Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-196)
4 NOVEMBER 2003
MR JEFF
ORD, ALAN
DOIG AND
MR STEVE
MCGUIRK
Q180 Chris Mole: What changes do
you think we will see in the Service as the result of the introduction
of Integrated Risk Management Plans?
Mr Ord: The right resources in
the right place at the right time.
Q181 Chairman: Tell me why are the
wrong resources in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Mr Ord: Because we are hidebound
by performance indicators linked to the recommendations of the
Standards of Fire Cover, so we have to send a certain number of
resources to a fire alarm at a particular building, otherwise
we fail in our performance indicator. What we will be able to
do under IRMP is to give a bespoke response to an incident when
it occurs. The other thing, coming back to Mr Mole's question
as well, is that the biggest change will be the opportunity to
have a statutory duty with underpinning resources (we hope) recognised
for the broader fire prevention community safety. We would like
to go beyond community fire safety; we would like to get into
the other areas of community well-being, involved in youth projects
and drugs rehabilitation etc. The IRMP gives us powers that we
previously have not had in terms of flexibility.
Mr McGuirk: At least 50%, if not
more, of fire fatalities are actually dead long before the Fire
Service is even called. There has been evidence on that. What
IRMP enables us to do is to move our resources into the area of
prevention rather than just a different way of responding.
Q182 Mr Mole: Do you agree with Dr
Dennett's analysis that life safety cannot be planned on the basis
of attendance by firefighters alone?
Mr Ord: Not alone. As the name
implies, it is integrated. What we cannot say—and remember,
the White Paper has given the Fire and Rescue Service an extended
rescue emergency role—is that the emergency role is to one
side now and fire prevention community safety is to the fore;
they are all equal and interdependent upon each other and that
is why it is an integrated plan.
Q183 Mr Mole: So you have welcomed
the shift to a life based risk approach, but you express some
worry about the public reaction to that. Can you expand on your
concerns a little more?
Mr Ord: We welcome it absolutely,
and we have been calling for it for a number of years, not in
the title it has now got but in a similar nature—risk assessment.
The concern we have is that it is a major shift in terms of how
we deliver the service to the public. We think there should be
a major campaign to educate the public. Fire authorities alone,
fire chiefs and CACFOA cannot do that. If there was a similar
shift, for example, in Inland Revenue arrangements or NHS provision
there would be massive campaigns and public information on the
television, radio etc. We would like to see (and we have received
some early assurances) that the ODPM will undertake this.
Q184 Mr Mole: Do you think we are
going to see a series of political skirmishes around the country,
around closures and moves of staff from fire stations?
Mr Doig: I would hope not. I think
the point Jeff makes is that we recognise that the Fire Service
is a safety critical service. We are looking at changing the balance
between response and proactive activity. We have to pace that
in a fashion that maintains public confidence, and I think this
is an area of concern with the Association. That is not just about
consultation, that is about recognition that if we are to alter
the arrangements for public protection in the community we do
so in a fashion that secures confidence and evidence. In other
words, we put in new proactive measures, we prove them, we build
a confidence in that community and then we have options to perhaps
reallocate resource from the traditional approach. I think that
an incremental, sensibly paced approach is exactly what Government
expect in developing a modernised agenda.
Q185 Chairman: You have just said
you want a publicity campaign so what is the catchy phrase you
want to get across in that campaign?
Mr Ord: That we will assist you
in avoiding fires and, in partnership with others, road traffic
accidents, whatever; but when you fall through that gap the safety
net will be there as ever. I do not see any higher authority putting
forward an IRMP that does not secure/maintain public safety, firefighter
safety and the principles of best value. I cannot see any fire
manager prostituting themselves in front of their own authority
to promote anything other than that. The message has got to be,
yes, we are going to deliver it a different way but we actually
want to help you to avoid having the incident in the first place
but when you do (car crash, fire, chemical spillage or whatever)we
will be there with a competent response. Speed does not necessarily
save life. As Steve has said, the majority of people are dead
before we even get called; but in some other areas speed and response
will be essential—road traffic accidents, railway crashes,
whatever. We have got to give the public some confidence and not
the scaremongering that we have seen up-to-date.
Q186 Christine Russell: Can I ask
you about the management of change. How confident are you that
the Service actually has the capacity and the capability to manage
the changes that are envisaged in the White Paper?
Mr Ord: It is a terrific challenge.
In the opinion of the Warwick School of Public Management it is
one of the largest challenges in the shortest time frame that
they have ever seen. However, they are encouraged by what they
have seen in the Association, with the determination to go with
an appetite towards this change but with an air of reality. We
are not going to achieve it all. The workforce is still somewhat
demoralised. We have seen the press over the last 48 hours as
well. We are going to have a difficult task, and it is not one
that CACFOA can do in isolation. We do need assistance from all
partners, including representative bodies and others. As Sir George
Bain said, people have to want change and have to commit themselves
to change.
Q187 Christine Russell: How much
willingness do you believe there is at the grass roots to change?
Mr Ord: At the moment in the period
we have had since the dispute was settled it is difficult to judge
because they are waiting for things to settle down. I think the
majority of firefighters would like this resolved, settled and
move on. Quite frankly, the majority of them will go willingly
to make communities safer. They cannot stand anywhere and say
they get satisfaction out of picking bodies out of fires or whatever.
They are family people themselves. They are community people themselves
and they will do this but they need leadership, determination
and decisiveness.
Mr McGuirk: I think the opening
question of the Committee was: is this a knee-jerk reaction to
the industrial dispute? Clearly it is in the Committee's mind,
and it is very much to the forefront of the firefighters' minds.
I think we are very confident we can take forward a management
of change, but there does need to be a recognition that it is
not going to happen overnight. We have got to work with our own
staff to convince them that what we are doing is in the interests
of the public and it is not a knee-jerk reaction.
Q188 Christine Russell: There might
be some difficulties in some communities where you are planning
to change cover. How confident are you that the Service in general
has got the ability to go out and allay any possible fears the
public may have?
Mr Doig: I think it goes back
to a point I tried to make earlier. Clearly we are going to approach
this in an incremental fashion. This is the beginning of the process
and not the end. It is certainly the case that with regard to
the value and responsibility of the Authority to start to develop
our skills in consultation, perhaps beyond that which was necessary
a few years ago, we have to go some way further yet. The confidence
of the community is very much linked to the evidence we can demonstrate
that the protection has actually improved by changes that we will
incrementally employ. I think it is a bad time, in some sense,
to take a pulse on how confident our staff are or how confident
the community is, because there is a lot of anxiety born out of
the change programme and the uncertainty. Virtually every single
ball with "fire" on it is in some way up in the air
at the moment. One concern that certainly CACFOA have expressed
is the pace in the investment requirements to bring the programme
of reform sensibly together and implement in a way that secures
public confidence.
Mr Ord: Gaining public confidence,
giving them information, telling them why we are going to make
strategic changes and any local delivery changes is not new to
us; it is a process we have had to do under statutory requirement
every time we have wished to make an alteration to fire cover
provision in an area. I think we have all been there. We have
all been on the platform and we have all taken part. Coming back
to this question of the Government needing to give us a campaign
to underpin—this is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater,
this is using resources better—what we have to do is get
smarter doing that exercise. It is not new to us but we have to
be better at it.
Q189 Chris Mole: How much of the
finance the Government have made available for upfront investment
do you believe is really flexible enough to allow reform to take
place, and how much do you think is needed?
Mr Ord: Other than for UK resilience
etc, I am not aware that any money has been put up yet or received
by any Fire Authorities, although there is a promise of transitional
funding that has to be paid back for the pay award etc. We have
concerns but, prior to this period of dispute/unrest, as a combined
committee that looks at the finance of the Fire Service as an
expenditure forecasting group, which has Treasury, ODPM, local
councillors and CACFOA sat upon it, we have a funding gap recognised
of approximately £145 million a year in the Service. That
has not gone away, and that is why we are saying in our evidence
we believe we need more than just a little bit of transitional
funding to bring about improvements in community safety.
Mr Doig: The two issues that come
through in a lot of what we have said are concern over the pace
of change, and certainly the focus of your question is resourcing.
There is no doubt we need some time to sort out the resourcing
implications. At the moment there are some very broad assumptions
which time will show us to be valid or otherwise. There is a sense
of and certainly I believe there to be a lack of realism. This
is a major reform programme. It is a very complex programme, it
cannot be project-managed at a distance based on assumptions that,
to some extent, were formed in a very crude way about a year or
so ago. The view at the moment is that this programme will be
done and dusted in 18 months' time. Not only will we have undertaken
the reforms and delivered the outcomes but we will actually be
in a position to pay back the transitional funding being made
available largely to meet pay pressures. There seems to me a real
need to review the timeframe within which reform is realistically
achievable. Perhaps a CSR(?) period up to seven or eight is a
more realistic process. There needs to be an acceptance, unless
it is going to be concluded that the Fire Service is unlike any
other public sector, not only are we not going to get investment
for reform but we are going to make savings in the process of
reform. It seems to me these are quite contradictory as objectives
for improving public safety which is what this fundamentally is
all about.
Q190 Chris Mole: Your submission
highlights some concerns about the coordination of legislation
relating to safety. What exactly are these concerns?
Mr Ord: It is purely about a coordination
role. We have got the White Paper that came out, but we also have
the Regulatory Reform Order that is making its way through Parliament
as well. We also have other issues, and I believe the Chairman
mentioned it earlier in relation to health and safety legislation
as well in prosecutions etc. What we feel is that we support the
Regulatory Reform Order. We obviously support the White Paper
and the national framework that will be forthcoming, with the
obvious reservation that the devil will be in the detail; but
we want to be assured and confident that someone, be it the ODPM,
whoever (and it has to be the ODPM, I believe), is taking an overview
of everything that is moving at the same pace here. The example
is, the NJC review has to move at a similar pace to everything
else. On the fire safety legislative side again we want to be
sure that we do not sacrifice what is being good and we do not
take our eye off that ball. Someone has to keep an eye on that
ball at the same time as the national framework and the White
Paper is moving forward.
Mr McGuirk: It is important to
note that currently Fire Authorities do not have any powers to
do any of this. We are going out to consult with Integrated Risk
Management Plans which without the legislation being brought forward
we cannot do anyway. It is stretching the legislative timetable
to have confidence that we are going to do whatever we want to
do with resources on that basis.
Q191 Mr Cummings: In your submission
you appear to be quite scathing in relation to the White Paper's
treatment on industrial relations. Could you tell the Committee
the base cause of your concerns? For instance you talk about insufficient
attention to a wider industrial framework. You say that all stakeholders
do not accept the need for major reform. You criticise the White
Paper's lack of clarity. Is there anything positive in the White
Paper you can comment about?
Mr Ord: Absolutely. In our opening
remarks we broadly welcome the White Paper but, as I said earlier
on, it is an aspirational paper, and that is what it was. It is
to be followed by the detail in the legislation which we are now
gaining confidence in, having had through the Practitioner's Forum
opportunities to see that. In terms of industrial relations, it
was the issue that groups are excluded from a negotiating body—and
I am repeating myself in that respect—so we welcome the
alternative to that; also the issue that CACFOA fought very hard
to get resilience issues secured in the Fire Service, particularly
mass decontamination. We were at the point of losing the opportunity
to provide that protection to the community. It was going to be
taken away from the Fire Service because we could not secure that
service during an industrial dispute period. What we say in our
evidence is that that needs to be looked at. We are not talking
about a no strike clause, that is not an area CACFOA has a legitimate
input into it. What we are saying is, when we have a duty to protect
the public under these heightened threatening times, how can you
secure that service of resilience if you have not resolved the
industrial relations, whereby a strike could take that service
to the public away from them. That is what we were saying about
industrial relations.
Q192 Mr Cummings: Should there be
an industrial dispute, do you believe the Service will have the
resilience and the scope to give the increased statutory responsibilities?
Mr Ord: I believe it will. The
opportunity is there in the White Paper to address that. If we
home in on industrial disputes themselves, and obviously we prefer
to look forward than back, the Attorney General has always had
a power which he or she could have exercised, so that remains.
Of course, we heard Ann Everton talk about the powers of the Fire
Service Bill that is currently in the House of Lords as well.
We hope it would not come to that. If we are going to have resilience
arrangements let us make sure we have got them in times of industrial
dispute as well.
Mr Doig: If by "dispute"
you mean fundamentally a strike, there is a lot of activity prior
to that, and what we would urge (and I think the Government has
expressed its intention) is to put in place an expedient dispute
resolution process. It is not visible at the moment and has not
been done, but it is important as a mechanism that reconciles
differences. Clearly at a time of change those differences are
going to emerge far more in the future than they have in the past.
A very expedient way of arbitrating, reconciliating [sic] and
moving forward is fundamentally important to us.
Q193 Mr Cummings: Do you see this
as being a fundamental weakness in the White Paper?
Mr Ord: Yes, because it has not
been addressed properly in the White Paper because it is not their
remit to do so.
Q194 Mr Cummings: Have you made these
feelings known to Government?
Mr Ord: Absolutely.
Q195 Mr Cummings: Have you had any
response?
Mr Ord: The response is that negotiations
are a matter for the National Joint Council, and the Government
has not normally played a part in that. I stress "not normally"
because during the dispute obviously they became a key player
on the Treasury/financial side. We have made our points very clear
beyond this select committee as well.
Q196 Chairman: At the very beginning
of today's session Dr Dennett was critical of the use of sprinklers
in some buildings. Have you got a view on sprinklers?
Mr Ord: Yes, we have. That is
an area where we were disappointed that the White Paper did not
go further. We believe that the case for residential sprinklers
in identified vulnerable persons' premises, particularly houses
in multiple occupation, particularly those areas where we can
predict we are going to have fires (because unfortunately you
can predict it), fitting sprinklers retrospectively would be a
means of reducing loss of life. We also believe for the use of
sprinklers in educational establishments there is an overwhelming
case for that. There are approximately three school fires per
day in the United Kingdom and sprinklers would avoid the destruction
and the consequential disruption to our youths' education. We
would like to see it go further. It is the first government department
in the Fire and Rescue Service history that has committed itself
to doing this, by the way, but we think it should have gone further
beyond commitment and we should have done something.
Chairman: On that note, can I think you
very much for your evidence.
| 
