Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-339)
MR TOM
CARROLL, MR
PHIL TOASE
AND MR
STEVE MCGUIRK
6 FEBRUARY 2006
Q320 Mr Betts: You have
sat down and looked at this objectively. Your members are there
in all authorities. For members of the public, what better service
precisely do you expect them to receive when these two improvements—the
control centres and FireLink—are brought in?
Mr McGuirk: It is true to say
depending upon the area in which you live depends upon the level
of improvement that you will see. It is true to say that in a
number of existing fire and rescue authorities the current technology
and the control rooms are very much state-of-the-art and that
is exactly what the control project is purporting to build upon,
those state-of-the-art facilities, technology and the size of
the room to be able to deal with the number of calls. It is also
true to say, however, that a large number of fire authorities
have much smaller rooms, and this point has already been made
to the Committee that there will be occasions quite frequently
where the numbers of calls overwhelm the numbers of call operators.
So the capacity to handle a high volume of calls will be improved
by the new control centres. In terms of the technology, it is
also true to say that some of the technology in some control rooms
is very much not state-of-the-art.
Q321 Mr Betts: If all
the control rooms that are there now were brought up to state-of-the-art
technology would that be an alternative solution?
Mr Carroll: It is an alternative
solution.
Q322 Mr Betts: Would it
work?
Mr Carroll: I presume it would.
We would just have more controls and more equipment.
Q323 Mr Betts: Would it
be more costly, or does nobody know?
Mr Toase: That is one of the key
things is whether or not that would be as efficient and as effective.
Q324 Mr Betts: Nobody
knows because there is not a business plan to model against. Has
anyone looked at the different alternatives?
Mr Carroll: The two reports considered
all of the viable alternatives a couple of years ago. It is true
to say there was a contested debate at the time. All individual
fire and rescue authorities took Best Value Reviews against those
different options proposed and many did advocate staying as they
were and making better use of control staff. Most ducked the reality
about how they were going to afford to fund state-of-the-art technology.
Q325 Mr Betts: If we had
three of your colleagues here today from other brigades throughout
the country it might be that we would get completely different
answers, would it?
Mr Toase: It is a fact that not
every single member of the Chief Fire Officers' Association would
support the project, but in any professional association, or indeed
any political party, there are times when people have a different
opinion on a particular issue, but the actual stance with regards
to the support for the rationale behind regional control centres,
the majority of our members are supportive of that.
Q326 Mr Betts: What about
the actual control of these control centres? Who are they going
to be accountable to if you have got different policies of working
in each of the fire services who are being covered by these control
centres?
Mr Toase: It is one of the areas
where we are asking for greater clarity on some of the governance
issues.
Q327 Mr Betts: We do not
know is the answer?
Mr Toase: Some of the issues with
regards to governance there is not complete clarity in that respect
because there are differing opinions within regional management
boards.
Mr Betts: We will come on to that point
in a minute.
Q328 Anne Main: To take
you back to something you have just said, which is you can see
there are very definite benefits and depending on which area the
level of benefit improvement will be variable and that the majority
of your members would support that. Can I ask you (a) how you
quantify the definite benefits that you have seen; (b) do you
have some sort of table where the levels of improvement would
be variable, or facts and figures to support that; and (c) do
you survey your members to know how many of them would be supportive
in the main of these proposals?
Mr McGuirk: Could you go back
to (a)?
Q329 Anne Main: You said
you could see very definite benefits in this proposal. How definite?
Have you got some way of quantifying the definite benefits because
we have had a different viewpoint from the FBU? You feel it is
definite. I wondered how you quantify those definite benefits?
Mr McGuirk: The dilemma here is
the use of the expression "business case" which brings
with it some question of quantitative analysis. Our stance all
along has been that we accept fully we have not yet seen the business
case and, as we have set out in our submission, we have a large
number of concerns yet to be answered about the quantitative dimension
of the business case for the FiReControl Project. Our support
is on the basis of resilience, but the scale of incidents that
we can now anticipate and the technology and the wherewithal to
support those incidents have changed since September 11. We have
had evidence over the last couple of years to support that. While
our proposition is that we are participating in the project, we
are working with colleagues in the fire and rescue services to
draw out the benefits that we know exist in the existing systems
that are state-of-the-art—caller ID, et cetera—and
we are prepared to sit down and keep an open mind about the financial
and other benefits yet to be realised.
Q330 Anne Main: There
are certain quantified benefits but not all benefits. Could you
tell me how many of your members are supportive? Have you done
any sort of survey? You said there would be some who would not
be supportive. Have you got any percentages?
Mr Toase: We do not have any percentages
of members, no.
Q331 Anne Main: You just
feel that members would be supportive?
Mr Toase: No, we have done an
extensive consultation through our various mechanisms within the
Association through the members' sounding board and through the
actual Board itself consulting members and we have produced a
position statement vis-a"-vis our position re the rationale
for regional control centres.
Q332 Anne Main: Can I
just take you back to the other one I asked, which is depending
on an area's different level of benefit improvements have you
got any table or figures that quantify how you have made that
statement?
Mr McGuirk: In terms of a table
of which authorities would benefit as opposed to which authorities
which would not benefit?
Q333 Anne Main: You said
some would benefit more than others.
Mr McGuirk: No, we have not done
that because it is an ODPM project. We should be clear about the
role of the Chief Fire Officers' Association. Within the project
itself we provide the officers for a consultative body called
the team masters' group where members of the Association work
almost daily, certainly weekly, with colleagues in the ODPM project
team to challenge, test and work through the problems as they
arise. It is true to say that this project has never been attempted
on this scale ever before to a degree where the Fire and Rescue
Service is breaking new territory. In a professional sense we
are working with colleagues to work through some of those issues.
As each individual authority puts forward its proposition, its
officers, the regional management boards, all that information
about the benefits are fed through into the national project.
As we stand at the minute there is a working group to develop
a more quantitative and qualitative presentation of the benefits
to support the wider Business Case. We are very comfortable about
caller ID and all of those operational benefits from a number
of colleague services around the country and we are working with
them now.
Q334 Martin Horwood: I
just want to pick you up on this statement that it depends on
the geographical area as to what level of benefit you are going
to get from this regionalisation. You seem to be implying that
it is only those without state of the art facilities at the moment
that will benefit most. I represent Gloucestershire, which has
a brand new tri-service centre with technologically good kit,
with good joint working, which is going to be abandoned by the
Fire Service under these proposals. Are you saying there is not
any benefit to us at all, that it will benefit the areas that
have less good facilities?
Mr McGuirk: I do not know the
details of turn-out times and response standards et cetera in
your tripartite service but I appreciate it has got a very positive
image. In terms of your operational benefits, the benefits are
linked to the resilience obtained from working within the wider
fire and rescue community and if your system goes into fallback,
et cetera, you are part of that wider community. In terms of how
quick the technology is, I really cannot comment. I would be surprised
if the technology—
Q335 Martin Horwood: It
has been suggested to us in other areas that technology is not
a fundamental point because the technology could be applied at
local level, is that not right?
Mr McGuirk: Which technology?
Q336 Martin Horwood: The
new fire technology.
Mr McGuirk: The technology solution
is still in the process of going through a tender situation. At
the minute there are the operational principles and the operational
principles are not breaking such new ground as to use the new
technology, the principles at the minute are to build upon the
existing skills in this kind of technological field.
Q337 Martin Horwood: So
what is the benefit to us of the regionalisation itself as opposed
to the technology?
Mr McGuirk: I am not arguing for
the benefits of regionalisation for yourselves, I am simply advising
you of the benefits of the software system.
Martin Horwood: You are saying you support
the proposals.
Chair: I think Mr McGuirk is saying he
cannot comment on one particular fire authority, which is essentially
what you are asking him to do.
Q338 Martin Horwood: Taking
us as a proxy for those fire services where we do know there is
technology in place, good joint working, in principle what is
the benefit to us?
Mr McGuirk: In relation to the
speed with which your technology can produce new incidents and
mobilise, then for some Fire and Rescue Services the advantages
to be gained from new technology are marginal, that is true to
say. For the majority there are big advantages to be gained from
the technology.
Q339 Chair: I think Mr
Toase wanted to make one point.
Mr Toase: First of all, it is
important to note that it was not the Chief Fire Officers' Association
who said we should move away completely from the tri-service centre
in Gloucestershire. I think it is important to make that point.
It is worth looking back historically to when the Chief Fire Officers'
Association came up with its support for the rationale of the
regional control centres. When one looks back to the independent
review of the Fire and Rescue Service, the Fire Service as it
was then, by Sir George Bain we put certain submissions in to
that process and what came out of that was the White Paper. The
concept of regional control centres was embedded in that modernisation
of the Fire and Rescue Service and the concept of that was something
that the Chief Fire Officers' Association found we could positively
support, the rationale was sound. Issues with regard to faster
response times, greater technology, and I know the Fire Brigades
Union made mention of caller identification, that now has advanced
as I understand it with regard to mobile phones, et cetera, and
the issue with regard to automatic vehicle location, for instance,
means the technology will be able to pinpoint exactly where the
nearest fire appliance is once a call is received. It is not necessarily
the fire station, they will be able to tell you exactly where
the nearest fire appliance is and mobilise on that criteria.
| 
