked at the figures, it is clear that the areas with highest demand will be hit the hardest by the per capita funding cuts, and it is incumbent on the Minister to explain a funding formula that has such perverse outcomes. For the record, I will go through some of the figures. In Greater Manchester, there are 8.74 incidents per 1,000 people, yet there will be a per capita cut of 82p; in Merseyside, 10.87 incidents per 1,000 of the population, and a per capita cut of £1.05; in South Yorkshire, 8.56 incidents per 1,000 people, and an 85p
per capita cut; in Tyne and Wear, 9.70 incidents per 1,000 people, and a 99p per capita cut; in the West Midlands 8.03 incidents per 1,000 people and a 94p per capita cut; and in West Yorkshire 7.89 incidents per 1,000 people and a 32p per capita reduction.
That cannot be justified in any parlance, and the Minister must try to explain how he can defend such cuts. We know that the cuts have already led to thousands of firefighters losing their jobs across the country, and that fire stations are closing. We know that appliances are being decommissioned as a consequence of the reductions, and that the greatest number of job losses, decommissioned fire appliances and fire station closures are occurring in the areas of greatest need.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the cuts, the excellent preventive work for which the fire and rescue service is responsible is suffering. What a crazy situation to put the nation in—cuts to preventive work are having to be made as a result of the reductions in funding from central Government. We will see more incidents of arson and the other problems that the fire and rescue service is called on to deal with, such as young people engaging in antisocial behaviour. The fire and rescue service does excellent work with young people, for example in the youth engagement schemes that take place around the country.
It is clear that the Minister’s cuts are arbitrary and are wrecking our fire and rescue service. The metropolitan fire and rescue services are bearing the biggest burden. The cuts are putting firefighters’ lives at risk and endangering the public. There will be increased casualties, and more properties will be lost as a consequence of the cuts to the fire services. That is not just scaremongering. I quote the author of “Fire Futures: Role of the Fire and Rescue Service (Delivery Models) Report,” which was commissioned by the Minister and said that
“these funding reductions will imperil their ability”—
the ability of fire and rescue services—
“to carry out risk-based budgeting and implement their local Integrated Risk Management Plans…let alone play an effective part in the National Framework. When all the frills have been removed, every spare ounce of fat burned off, and every possible efficiency saving identified and implemented, there will remain only real cuts to the core service and a real increase in casualties and property loss.”
That is a damning indictment of the Government’s direction of travel in relation to fire and rescue services.
I hope, having listened to the passionate speeches from right hon. and hon. Members who have great experience on this issue, that the Minister will consider what he has heard today, talk to his colleagues, think again, change course and reduce these cuts. The nation is relying on him.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate Yasmin Qureshi on securing the debate and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Lady is of course right to pay tribute to the firefighters in her constituency and in green watch and to many others across the country. I have been involved in the fire service, one way or another, for 35 years.
I have been the leader of a fire authority. I have had to wrestle with the difficulties of balancing a budget. Throughout those years, I have met firefighters in stations. I have dealt with the fire unions regularly.
I will not give way very much, I am afraid, because I want to answer some of the points that have been made. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, let us see how we get on.
There is no monopoly of concern for the fire service in either party or personal terms. Equally, we have to recognise that, as with all the public sector, the fire service must deal with the difficult and pressing financial situation that we inherited from the previous Government. I make no bones about that. We must therefore deal with difficult financial circumstances in a sensible fashion. There is no point in denying the need to reduce the deficit, and I do not think that most responsible people on any side do. It is not helpful to use the rather selective quotations that we have just heard or highly coloured scenarios. There are difficulties, which are being addressed by fire services through hard work, and I recognise that. It is equally important, however, to provide the full context, which may not have been picked up fully in the debate.
First, it is right, as has been observed, that back-loading is recognising the position of the fire service as an emergency service. It is worth noting that the reductions applied to fire and rescue authorities have been less than those applied to local authorities in general. No one likes to have to make reductions, but the inheritance is such that it cannot be avoided.
Secondly, it is important to realise that the much criticised formula is—I say it bluntly—essentially the formula that this Government inherited from Opposition Members when they were in government. It is a bit rich to hear criticisms of illogicality from hon. Members who were effectively the authors of the system—a system that the Government are proposing, in the coalition agreement, to change. Let me spell that out a little more clearly.
May I make a little progress? I want to get this on the record, and then my hon. Friend will understand why.
It is important to recognise that, under the current system, the metropolitan authorities none the less receive far more protection from the damping system than any other type of authority. The Government took the view, despite arguments from some quarters to the contrary, that it was right to maintain the damping position. That has protected the metropolitan authorities more than anyone else. For example, West Midlands fire and rescue authority benefits from damping to the tune of £8.5 million in 2011-13. Overall, there is approximately a £26 million benefit to metropolitan fire authorities from floor damping protection in 2011-13.
I am going to make these points before I start giving way to anyone.
That is more money than they would otherwise have had. The Government maintain that protection. Non-metropolitan areas contribute towards that protection.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Government changed an element of the formula that we inherited to increase the relative needs weighting, which operates to the benefit of metropolitan authorities, because it reflects more of the needs that arise in urban areas. It targets resources on those authorities that are more dependent on central ground. It is not right to suggest that the Government have sought to target metropolitan areas. The operation of the formula is, I think, potentially flawed, which is why the Government, through the Localism Act 2011 and the Local Government Finance Bill, are moving away from the crude system of formula grant to assist in a business rate retention that will enable us to treat authorities fairly.
I will give way, once, to my hon. Friend.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. As a fellow Conservative Member who represents a metropolitan constituency, I would not expect him to be biased against metropolitan constituencies. Most of us have engaged in this debate—not just today, but before—in a very constructive way, and so has the Minister. Whatever the origin of the formula, I hope that he will accept that its implementation is resulting in particularly harsh cuts in metropolitan areas. I hope that he will give serious consideration to whether a more equitable arrangement can be found to spread the cuts more fairly around the country.
I understand my hon. Friend, but it is right to say that, in 2012-13, formula grant average per head in metropolitan fire and rescue services is £26, as against £19 per head in non-metropolitan areas. We should not think that there are no pressures and fire risks in non-metropolitan areas.
I want to finish this point before I give way, if hon. Members will forgive me.
It is important to recognise that there are concerns. That is why, after the meeting organised by John Healey, I indicated that my officials would be happy to meet officials from the fire authorities. I assure him that that is still the case. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because of his action on this matter and because he has not yet spoken.
I thank the Minister for giving way. I thank him for his willingness to meet us and for charging his officials to work with those from the metropolitan authorities to get to the bottom of the situation and to consider the future. Does he recognise that there is cross-party and cross-area concern? Does he recognise that that concern is not about the first two years of the spending review; it is about years 3 and 4? The six fire chiefs, uniquely, have to come together to ensure that any cuts that need to be made are made evenly and equitably across all authorities in England.
I will make sure that those meetings take place. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are now moving to a new system.
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I want to get this point on the record, along with other important points that need to be made for the sake of balance.
I assure the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne that when we design the new system, we wish to ensure that there is fairness. That is why, in setting the baseline under the new system, the risks element will be taken into account. We have decided that, under the new system, fire and rescue authorities will be designated as top-up authorities, so that they will have the confidence of having a significant proportion of their funding protected and will not be subject to volatility by business rate growth. They will have that protection, plus the protection of uprating annually by the retail prices index.
I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We are seeking to deal with those measures and will continue to work with authorities across the sector.
It is also important to put on the record that other funding streams are relevant to the fire service. Funding for the national resilience element is outside the formula grant. That has been referred to on a number of occasions. It is important to bear in mind that the funding for new dimension equipment, for example, increased in 2011-12 from 2010-11. The total metropolitan authority funding for new dimensions is £8 million. There are also specific grants in relation to urban search and rescue, high-volume pumps and so on. We maintain our stance that that will be treated as a new burden issue should more be required.
Capital grant funding for metropolitan authorities has been significantly increased. In Greater Manchester, the increase is 82%. Metropolitan fire authorities will benefit from £25 million capital funding, so it is not entirely accurate to talk solely about the formula grant. The Government are making other resources available to local authorities and fire and rescue authorities in particular to assist them with the need for service reconfiguration.