PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Fire and Rescue Services: Funding - 28 April 2026 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I will call Matt Vickers to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for fire and rescue services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Our firefighters are heroes. They are the people who put their lives on the line to protect us all. While others run from danger, they run towards it. It is only right that we support them with the colleagues, equipment and funding that they need to do their jobs properly.

I will use the debate to highlight the ongoing and serious challenges facing fire and rescue services, including Cleveland Fire Brigade, which serves my community in Stockton, as well as Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Redcar and Cleveland. I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all the firefighters and support staff in fire brigades across the country, particularly those who work for the Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I have met many of them on shadow shifts and seen at first hand their incredible skill, determination, commitment and bravery.

Employees of Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service tell me that funding cuts have seen shift systems worsening; rope, water and animal rescue services being scaled back and watches usually running with around six firefighters instead of nine. Does the hon. Member agree that that is putting unexpected pressure on stretched rural fire and rescue teams and will cause a damaging workforce and equipment crisis, all of which may ultimately put people’s lives at risk?

A lot of fire services across the country are facing huge challenges. The debate will draw out some of the challenges that are unique to rural and coastal communities.

We want firefighters to be backed, for their safety and for the safety of the communities we serve. Our firefighters work tirelessly, day in, day out, to protect our community, and we all owe them our thanks. We should be incredibly proud of their work in challenging circumstances. Of course, it is right that efforts be made to ensure our public services are as efficient as possible, optimising outcomes and spending public money wisely.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important that any reorganisation of services involve the engagement of firefighters, because they know the service and its needs best? Does he share my relief that Oxfordshire county council has backed away from what would have been a botched reorganisation that would have reduced support both for my constituents in Oxford city and across the county by not listening enough to what firefighters said was needed?

It is hugely important that firefighters and communities are involved in those discussions, so that we can get the structure that works best for the communities involved. Over recent years, Cleveland Fire Brigade has achieved that. It has made difficult decisions, streamlining operations, managing workforce numbers and finding efficiencies wherever possible, but there comes a point at which continued pressure risks undermining resilience.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. The FBU is calling for increased investment, saying that without it, cuts will kill. Does the hon. Member recognise that 14 years of austerity have led to more than 12,000 firefighter jobs being cut?

I am sure that the hon. Lady would also recognise that the situation is getting worse, not better. Across the country, despite the fact that we are paying record levels of tax, our fire services are under pressure. We might want to talk about the history of it, but I want to talk about what will happen in my community in the coming months, as the Government make hay with this horrendous settlement that could see the number of firefighters in my community reduced. That is why I am here today.

Just three weeks ago, there was a massive fire at Corries farm outside Newtownards. The response of fire service personnel was absolutely excellent, but the issue was access to water pressure, which there is always less of in rural communities. One solution is to have a water tanker in each district, but that means capital expenditure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a new look is needed at the response to fires in rural areas?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Ensuring that we have the right capabilities and resources to respond in rural communities often requires technology and capital investment. It is important to put that into the mix as we see what the funding settlement will look like.

I will make a little progress.

The Government’s latest settlement takes things a step too far. Huge concerns have been raised about the impact on frontline services and on the safety of the public and our brave firefighters. Through the dedication of our firefighters and its sound leadership, Cleveland Fire Brigade has one of the fastest response times in the country to fires in the home, as well as one of the highest rates of home fire safety visits. It serves almost 580,000 people, from urban town centres to rural and coastal communities, as well as Teesside’s significant industrial assets.

Cleveland faces a series of unique challenges. It is a small force, less able to spread or absorb costs through economies of scale. It serves a disproportionately large and complex industrial landscape, covering petrochemical sites, heavy manufacturing and complex infrastructure. It serves an area with significant pockets of deprivation, which are linked to higher incident rates.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point in advocating for his area. Does he agree that sometimes cuts can inadvertently have a damaging effect on neighbouring areas? In my county of Berkshire, where there is an excellent fire service, cuts proposed in neighbouring Oxfordshire would have meant appliances in Reading having to travel up to 25 miles outside Reading to serve and cover for colleagues, leaving Reading exposed. Does he agree that that is not a great way to address these problems?

Cross-border support and mutual aid is vital. It is important to understand the profile of those areas and where those demands take us when we invest in our fire services as we should.

Deprivation is linked to higher incident rates, greater vulnerabilities and an increased need for community safety interventions. Cleveland has long been associated with higher levels of deliberate fires; at times it has earned the label of UK arson capital. That places a disproportionate demand on prevention work as well as frontline response. It is among the busiest non-metropolitan fire brigades in the country and is getting busier. That unique mix means that the financial settlement is uniquely harmful to the safety of firefighters and the public in our community. It stretches them to breaking point.

Steve Wright, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has said that our fire services face a real-terms cut that puts lives at risk. When someone calls 999, they are in the panic of an emergency. It could be a fire in their home or community, a traffic incident or someone drowning. They deserve nothing less than a quick, fully staffed and fully equipped response. This settlement puts that at risk.

My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. In Buckinghamshire, the Lib Dem-led fire authority has consulted on removing a third of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire engines and closing two fire stations in my constituency, Stokenchurch and Great Missenden. At a time when risk is increasing and we are seeing more fires, not least from battery storage, now is not the time to reduce frontline firefighting capability.

I could not agree more. As the Fire Brigades Union puts it, these cuts are putting lives at risk. The inability to respond to the increasing number of fires and hazards has real consequences for real people out there in our communities.

Cleveland Fire Brigade is currently facing a significant deficit. Even if council taxpayers are hit with the highest possible increase in precept, Cleveland’s medium-term financial strategy shows a three-year deficit of £1.2 million.

Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service has a similar deficit of £1.5 million. I do not think this is about party politics, because a fire authority can only work with what it has got. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to work across parties to encourage the Government to properly fund all our fire services so that we can protect all our residents, regardless of who runs their local fire authority?

First, we have to see central Government funding in place to ensure that we can run safe and effective fire services. Secondly, within that funding envelope we have to ensure that local fire authorities spend the money wisely. In recent years, many of them have looked at those efficiencies, but we are now getting to the point at which we need to go further and the Government need to step up.

Like other businesses and organisations, our fire brigades have been hit by the national insurance increase and spiralling energy costs. We need to ensure that our firefighters receive a fair pay settlement. If the fire precept is not increased in the coming years, the funding gap in Cleveland could rise to nearly £4 million. The answer is not simply to increase council tax even further. In my part of the world, Stockton’s Labour council has already increased council tax by 54% since 2016. It is for this Labour Government to fund our fire services properly and to fix the apparently “fair” funding formula, which is damaging Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I am sure that the Minister will say that Cleveland’s core spending power has increased, but as the chief fire officer told me himself, it is nowhere near enough to meet the increasing cost pressures.

People in our area of Dorset and Wiltshire have been told that we face the potential closure of eight fire stations. At a time when, quite apart from anything else, we do not know what is happening on the international scene and people are talking of dark days ahead, does the hon. Member agree that cutting these essential services seems like total and utter madness?

I could not agree more. More than ever, we are seeing fire services that are lean and efficient, having undergone all sorts of savings. We have now got to the point at which there is no fat and we are hitting the bone. We cannot go on like this without real consequences for public safety. These funding decisions have real consequences for Cleveland, including a likely reduction in frontline firefighters and cuts to the number of fire appliances. Demand on our firefighters is rising. It is not acceptable to ask them to do even more with even less.

It is not just our fire brigades that are under pressure. I have also heard from Cleveland Mountain Rescue, a hugely valued voluntary mountain rescue team that provides vital cover at fell races and mountain bike events. Are the Government thanking it for their incredible service and commitment? No, they are hitting it with Care Quality Commission registration and inspection regimes: more bureaucracy, more red tape and more costs. If the mountain rescue team is forced to reduce its services as a result, that will put yet more pressure on our local fire brigades. Has the Minister considered the consequences of these changes and the impact that they could have on fire services?

There is a broader point here: whether it is Cleveland Fire Brigade facing funding pressures or Cleveland Mountain Rescue facing new bureaucracy, the Government must support the people who protect the public, not make their job harder. By incident per head of population, Cleveland Fire Brigade is one of the busiest non-metropolitan fire services in the country. It attends six times as many deliberate fires as the national average. Last year alone, it saw a 25% increase in arson and deliberate fire incidents, which cause huge concern within our communities.

The Government’s “fair funding” approach is neither fair nor reflective of need. It systematically disadvantages places such as Stockton-on-Tees and the wider Cleveland area. It creates unacceptable risks for emergency response and public safety, because it fails to recognise local need. Factors such as individual risk, level of deprivation and geographic complexity must be given a proper weighting.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. May I thank Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service for its response to the fire at Newell House in Sherborne the other night? I am in awe of the bravery of its firefighters, who were on the scene within eight minutes.

The hon. Member talks about the particular issues that his local fire service faces. Dorset faces an increase in its population of nearly 50% during the summer months, as well as the issues caused by rurality and being a coastal community. Fundamentally, however, the issue in the funding model is that the Government’s assumptions on our population increases from council tax revenue are just wrong. The fire service has proven that they are wrong. If we do not have a fair funding formula, how on earth are we ever going to provide the services that local communities deserve?

The hon. Gentleman has the pleasure of representing a beautiful part of the world. Sherborne is a beautiful patch that needs proper fire protection. He is right. We have talked about deprivation and the challenges that industrial sites pose, but knowing how many people live in an area and how many homes need to be protected by the fire service is pretty fundamental. We need to get that right.

The unfair funding settlement could mean fire engines arriving at emergencies without enough crew to respond effectively and save lives, or, worse still, engines not leaving stations at all because there are no firefighters to staff them. Last month, Stockton council passed a motion highlighting that the Government’s approach to public service funding has failed to deliver genuinely fair or needs-based funding for fire and rescue services, as well as for policing and local government. A letter has been sent by the council to outline those concerns and to set out the stark reality of the situation. However, we have yet to receive a response.

Will the Minister confirm whether she is in discussions with the Treasury about the challenges facing our fire services, and explain what action will be taken to properly fund Cleveland and Durham fire brigades? If the issue is not addressed, it will force difficult decisions on staffing, equipment and service delivery, and ultimately shift the burden of national funding failures on to local residents. The Government have increased taxes to record levels. The Chancellor’s first two Budgets have raised taxes by £36 billion and £26 billion, respectively, pushing the overall tax burden to a historic high, yet we have seen cuts to the number of police officers on our streets, and now potential cuts to our fire services.

I should have made this point earlier; I do not think it has been mentioned. Back home in Northern Ireland, we have an issue with gorse fires in the mountains. We had two massive fires just last weekend. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that with the summer and what we hope will be hot weather comes the threat of gorse fires and the loss of peatland and farmland? Should that not be motivating the Minister and the Government to respond positively?

Certainly there are the pressures of the summer and the consequences for rural communities. Fire authorities across the country are also having to make incredibly tough decisions about what they resource and the people they can employ. It is a pressure point that is moving at a hell of a pace and we need a quick response to the challenge.

I hope the Minister will be able to provide answers and reassurance on some of the points that people have raised. What are the Government planning to do to properly support Cleveland and Durham fire brigades and deal with their significant financial shortfalls? How will the Minister and the Government fix the fair funding formula to ensure that communities such as mine in Stockton and those across Teesside are treated fairly?

If we fail to fund our fire services properly, we put lives at risk. Firefighters in our communities have raised the alarm repeatedly and their concerns cannot be ignored. The service responsible for protecting us is being asked to do too much with too little. I urge the Minister to carefully consider the points that have been raised, and to work with colleagues to deliver a financial settlement that is fair, forward looking and reflective of the unique challenges faced by Cleveland and Durham fire brigades. I urge her to listen to firefighters, fire chiefs and local residents in communities who are deeply concerned, to invest in our fire services and to keep us all safe.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, particularly given your specific interest in this matter. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for securing this important debate, and for the consistent way in which he raises the issue in the House in his role as shadow Minister for crime, policing and fire. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position.

We all know about the role that fire and rescue services play in keeping people safe. Every day, firefighters and fire service staff protect lives, prevent harm and provide reassurance to communities. Alongside responding to fires, they attend road traffic collisions, floods, wildfires and other emergencies. They deliver vital prevention and protection activity, and increasingly support wider resilience efforts at a local and national level, as hon. Members have mentioned.

To carry out that work effectively, fire and rescue services rely on a mix of funding from central Government, council tax precept, retained business rates and specific grants. Getting that framework right is essential, particularly at a time when services face changing risks, increasing complexity and growing demands, beyond traditional fire incidents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) was right that 14 years of Conservative austerity have absolutely battered our fire and rescue services. Fourteen years of Conservative cuts to local authority and fire service budgets have left many areas operating on a shoestring: 20% of firefighter capacity was lost across the country during that period. Throughout the period, the Fire Brigades Union and its membership have worked tirelessly to protect the public and do more with less.

We are working hard to remedy that. That is why the 2026-27 local government finance settlement marks a significant change. After a decade of short-term settlements, it delivers the first multi-year funding settlement for local government in 10 years. It gives fire and rescue authorities the stability and certainty that they need to plan ahead, invest in their workforce and estates, and make sound, long-term decisions in the interests of public safety.

This morning, I met Anne Davies, whose husband Jeff became the first UK firefighter to have his death from cancer officially recorded as having been caused by the job. Does my hon. Friend agree that this investment in the fire and rescue service will provide the necessary equipment so that no more firefighters die as a result of industrial injuries?

I would like to point out to my hon. Friend the speech that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made at the recent FBU conference, announcing welfare checks for fire and rescue service members. That significant move will protect the workforce for the future. That is really important, and is welcomed across the sector.

Importantly, since the provisional settlement, the Government have secured an additional £15 million for fire and rescue services. That ensures a minimum uplift of 3.8% in core spending power in 2026 for all stand-alone FRAs, with some services receiving increases of more than 7%.

Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service’s core spending power is going up over the three years only because of the increase in local taxpayers. The actual amount being provided is going down, not just in real terms but in actual cash terms. We simply do not have enough money to keep our fire stations open. Will the Minister commit to meet us again to look at reforming our funding formula for Dorset and Wiltshire?

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I will come to how the Government are addressing the reform of the funding settlement for fire and rescue services shortly. It is an important point that all Members who have attended this afternoon need to understand for the context of our future fire and rescue services.

Cleveland Fire Authority, which serves Stockton West, will have access to £37.8 million in core spending power in 2026-27, which is an increase of 3.8%. That provides the authority with greater certainty about how it can best serve the communities of Stockton-on-Tees and the wider Cleveland area.

However, although the Government set the national funding framework, decisions about how resources are deployed locally must rightly remain with fire and rescue authorities and chief fire officers, who are best placed to understand local risk and demand through their community risk management plans, and to make operational decisions in consultation with the workforce and communities. That speaks to the wider point that Members have made about local decisions reflecting local needs.

In Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, there was a consultation. The public overwhelmingly said no to cuts that that fire authority was pushing, and firefighters very clearly said, “No, this is crazy. Don’t do it.” How can the Government ensure that fire authorities, which are making local decisions, reflect the important views not just of the public, but of firefighters themselves?

Fire authorities, by and large, are locally elected representatives; they are accountable to their communities, they should serve their local communities, and they need to respond to what they hear from consultations. That is an important point for Members from Dorset and Wiltshire; they need to respond to what their local communities are doing in the way that the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service has done in recent days.

Will the Minister give way?

I am going to make some progress.

The Government are committed not only to providing stable funding, but to continuing to work with the fire sector to make sure that the funding system remains fair and responsive. Funding allocations for fire and rescue authorities are determined through a national funding formula, which assesses relative need using factors such as population and other cost-and-demand drivers.

The current fire funding formula was designed more than a decade ago. As part of the fair funding review and following a consultation, the Government updated the relative needs formula for fire and rescue, using the most up-to-date data available and changes in individual authority’s allocations so that they reflect updated data in the formula.

Looking ahead—this is really important in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)—we have committed to working with the fire sector on a comprehensive review of the formula ahead of the next spending review. As part of that engagement, every fire and rescue service in England has been invited to participate in sector engagement workshops, the first of which is taking place in Manchester today. It includes chief fire officers, heads of finances and relevant officers. It is an important opportunity to reform funding for the future.

I am also a member of the FBU parliamentary group. I understand that consultations on the formula are going on, and we welcome them. Will the Minister ensure that trade union representatives are built into those regional consultations?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his point, because it brings me to the work of the ministerial advisory group—a group established following our manifesto commitment to work with the entire sector. The ministerial advisory group involves the National Fire Chiefs Council, the inspectorate, the Fire Standards Board, the National Joint Council, the Local Government Association and the Fire Brigades Union. They sit at the table looking at reforming the role of the firefighter, the funding for the fire sector, and the governance of and arrangements for the wider sector. I have asked that group to be bold in its decision making, because after the past 14 years, the sector cannot continue as it is. We need to support that work as fully as we can. Local fire authorities need to listen to their communities, work with their communities, and work with the Government to support their communities going forward.

Funding is only one part of the picture. There is exciting work ahead of us. There is a generational opportunity, and this Government are determined to seize it.

Question put and agreed to.