Appendix 1

Formula Grant Distribution Consultation Response

Schools Transfer

Question 1: Do you think that there should be a customised damping system?

Suggested Response: No comment.

Question 2: Do you have comments on the Government's other proposals, to adjust the base using spend figures and to isolate police, fire and shire district authorities from the effects of the transfer?

Suggested Response: It is imperative that the Government protect fire authorities from the impact of the change in schools funding.

New Grant System

Question 3: Whether we should use the proposed alternative grant system?

Suggested Response: Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority sees no benefits in a change to the grant system as suggested and strongly opposes this proposal. The formula grant system is by its nature complex and the proposed change will simply make the system more opaque and open to misinterpretation.

Education - LEA Block

No comments on this chapter

Personal Social Services

No comments on this chapter

Police

No comments on this chapter

Fire and Rescue

Question 16: Do you think that the weight of the fixed element for community fire safety should be doubled to 6% (FIR3 and FIR4)?

Suggested Response: Yes this would better reflect the level of resources fire authorities are devoting to fire safety.

Question 17: Do you agree with the proposal (FIR5) to use a property and societal risk indicator to replace the fire safety enforcement indicator? If not, what would you prefer?

Suggested Response: Yes this would better reflect the new Fire Safety legislation's focus on risk assessment rather than the number of certifiable premises and plans examined.

Question 18: Which proposal (FIR6 or FIR7) would you prefer to see used as the risk index indicator?

Suggested Response: The Fire and Rescue Authority supports the retention of the property-related indicators and a move from a three-year to a five-year average (FIR6). There does not appear to be any technical case for replacing some property-related variables that are statistically significant in their relationship to fire calls with some which are less statistically significant. The fact that they are `not intuitively obvious' causal factors is not as important as them being statistically significant. Should the ODPM be looking for other property-related factors the Fire and Rescue Authority suggests using the number of buildings with thatched roofs as a causal indicator, which does clearly relate to fire risk.

Question 19: Do you agree with the proposal to include a fixed element for sparsity (FIR8)?

Suggested Response: Yes the Fire and Rescue Authority supports the proposal to introduce a fixed element top-up to reflect sparsity. The negative correlation between population sparsity and fire spend per head can be explained by the prevalence of retained fire stations in more sparse areas.

Highway Maintenance

No comments on this chapter

Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services

No comments on this chapter

Capital Financing

Question 25: Do you think we should remove the Interest Receipt elements?

Suggested Response: Yes the Fire and Rescue Authority believes the Government should take this opportunity to simplify the FSS formula and focus it solely on the financing of capital.

Question 26: If we retain one or both of the Interest Receipt elements, do you have any views on how they should be distributed?

Suggested Response: No the Fire and Rescue Authority believes they should be removed from the formula..

Question 27: If so, should we reduce other FSS totals to compensate, or not? And if we reduce other FSS elements, where should we make the reductions?

Suggested Response: No the Fire and Rescue Authority believes there should be no further adjustment to the formula.

Area Cost Adjustment

Question 28: Do you have any comments on our intention to use the full ASHE data set to calculate the ACA?

Suggested Response: The Fire and Rescue Authority believes the Labour Force Survey gives a better representation of labour cost pressures in the country than the ASHE survey and therefore supports the use of its data rather than ASHE.

Question 29: Do you think that we should remove the very small rates cost adjustment, or do you think that we should update the weighting of the RCA in line with 2003/4 expenditure data?

Suggested Response: The rates cost adjustment makes up a very small element of the Area Cost Adjustment and the Fire and Rescue Authority believes that its removal (ACA2) would simplify the ACA and focus it on labour costs, which is its main driver and purpose.

Question 30: Do you agree with the Government's proposal to retain the current method of setting the lower limit for options ACA1-3?

Suggested Response: The Fire and Rescue Authority does not believe the lower limit should be set judgementally as it is now. The Government should develop a formula for setting the lower limit to give local authorities reassurance that the lower limit has been set in a rational formula-driven way.

Question 31: Do you think that we should calculate a separate ACA factor for each upper tier authority?

Suggested Response: The Fire and Rescue Authority believes the ACA should be calculated separately for each upper tier authority so that the Fire and Rescue Authority's wage pressures are determined based on the data for its area alone and not that of its neighbours. Under the current arrangements the ACA factor for Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority is calculated using wage data from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The inclusion of the Isle of Wight significantly reduces the ACA factor for Hampshire. The consultation paper highlights that calculating a separate ACA for each upper-tier authority would create `cliff-edges' between ACA factors across some local authority boundaries when in practice the authorities are competing for the same labour force. However the situation for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is unique as the presence of the sea creates two totally separate labour markets which cannot be compared with the situation elsewhere where commuters can travel from local authority to the next without even being aware of it. For this reason the Fire and Rescue Authority asks that, even if the Government decides not to give each upper-tier authority its own ACA, the Isle of Wight be treated as a special case and have its ACA calculated separately from Hampshire authorities.

Question 32: If we implement the change above, which option for setting the lower limit do you prefer?

Suggested Response: The Fire and Rescue Authority supports the retention of the lower limit at about the level it is now and the consultation paper provides no justification for a change to this level.

Additional Resource Equalisation

Question 33: Do you think we should increase resource equalisation?

Suggested Response: No, the Fire and Rescue Authority is strongly opposed to resource equalisation both in principle and the practical way in which it is proposed to be applied in this case. A simple comparison of Net Revenue Expenditure shows that those authorities such as counties and CFAs who have needed to spend higher than FSS and therefore raise council tax above the ANCT level due to underfunding in recent years are the authorities that will lose grant under the resource equalisation proposals.

Question 34: Which of the options do you prefer?

Suggested Response: The Fire and Rescue Authority maintains that the justification given for Resource Equalisation is unsound. However if the Government insists on pressing ahead with resource equalisation then the Fire and Rescue Authority supports the least damaging option RE2. This should not be taken as support for the principle of resource equalisation.

Floor Damping

Question 35: Do you consider that the capital adjustment should be abolished?

Suggested Response: The Fire and Rescue Authority supports the abolition of the capital adjustment as this will simply the floors methodology.

Question 36: Which approach for paying for damping you prefer (i.e. the existing method, DMP2 or DMP3)?

Suggested Response: The Fire and Rescue Authority believes the present system of floors damping is the most equitable for all types of authority. The Government's proposal to pay for floor grant increases by raising the Assumed National Council Tax has the impact of punishing high resource authorities who may have had a relatively modest increase in grant. Similarly the proposal to pay for damping with an adjustment to the basic amount punishes authorities with relatively high populations and low needs. The present system of scaling means that those that gain the most grant, make the largest contribution to funding the floor. This is the most equitable way of funding the floor.

Day Visitors

No comments on this chapter