Suffolk Fire Review

Yesterday I made a contribution to the debate about the future of the fireservice in Suffolk at the Cabinet meeting in Ipswich.

At Suffolk County Council Cabinet Meetings, although the decision is made by the Cabinet, any councillor can turn up and say their bit.  I wanted to make a comment about the very good consultation meeting that was held for the villages to the north of Sudbury at Great Waldingfield Village Hall during the consultation period.  The meeting was quite well attended and the residents who came were given a very comprehensive picture of what was proposed.  I came away from the meeting feeling that the consultation was being carried out in an honest and transparent way, and that people's views were noted.

So often consultations are something of a sham.  They are prescribed by legislation, so must take place, but often the decisions have already been taken.  This was not the case on this occasion.  As can be seen from the Cabinet paper, almost all of the original proposals were amended following consideration of the feedback from the public. This included a rethink on the decision to replace the second fire engine in Sudbury with a smaller, rapid response vehicle.

I am actually a bit disappointed by this, since it seemed to me that the RRV would be more flexible and speedy while retaining many of the features of the larger vehicle.  However, an RRV is to be commissioned elsewhere in the county and time will tell whether it proves its worth, particularly in rural areas.

Because its services deal with life and death situations, the Fire Service is something of a sacred cow, and an obvious area to make political noise.    My view is that this can be dangerous.  As times goes on circumstances do change, and no service should be exempt from review.  In this instant it is well documented that the number of call outs for the Fire Service have declined quite dramatically in recent years.  The use of smoke alarms have increased, and modern houses tend not to have as many fire incidents as older properties.

 It is therefore only right to review the configuration of the service, having due regard for risk, and this review lies behind the current proposals.

A day in London, Part 2.

Much of the afternoon of my trip to London on Wednesday was absorbed by a ‘Question and Answer’ event held under the impressive portals of the Central Hall in Westminster. The Government has proposed some radical changes in the way that Local Authority Pension Funds are managed, and the aim was to shed light on the progress being made.

This is an arcane subject and I will not dwell on the issues in any detail. Suffice it to say that in insisting on reform the Government seems to have two big ideas, plus one major prejudice.

The first idea is that a good deal of money could be saved were the funds to be ‘pooled’ into larger units by combining with others.   The Suffolk Fund currently amounts to around £2.5 bn. and we are aiming to form an alliance with nearby authorities that will produce a pool of £35 bn.

Whether or not costs will actually be saved by this complex exercise is unproven.  If one takes the not inconsiderable up-front costs of effecting the reorganisation, and understands that  likely savings will only be realised several years in the future, it is not hard to see that the whole exercise is unlikely to offer positive value.

The second idea is that some of the billions currently sitting in the pension funds could usefully be pillaged in order to pay for much needed infrastructure investment across the country.

Here the government really seems to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.  There is no shortage of funds looking for investment opportunities in infrastructure.   Indeed, the Suffolk Fund already has exposure to an international infrastructure fund.  If the Government brings forward the right sort of opportunities (that actually produce an income stream representing an acceptable return for our pensioners) Local Authority funds will be falling over themselves to invest.  There is a suspicion however that these sorts of projects are not what the Government has in mind.

Then we come to the prejudice.  For all the talk of Devolution, there is no doubt that by and large Whitehall holds local authority councillors in contempt.    This is well illustrated by the Government’s clear intention to remove the right of elected Pension Fund Committees to appoint their own investment managers in consultation with their professional advisers.  In future, in the words of one public servant on the panel, this task will be carried out by a committee comprising apparatchiks such as himself, whom he rather inadvisably described as ‘more intelligent’.

Of course, given that the audience was largely made up by elected members and investment managers, this issue generated some excitement.  In the overall scheme of things, apart from the transparent insult to elected members, the change will make little difference to fund performance.  What really matters here is asset allocation which will remain the remit of the individual Pension Fund Committee. 

But the big issue is this: council pension fund Committees meet in public.  Anyone can come along and see decision making in action. I have real concerns about the scope for corruption when a group of unelected officers and City ‘experts’, meeting in secret, wield considerable power over decisions about the management of what is ultimately residents’ money.

Kettlebaston Parish Council, news on waste.

Kettlebaston Church

Yesterday morning I went to Kettlebaston Village Hall for one of the quarterly meetings of the  Parish Council.

Kettlebaston Parish Council meets on a Saturday because a number of its members work away during the week and the village is a very small place, only comprising some 65 or so electors.

The District Councillor, Clive Arthey was also there, as was Cally Boardman, our Local Community Co-ordinator whose work I described in a post in January. There was even a member of the public present!

As usual a warm welcome was extended and proceedings were helped along with a cup of coffee and a biscuit.

Clive was as usual able to tell us a good deal about what is going on in the world of Waste due to his long standing membership of the Suffolk Waste Partnership.  He explained the new measures that have been introduced with regard to the disposal of building waste such as hardcore and plasterboard. Limits on disposal have been relaxed but small charges are now being made. Information is available HERE.

Clive mentioned that he had recently visited the new charity re-use shop that has opened at Foxhall Household Waste Recycling Centre.  'It is amazing what people throw away' he said, as he described the stack of old vinyl records. electrical items, chairs, toys and other interesting items that are on sale.  Information about the Foxhall shop can be found HERE.

We also had an interesting discussion about the changes that are being proposed to the Fire Service.   I was obliged to make it clear that reductions are being contemplated in the light of 10 years' evidence of falling call out requests, not 1 year as is apparently being reported by some.

Fire service review consultation

A review is currently underway into the delivery of the fire service in Suffolk.

The review is taking place in the light of a 30% fall in the number of 999 calls in the last 10 years.  The general aim of the review is to improve the availability of on call firefighters, greater collaboration with blue light and other partners and a service re-design to reflect falling call volumes.

Full details of what is proposed can be found on the Suffolk County Council website here.

Two public meetings are being held in the Sudbury area at which residents are invited to meet officers of the fire service.  They are at Great Waldingfield Village Hall on 25th January , and in Sudbury Town Hall on 3rd February.  Both meetings start at 6.30 p.m.

Street parties, 2016.

Royal Wedding Street Party, Lavenham 2011.

I was somewhat disconcerted to hear the Cabinet Member for Highways suggesting last week that it would be a good idea for communities wishing to hold a street party to think about holding the event 'elsewhere'. (i.e. not in the street.)

I fear that this is a 'demand reducing' cost saving measure.  Holding a street party involves applying to the council for a Road Traffic Order enabling the street to be closed.  This, as with everything to do with government,  is complex and time consuming for officers.

But how can one hold a street party anywhere else but in the street?  'Street party' is what it says on the tin, and, although James Finch is an excellent person, I hope that his suggestion will be ignored.

Street parties are of special importance this year since many communities are gearing up to celebrate the 90th birthday of  Her Majesty the Queen in June.

I hope that those who usually hold street parties on such occasions carry on and do so, but I would advise organisers to apply early to avoid the rush and ease the burden on County Highways!

The Year Ahead

Well I didn’t do too badly with my predictions for last year.

The most important event was the General Election in May. It was a relatively easy call to predict that James Cartlidge, our new Member of Parliament in South Suffolk, would win the seat, although when there is a new candidate success is not always a foregone conclusion.

I was also right to say that the appeal of UKIP to voters on the right would wane somewhat and to predict that they would disappoint in the election.  My forecast that the Conservatives would be the largest party, and would probably form the Government, was correct, but I did not predict the surprise overall majority of 12.    I was also too cautious when it came to the elections at Babergh.  I thought that the Conservatives would not quite manage to get an overall majority, but the coincidence of the local with the General Election brought out the Tory vote, and for the first time ever the District Council has one party in the driving seat.

As far as the County Council is concerned, I was right to predict that we would balance the budget for the current year.  It was also correct to say that educational standards in the County would continue to improve, albeit slowly.  Finally the first High Speed Broadband Contract, which has brought Broadband to over 80% of households in Suffolk, was, as I foretold, completed on time and within budget.

So turning to 2016, the most important political event is of course the United States Presidential Election, and my prediction is that Hilary Clinton will become the first woman President of the United States.  The Republicans will, like Labour in the UK, fail to find a moderate and electable candidate.  This transatlantic lesson may not be lost on some of the more moderate members of the Labour Party here in Britain, but nonetheless I suspect that Corbyn will be continuing to delight us this time next year.

In Suffolk we are relatively election free in 2016, apart from the poll for the Police and Crime Commissioner. I anticipate that Tim Passmore will win once again.   He has worked hard to maintain a high public profile during his first three year term, and certainly knows how to kick a political football.

I do not believe that the much discussed Referendum concerning our future in the EU will take place in 2016.  My best guess is that it will coincide with the County Council elections in 2017 (ensuring a high turn-out for us!).  This means that we face a year of endless campaigning by both sides, with a high level of scaremongering coming from those who wish to maintain the status quo.

At the County Council, we are unlikely to be able to balance the budget over the next two years without dipping into reserves.   I predict that despite this we will stick to our promise not to raise council tax during the four year term of the Council so there will be a zero increase for 2016/17.  However, I think that it would be wrong not to take advantage of the ability to charge a 2% Social Care Precept  to ensure that the old and vulnerable in our community are protected.  Educational standards will continue to improve and more people will be connected to high-speed broadband.  As we start to move into more remote areas however there will be some frustration at the speed of delivery of the service, and we will be focussing on alternative technology to get the job done.

Last year I predicted that the County Council would be involved in negotiating agreements with other public sector bodies both within and outside the county.  This proved to be correct as promises made to Scotland concentrated the mind of central government on the question of the devolution of powers to English authorities.  Much of the second half of last year was spent up in somewhat mysterious interaction between Suffolk County Council, central government, Norfolk County Council and other public bodies.   This activity will doubtless continue in 2016 and, with luck, some light will be generated from the heat.

So that’s it folks!  I’ll return to these predictions next year to see how wrong I was!

Funding for Suffolk's arts and culture.

Gainsborough's House, worth your money?

At Thursday’s full council meeting we debated a motion about the funding of arts and culture.

For many years the County Council has supported a number of cultural organisations across the County, including Gainsborough’s House and the Theatre Royal Bury St Edmunds.  As money has become tighter however, and we have had to prioritise those activities which we are obliged to deliver, these grants have been gradually reduced, but not eliminated.

There are those who believe that the arts should fend for themselves and that no public money should be devoted to them.  I am not among their number.   Setting aside for a moment the undeniable soul enriching value of artistic endeavour, theatres, concert halls, museums and galleries attract visitors to the county.  These visitors spend money and boost the local economy.  In addition, many arts organisations engage in community activities that contribute to the work of the county council in the areas of education and Adult Social Care.

 At Gainsborough’s House, for example, we have an education officer who spends a great deal of time working with local schools and colleges.  Over the past year around 300 children have visited the House and participated in a wide range of art related activities,  We hope that we are creating the art lovers, and creative artists of the future.  We also have a weekly museum club for people with learning difficulties.

About 20,000 people visited Gainsborough’s House this year, and the museum is thought to stimulate around £600,000 for the local economy when one takes into account money spent by tourists plus the wages of employees and payments to local businesses.

The council motion, which was debated after some amendment, effectively asked the administration to confirm that financial support will continue to be offered to cultural organisations in Suffolk.   The cabinet member, Sarah Stamp, was able to do this, although no blanket guarantees were forthcoming as to what form this funding will take. In times of  financial uncertainty this is as it should be. 

I spoke in the debate, and in addition to commenting about the contribution made by Gainsborough’s House above, I did make the point that it is not healthy for arts organisations to become too dependent on public funding, or, indeed, on any one source of support.   It is important that they strive to become as self-sufficient as possible, building on links with supporter groups, charitable trusts and other sources of finance.

Commercial activities are also increasingly important.  At Gainsborough’s House we know that in the long term we will only survive if we increase our entry ticket sales, shop receipts and other similar payments.   It was an interesting coincidence that on the same day as the debate at Endeavour House we submitted a bid to the  Heritage Lottery Fund for funding to support a major expansion of the museum’s activities.  The aim is to attract more visitors to ensure the sustainability of the organisation for the long term.   We now have to wait until March to find out whether our bid will meet with first time success.   

I will report back when I know!