Examination of Witnesses (Questions 170-179)
4 NOVEMBER 2003
MR JEFF
ORD, ALAN
DOIG AND
MR STEVE
MCGUIRK
Q170 Chairman: Can I welcome you
to the Committee, and ask you to identify yourselves for the record,
please.
Mr Ord: Jeff Ord, President of
the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association. If we
can just refer to it as the "Association" from now on.
Mr McGuirk: Steve McGuirk representing
CACFOA.
Mr Doig: Alan Doig, Vice-President
of the Association.
Q171 Chairman: Do you want to say
anything by way of introduction, or are you happy for us to go
straight to questions?
Mr Ord: No, only the point that
our colleague, John Bonney, made that we are a professional association
and do not represent the personal interests of members—only
the wider service.
Q172 Christine Russell: Good morning,
gentlemen. Could I ask you the same question one of my colleagues
asked the previous set of witnesses which was: do you believe
that the White Paper was a knee-jerk reaction to the industrial
dispute; or do you believe, unlike Dr Dennett whom we heard from
earlier, that it is based on research and evidence?
Mr Ord: I think the White Paper
is produced as an accelerant following on from the dispute. The
White Paper had been promised by previous ministers in previous
departments for many years—in the Home Office, the DTLR—and
when we moved to the ODPM we were told that the White Paper would
be forthcoming. We then ran into a dispute very quickly in the
life of the ODPM being responsible for fire and rescue. I think
we would be fooling ourselves if we did not say that it has been
accelerated because of the dispute; but it was coming anyhow and
there were issues boiling in the Fire Service other than the dispute
that would have brought this to a head.
Q173 Christine Russell: We have heard
already this morning that some organisations within the Fire Service
are concerned that this White Paper, like previous reports and
consultation documents, must not be left to gather dust. Are you
fairly optimistic that this one will be progressed?
Mr Ord: Yes, I am. The Association
welcomes the White Paper—we have already stated that in
our evidence. Since the White Paper was produced we have seen
further evidence that at the centre there have been resources
committed to the modernisation (which is not a term we like) of
the Fire Service. We do not like it because we believe it is a
modern service to begin with; it is a reform. We have seen the
resources that have been put in place; they are all on timetables;
they are all on project programmes. We know the national framework
will be out very shortly; and the Practitioner's Forum has already
had an opportunity to look at a summary of the national framework.
I do not think this Government, the employers, the Service (and
CACFOA I include in that) can afford to let this report gather
dust as previous reports have. There is a political imperative,
there is a professional imperative, there is a community safety
and well-being imperative to make sure we make changes.
Mr McGuirk: Can I just add to
that, I agree wholeheartedly that there is a sense and a mood
that this is moving forward now and it is not going to gather
dust on the shelf. There is a need to recognise that two or three
years down the line is when momentum might run out on the changes
and we need to keep a constant eye on revision. We cannot let
the Service get into the situation that it was, that nothing changed
for 25 years. It cannot be decades again. We need to keep an eye
it two or three years down the line, but I am confident that the
momentum is there at the moment.
Q174 Christine Russell: Can I ask
about regionalisation because, in your submission, you are a bit
iffy about regionalisation?
Mr Ord: The honest truth is that
it is difficult to get an Association that represents 52 different
Fire Authorities in England and Wales to come to an absolute consensus.
We have to be honest about that. We are all somewhat bound by
the traditional experience we have come through in this fine Service.
The truth is CACFOA supports a structure that will maintain local
delivery, local accountability and transparency of all of that(
whether that is a national structure, a regional structure or
a sub-regional structure we feel) so long as you maintain, promote
and accelerate that local identity. The other thing is the issue
of resilience—mainly brought about by the threat of terrorists'
acts but, indeed, other climate changes or whatever—is showing
now that a regional planning, organisational and procured arrangement
is far better and works far better than a local arrangement. I
agree, we are not specific in the regionalisation and have been
unable to reach a true consensus on that, but any structure can
work and maintain local identity.
Mr Doig: I think it is the case
that we do not have the consensus on regionalisation as an issue.
I do not think we are quite as ambiguous as perhaps that might
suggest. We do recognise in our submission that there is a relationship
between size and efficiency. It is not how big is good but we
recognise (and I think it has come from other public sector audits—OFSTED
and CPA) that you can be below a size that allows you as a Service
to meet the expectations that a modern public service face. On
the other side, accepting that there may be a case for fewer Fire
Services, it is not simply saying that regionalisation is the
answer. We have to have a very clear focus on why it is that we
would wish a larger unit, and it is about strategic capacity,
it is about strategic capability, and some of the issues just
mentioned a moment ago are issues of that nature.
Q175 Mr Betts: You said in your submission
you feel the White Paper has missed an opportunity to clarify
the governance and political/professional management arrangements
for Fire Authorities. Would you like to elaborate more on that?
Mr Ord: CACFOA submitted extensive
evidence to the Bain Review and then to the White Paper and we
are pleased, generally, with the outcome, except in one or two
particular areas. In governance we feel it has not been addressed
at all. What we were promoting under governance was to look at
successful models, and we mentioned Police Authority models where
you have a combination of elected members, lay specialists, members
of the community, whatever, and we wanted to look at the possibility
of a trust—look at the Ambulance Service Trust, the NHS
, do they work- and we do not think the opportunity was taken
to address governance. We have expressed our disappointment throughout
on that. In the structural arrangements and the managerial arrangements
we feel that the compromise that was made to move towards voluntary
regional fire boards before we ever get to compulsory, or you
might have one if there is a regional assembly etc, is a recipe
for legal, technical and structural confusion. We have seen it
already in county fire brigades; they are finding themselves somewhat
reluctant to move because they know there may be either a voluntary
or an imposed regional management board coming into fruition,
but where is its legal status, where is its powers and where is
its act?
Q176 Mr Betts: You seem to be looking
for certainty but, on the other hand you seem to be looking for
more discussion?
Mr Ord: On governance it has just
not been addressed. I would lay that to one side, and it is with
disappointment that it has not been addressed. Other emergency
services have looked at different make-ups of boards and it has
worked—the Police Authority Board being an example. On the
regional issue what we are saying is—
Q177 Mr Betts: We will have to look
at those again, will we not?
Mr Ord: We are, but if you look
even in today's press they are advertising for members and deputy
chairs of police boards, albeit the Transport Police. There are
models there which do work.
Mr McGuirk: In the past we have
always had standards of fire cover, and things like the Inspectorate
and the national infrastructure, as a safety net. In a world of
integrated risk management planning there is going to be an awful
lot more down to the judgment of different local authorities,
different Fire Authorities and different Chief Fire Officers.
It needs to be really clear, when people are exercising a judgment
about balancing competing priorities, where the boundaries lie;
where is the professional boundary, where is the political boundary,
who has made the actual decision and on what basis was that decision
made? Without that safety net of standards and the governance
arrangements—and we have already heard we are a more litigious
society—those become really important issues.
Q178 Mr Betts: You mentioned the
Practitioner's Forum and it is indicated that your organisation
will have a leading role in that, yet you seem to have reservations.
Most organisations when given a leading role say, "Thanks
very much, we'll get on with it"?
Mr Ord: I think at the time we
submitted our evidence it is true to say that we were very uncertain.
The White Paper is an aspirational paper, and there is not a lot
of flesh on the bones of that White Paper. The flesh will follow
with the national framework, which will be launched in December,
we hope. Since we submitted that evidence the Practitioner's Forum
is up and running and I had the privilege and responsibility of
chairing that on behalf of the Association. We have had two meetings,
and our third one is planned for December. We are far more confident
and professionally comfortable with the purpose and role of the
Practitioner's Forum; and we are confident as well it will not
work as a silo, indeed we will meet with other stakeholders outside
of that forum such as the business community.
Mr Doig: On the legitimacy of
CACFOA's role in advising Government and chairing the Forum, that
comes from our professional expertise and therefore not, in a
sense, legal legitimacy; but it is not CACFOA's forum. We do chair
it, and we do hopefully contribute and provide some leadership
to it, but it is a stakeholder forum. I think the legitimacy of
the Forum therefore comes from its stakeholder approach to give
advice to Government, that it is inclusive, that it represents
the sectors that are actually responsible for delivering the Fire
and Rescue Service and the modernisation agenda.
Q179 Mr Betts: With regard to the
NJC, presumably you accept that it has to modernise (and I know
you do not like the word) and change. How would you see that change
occurring, and what role would you see you playing in that?
Mr Ord: We certainly accept it
has to change. It is not inclusive. There are representative groups
that have been excluded from the National Joint Council since
it was formed, and we have heard some of them today. We welcome
the inclusiveness of a revised NJC. What we would like to see
as a minimum—and we realise that the Review is taking place
right now and is scheduled to be completed with proposals coming
forward by the end of December—is some consultation with
our Association but, beyond consultation, an engagement. In what
other organisation, where you expect the senior managers to lead
the Service and to perform to the required standard, would you
play no part whatsoever in the impact of conditions of service,
pay, etc of the Fire Brigade and the Fire and Rescue Service?
It has worked in isolation up until now, and we think the Association
has a role there even if it is only as advisers, not necessarily
determining the pay and conditions of any of our staff. As advisers
the Association at least should be there.
| 
