Agenda item

Report by Corporate Directors Dr Carlton Brand, Carolyn Godfrey and Maggie Rae

 

At the last Council meeting held on 29 July 2014, Council adopted a motion submitted by Councillors Jeff Osborn and Terry Chivers which it amended to read as follows:

 

‘This council understands the financial challenges the Wiltshire  and Swindon Combined Fire Authority, as with all other public services, needs to address, but urges the Fire Authority to consider all options to address those challenges. To  this end this council will consider the matter fully at  its next meeting on 21 October 2014 when further information on all the options is available, including the views of the residents of Wiltshire, before formally giving its response to the Fire Authority as part of the consultation process’.

 

In accordance with the above adopted motion, Councillor Dick Tonge, Cabinet member for Finance, Performance, Risk, Procurement and Welfare Reform presented a report from the Corporate Directors for Council’s consideration.  It was noted that it had not been possible to include the views of the residents of Wiltshire as the consultation had not yet been completed.

 

The report referred to the seven options originally included in the Wiltshire draft business case and the resulting three options included in the public consultation document.

 

The report presented to Council advised members of the financial background surrounding the Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority proposals to strengthen the fire and rescue service whilst at the same time securing savings to enable a balanced budget. The report stated that of the options proposed by the Fire Authority, none fully addressed the £3.1 to £3.9 million shortfall for Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority by 2017/18 (nor the combined £5.4 million to £7.1 million shortfall faced by Wiltshire and Dorset).

 

In terms of the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority remaining independent, due diligence of the £0.9 million savings by Wiltshire Council officers suggested that there was scope to deliver a saving at the earliest within the next four years ranging from £0.481 to £1.074 million. This would come from back office sharing of services such as IT and Accountancy, as well as better use and sharing of depots.

 

Wiltshire Council officers had not conducted due diligence on the merger with the Dorset Fire Authority option, the Business Case for which was also presented. However, it was suggested that c.£0.2 to £0.3 million of the savings that could be achieved under the independent option, such as use of depots, would also be possible from this option. It was clear that more savings would need to be identified whichever option was supported.

 

The report suggested that Council should not commit to an option without further information and clarification on the various issues highlighted in the report presented. In particular, the Council would need answers to the following questions:

 

·           How will the funding gap be bridged?

·           Are there further savings that could be made in collaboration with other public bodies?

·           How will the equalisation of precepts be dealt with and what the impact will be on Wiltshire residents.

·           How it can be assured that key local decisions are not prejudiced by being out voted by the other constituent authorities?

 

Councillor Tonge moved the following motion and this was duly seconded by the Leader of the Council:

 

‘The council understands the financial challenges that the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority faces and appreciates the work that has been done to spell out the options for the future as set out in the consultation document and the draft business case.

The council has concerns about the gap in funding, the uncertainly with regard to equalisation of precepts and the governance arrangements which could disadvantage Wiltshire.

The council seeks assurance in these matters and prefers not to commit to any option until such time as these issues are resolved.

Whichever option the Fire Authority decides upon this council would welcome closer cooperation to reduce costs in both organisations’.

 

Councillor Jeff Osborn was given the opportunity to respond to the motion.

 

A number of members expressed deep concern that a new motion should be presented without members’ prior knowledge, with points of order being raised to this effect. Councillor Jeff Osborn sought clarification as to how the new motion as proposed related to his motion adopted at the last Council meeting. The Chairman explained that the last Council meeting in considering the motion submitted by Councillors Jeff Osborn and Terry Chivers, resolved to adopt that motion as amended as set out in the minutes of that meeting. The effect of that motion was that a report would be presented to this meeting.

 

Councillor Jon Hubbard considered that the motion Council should now be considering was the motion put forward by Councillors Jeff Osborn and Terry Chivers at the last meeting and not the motion now being put forward by Councillor Dick Tonge. A number of members considered that any motion to be considered by Council should have been included in the Summons. Councillor Wheeler also sought to assist Council by clarifying the position. 

 

Councillor Jeff Osborn moved an amendment as follows, duly seconded by Councillor Terry Chivers:

 

‘That this local authority supports the merger as the only viable way forward to protect fire cover in this County.’

 

Councillor Jon Hubbard sought clarification by way of a point of order over the constitutional procedure in considering the motion. He sought clarification over whether the motion put forward by Councillor Dick Tonge constituted a motion or amendment. He now understood it to be a motion pointing out  that it had not been circulated in advance and his concern that it could be seen to be attributed to the movers of the motion as considered at the last meeting from Councillors Jeff Osborn and Terry Chivers as set out in the Summons.

 

Ian Gibbons, Associate Director, Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer explained that the motion as adopted at the last meeting instructed that a report on the matter be brought to this meeting. Accordingly, the requested report was presented to this meeting which thereby discharged the terms of that motion.

 

Councillor Jon Hubbard requested that the meeting be adjourned to enable him to seek advice of the Monitoring Officer as he considered the process to be unconstitutional.

 

MEETING ADJOURNED AT THIS POINT

 

Once reconvened, Ian Gibbons explained that following discussions, a way forward had been agreed whereby the motion decided at the last Council meeting from Councillors Jeff Osborn and Terry Chivers would remain on the table as the main motion.

 

The motion submitted by Councillor Dick Tonge as presented earlier in the meeting, would now be treated as an amendment as additional wording to the main motion.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the main motion by Councillor Jeff Osborn and seconded by Councillor Terry Chivers was as follows:

 

‘This council understands the financial challenges the Wiltshire and Swindon Combined Fire Authority, as with all other public services, needs to address, but urges the Fire Authority to consider all options to address those challenges. To this end this council will consider the matter fully at its next meeting on 21 October 2014 when further information on all the options is available, including the views of the residents of Wiltshire, before formally giving its response to the Fire Authority as part of the consultation process’.

 

The amendment by Councillor Dick Tonge and seconded by the Leader was as follows:

 

‘This council understands the financial challenges the Wiltshire and Swindon Combined Fire Authority, as with all other public services, needs to address, but urges the Fire Authority to consider all options to address those challenges. To this end this council will consider the matter fully at its next meeting on 21 October 2014 when further information on all the options is available, including the views of the residents of Wiltshire, before formally giving its response to the Fire Authority as part of the consultation process.

 

The council understands the financial challenges that the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority faces and appreciates the work that has been done to spell out the options for the future as set out in the consultation document and the draft business case.

 

The council has concerns about the gap in funding, the uncertainly with regard to equalisation of precepts and the governance arrangements which could disadvantage Wiltshire.

 

The council seeks assurance in these matters and prefers not to commit to any option until such time as these issues are resolved.

 

Whichever option the Fire Authority decides upon this council would welcome closer cooperation to reduce costs in both organisations’

 

Councillor Chris Devine addressed Council in his capacity as Chairman of the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority. Councillor Devine referred to the 3 options being considered. He confirmed that the public consultation was so far indicating a preference for option 3 from the public focus groups. He recognised that this Council and Swindon Borough Council were the Fire Authority’s largest stakeholders and that Swindon BC were in favour of option 3, although needed resolution on a number of issues. The Combined Fire Authority, an independent legislative body would make its decision on 11 November 2014. He referred to the recent award of a transformation grant of just over £5.4 million from central Government, conditional upon progressing with option 3. This would help fund some of the costs associated with option 3. Councillor Devine explained the projected financial position of the Fire Authority taking into account combined savings, the grant and equalisation of the precept would take the Fire Authority out of a deficit position. He also assured Council that he would be seeking equalisation of representation.

 

The Chairman reminded the meeting that the debate was now in relation to the amendment from Councillor Dick Tonge. The Chairman invited comments initially from Group Leaders before widening the debate to other members.

 

The Leader of the Council reminded Council that the merger decision did not rest with this Council and that we were merely one of the consultees. She considered that it would be unsafe for this Council to support the merger whilst questions remained unanswered. The Council had only recently received further financial information and had not had sufficient time to carry out due diligence on this. Clarity was also needed on the issue of the precept and a clear undertaking on the issue of equalisation of representation to ensure equal parity on decision making. The Council should therefore not commit to an option without answers to these important issues.

 

Councillor Jon Hubbard considered that this Council had agreed at its last meeting that it would at this meeting having looked at the issues and listened to what people had said, agree to submit a response to the consultation process what it felt was right. He considered that the amendment if passed, would indicate that this Council was unable to reach a decision and that this would not demonstrate leadership by the Council.  He considered that representation should be proportionate to population with those elected to serve on the body, working collectively rather than parochially.

 

Councillor Ernie Clark had understood the effect of the motion agreed at the last meeting was that a decision would be made at this meeting. He considered that the potential impact on the Fire Authority’s precept was as a direct result of cuts in Government funding and previous zero percent increases by the Fire Authority.

 

The Chairman then widened the debate to other members summarised as follows:

 

·         The Council’s response should be to agree to Option 3 at the same time adding the Council’s concerns to be taken into account

·         The proposed merger represented the best way to protect the future of the fire service and achieving necessary savings.

·         The transformation grant on offer from central Government demonstrated confidence in the merger proposal.

·         Lack of clarity over key issues to be able to commit to a particular option.

·         What would be the impact on fire stations, particularly rural ones and would the merger lead to closures?

·         Why had Dorset being selected as a prospective merger partner as opposed to other neighbouring Fire Authorities?

·         Sharing of resources including accommodation between emergency services and campuses and amalgamating buying power could provide the much needed savings without the proposed merger.  The Chairman of the Fire Authority did however explain the specific accommodation needs of the fire service which made sharing its accommodation difficult.

·         None of the 3 options were conclusive enough or adequately evidenced to provide an informed choice.

·         The Council should listen to the views of the people.

·         The Council needs assurances over the future of the fire service, whether fire stations would remain open and whether front line staffing levels (employed and retained) would be maintained.

·         seeking clarification over the status of the amendment in relation to the motion in the context of the constitutional process.

·         The Fire Authority was an organisation very well respected by the public.

·         Actual savings need to be properly assessed and evidenced.

·         Concerns over equalisation of representation.

Councillor Jeff Osborn in exercising his right of reply, urged members to support the merger.

 

The AMENDMENT was then put to the vote and CARRIED and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of members, the voting was recorded as follows:

 

For the motion (44)

 

Councillors Chuck Berry, Richard Britton, Allison Bucknell, Mary Champion, Richard Clewer, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Andrew Davis, Fleur de Rhe-Philipe, Stewart Dobson, Mary Douglas, Peter Evans, Sue Evans, Jose Green

Howard Greenman, Russell Hawker, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Peter Hutton

Simon Jacobs, Julian Johnson, Simon Killane, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay

Alan MacRae, Laura Mayes, John Noeken, Mark Packard, Sheila Parker

Horace Prickett, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, James Sheppard, Toby Sturgis

John Thomson, Richard Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Philip Whalley, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While, Philip Whitehead, Jerry Wickham and

Christopher Williams

 

 Against the motion (27)

 

Councillors Pat Aves, Nick Blakemore, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Terry Chivers, Ernie Clark, Brian Dalton, Dennis Drewett, Peter Edge, Jon Hubbard

Chris Hurst, George Jeans, David Jenkins, Bob Jones, Magnus Macdonald

Helena McKeown, Ian McLennan, Stephen Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Linda Packard, Graham Payne, David Pollitt, Ian Thorn, Nick Watts, Ian West, and Graham Wright

 

Abstentions (2)

 

Councillors John Knight and Christopher Newbury

 

The amendment therefore became the substantive motion. The Chairman invited Group Leaders to speak on the motion before widening the debate to other members.

 

Councillor Jon Hubbard considered that the Council should be giving a definitive response to the consultation. He referred to the financial constraints under which the Fire Authority operated such as the capping of precepts.

 

Cllr Hubbard moved the following amendment which was duly seconded:

 

‘Additionally, council requests that the leader writes to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on behalf of the council pointing out the challenges posed to the Fire Authority with the capping of their precepts and the inequality of their status with parishes in this respect’.

The debate then centred on the above amendment and the Chairman invited remaining Group Leaders to comment before widening the debate to other members.

The Leader commented that she could see no benefit of writing to the Secretary of State in this regard. She added that the likely response would be that you could not compare a Fire Authority with a parish council.

A debate then ensued, summarised as follows:

·         A suggestion that reference to parishes be omitted from the amendment.

·         Both options 1 and 2 would leave a substantial funding gap which would result in the loss of fire fighters and the closing of fire stations whereas option 3 would achieve savings.

·         Comparing the proposed merger with the Council’s unitary arrangement was not relevant as the proposed merger involved a another County under a different process .

·         Very little detailed information available on which this Council could base its decision.

·         Clarification sought on what was on the table to which Ian Gibbons replied, summing up the position so far.

The amendment was then put to the vote and LOST.

 

Council returned to the substantive motion and on being put to the vote, was CARRIED and it was therefore

 

Resolved:

 

To adopt the following motion as amended as follows:

 

This council understands the financial challenges the Wiltshire and Swindon Combined Fire Authority, as with all other public services, needs to address, but urges the Fire Authority to consider all options to address those challenges. To this end this council will consider the matter fully at its next meeting on 21 October 2014 when further information on all the options is available, including the views of the residents of Wiltshire, before formally giving its response to the Fire Authority as part of the consultation process.

 

The council understands the financial challenges that the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority faces and appreciates the work that has been done to spell out the options for the future as set out in the consultation document and the draft business case.

The council has concerns about the gap in funding, the uncertainly with regard to equalisation of precepts and the governance arrangements which could disadvantage Wiltshire.

 

The council seeks assurance in these matters and prefers not to commit to any option until such time as these issues are resolved.

Whichever option the Fire Authority decides upon this council would welcome closer cooperation to reduce costs in both organisations.