Fire delay: cynical political move

We learn today that Warwickshire County Council’s Tories have put off any decision on their proposed reduction of the Fire Service indefinitely, by which we understand “until after the General Election.”

For those who have fought these changes tooth and nail, this is a minor victory, but also a major threat: we have demonstrated to councillors that the public will not tolerate the closure of fire stations and sacking of retained fire fighters on such a flimsy, misleading prospectus. The consultation document is thoroughly discredited, and the process with it.

So much for the minor victory. But the threat is that, as soon as the General Election is passed, the proposals will be back, and with vengeance. Bidford, Studley, Fenny Compton and all the others are just as much under threat, and fire fighters face a future which is just as uncertain, but with the prospect of less time between a decision and the fall of the axe.

If anyone believes that this is unlikely, and that we have really won, then they should look at the lesson of this summer. Right up to the County Council elections, councillors including the portfolio holder assured us that there were no plans to cut the services. Immediately after the election, the plans were rolled out. Coincidence? You can believe that if you really want to. Most of us will regret that we feel obliged to doubt.

In the mean time, what should be done?

Everyone who has been involved in the fight needs to keep up the pressure on the local authority. Councillors should continue to receive letters, marches and public meetings should continue to happen. For as long as they believe that public opposition is strong, Tory councillors will be loathe to bring up the issue. The moment that they believe the opposition has subsided, they will push forward with their plans.

We cannot allow that.

Victory in Alveston

Massive congratulations to new Lib Dem councillors Tony Cronin (Stratford on Avon District Council) and Ian Fradgley (Stratford upon Avon Town Council), who took the Alveston seats from the Tories in tonight’s by-election. This puts steadily more pressure on the demoralised Stratford Tories, who suffered the biggest swing against them anywhere in England in the 2008 elections, and saw the second biggest swing on their turf in the County Council elections, when the Liberal Democrats picked up a net of two seats in the district, for a total of five.

Reforms fall short

Sir Christopher Kelly’s report offers a bare minimum of reforms but fails to address the fundamental issues with parliamentary funding — that the rich are still advantaged when it comes to being an MP, and the tax-payer hands over cash with poor value for money when it comes to what MPs actually achieve.

Essentially — if you don’t have time to read the 139 page report — Christopher Kelly recommends reducing the allowances MPs can claim, preventing them from claiming for mortgages, and cutting down what MPs near London are allowed to get. But he does nothing to stop MPs earning lucrative amounts through second incomes, and he does absolutely nothing whatever to require MPs to work a certain number of hours in return for their annual salary or to deliver achievements or outcomes. In this way, parliament remains a ‘gentlemen’s club’, where those with substantial external earnings are little harmed by the new arrangements, and where there is no accountability, beyond the once in five years popularity contest of the General Election which has more to do with competing party promises than with the MP’s own track record.

Kelly entirely dodges the question of external earnings. In noting that he intends to recommend no change, he trots out the tired excuse: “It can bring valuable experience to the House of Commons and the income from it can help to preserve independence from the whips.” ((page 11))

But this flies in the face of a principle which Kelly references repeatedly — bringing MP’s remuneration closer to the expectations of their constituents. Normally, if a constituent works a responsible full-time job, their contract will stipulate what external employment they are allowed to hold, and how potential conflicts of interest with their main employment should be managed.

The problem with MPs having external interests is that MPs get to vote on absolutely everything. No aspect of British society is outside of parliament’s discussions. True, MPs are required to declare an interest when the debate explicitly touches on their directorships. But a debate may implicitly touch on many areas, and no interest declared.

Further, there are a number of professions and commercial interests which could be legitimately considered to be against the public interest. I have the greatest, deepest admiration for Tory MP Kenneth Clarke in much of what he does (and, really, has he not realised yet he is in the wrong party?), but a directorship of British American Tobacco surely flies in the face of widely accepted public priorities. Equally, we have MPs who benefit (or who have benefitted in the past) from the operation of fee-charging cash machines, which sap the resources of deprived communities where banks are unwilling to place the free ATMs common in affluent areas.

There are a large number of businesses which, while not illegal, are predatory in nature. What’s more, there are changes to society which benefit legitimate business, but whose benefit to society as a whole is altogether more questionable. Churches and many voluntary groups, as well as trades unions, opposed the Thatcher-sponsored Sunday trading bill. Sunday trading — if it did anything — fuelled the growth in consumer spending and thus consumer debt which is a key factor in the boom-bust cycle which has left our economy reeling. Many of the MPs (in fact, probably most) who voted for that bill gained substantially from it, through their external interests.

Kelly’s claim “the income from it can help to preserve independence from the whips”, is particularly disturbing. If the standard remuneration for MPs is not enough to preserve their independence from whips, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the framework Kelly is proposing. Worse, it means that new MPs, or MPs from backgrounds that do not privilege them with access to directorships, are ‘whip-fodder’.

The other enormous problem with Kelly’s prescription is that it changes the remuneration of MPs without making any assessment of what it is that MPs are actually supposed to do. How often should an MP attend parliament? How many parliamentary questions should they ask? How much constituency work? How many letters should they answer themselves, compared to the number which are answered by their researchers?

Should MPs have performance related pay? How would that performance thus be measured? It would certainly offset the time that MPs with outside interests put into earning their extra money.

David Cameron has expressed the view that there should be fewer MPs. Why? What benefit would that be? If we are really concerned about saving a few million pounds, then we should perhaps be looking at the £100,000 a year that relatively minor but senior civil servants get. There are very few MPs by comparison, and they earn far less. Cameron of course is making this suggestion because it sounds contrite, honest and cost-saving. But it is nonsense, as is any attempt to set the amount that MPs get paid (including their expenses) without setting out their duties and hours of work.

If we really want to sort out the complete mess which parliament is now in, and if we really want to make the work of an MP transparent — understandable to someone who does a regular job, for a regular wage — then we need to give MPs contracts like any job gives its employees. They should set out how many hours, what outcomes, how the work is to be measured. And if we really mean to modernise, then there should be a mechanism for throwing an MP out if they fail to live up to not only the basic ethical standards, but also the basic work, that we would expect from any other employee.

Because, ultimately, MPs are our employees.

Fire consultation should be suspended

We now have access to the full management document on which the Warwickshire Fire proposals are based. Here it is. To be exactly right, this is the redacted version. In other words, they still aren’t telling us everything.

But, even as it is, there is enough in it — more than enough — to call into fundamental question everything that the Consultation Documents put forward. Some of it directly contradicts what the documents say. For example, in the Improvement Plan FAQ’s (sic), we read: “Will response times to incidents be increased? No, the locally determined response standards will be achieved across the county.” 1
The true picture, as presented in the Det Norske Veritas report (ironically, Det Norske Veritas loosely translates as ‘the Norwegian truth’), is that average response time across the county will increase. And, of course, those are average times. In the most affected areas, they increase substantially.

Most of what we learn, though, is that very substantial and important information was suppressed from the consultation documents. These were already suspected of being skewed and leading, but it is now extremely hard to come to any other conclusion than that a one-sided picture has been deliberately presented with a view to gaining public consent on what is — arguably — a false prospectus.

My report on the differences between the two documents is available for download here: Comparison between Consultation documents and Det Norske Veritas risk report.

My conclusion is very simple: the current fire consultation should be suspended immediately. It is now entirely discredited. It serves no worthwhile purpose continuing it — particularly as the management report makes it clear that the risks were evaluated in haste, with very many poorly based assumptions. Det Norske Veritas recommended that time be taken for a full report. It was not. Instead, a hasty and ill-conceived consultation was rushed through, without even the most basic steps of proof-reading the questions to make sure they all made grammatical sense.

This consultation should be cancelled. A proper risk analysis should be written, and published. Then, if there is still an appetite to close fire stations, a proper consultation should be run, pre-checked by an independent, competent advisor: a consultation which is honest, complete, and which fairly sets out the positives and the negatives.

Anything less will be a travesty.

Note: the web address of the Warwickshire Compact referenced in my report has changed. It is now:

Show 1 footnote

  1. the FAQs were uploaded on 16 October, and link to the DNV report — it is therefore particularly surprising that this claim is made

Back to Top