Memorandum by the Cheshire Fire and Rescue
Service (FRS 09)
INTRODUCTION
In this submission, we have considered each
of the aspects of the inquiry, as set out in the statement issued
by your Committee requesting evidence. Some of the main issues
we identified are set out below.
In Cheshire's view, the development of the FiReControl
and FiReLink projects is seen as a positive development, from
both a professional and public safety perspective. However, we
would stress the need for better coordination of these two projects
and would encourage the Government to treat these two issues as
one. In addition to this, we also suggest that greater consideration
be given to issue of hand-held or fireground communications, in
the context of FiReLink and FiReControl.
The submission also indicates concern on the
part of the Service and the Fire Authority of the narrow use of
the concept of "fire prevention" by the Committee, as
well as parts of government and elsewhere at the national level.
This narrow concept does not reflect the reality, potential and
willingness of the Fire and Rescue Service to engage-in and tackle
community needs and risks.
Finally, it is the view of both the Fire Authority
and the Service in Cheshire that the positive approach to collaboration
demonstrated at the regional level in the North West, and the
resulting political goodwill, will be threatened by the continued
reluctance of the government to clarify the role of local and
regional structures, in relation to Fire and Rescue provision.
1. CHESHIRE OVERVIEW
1.1 Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service covers
an area of over 233,401 hectares in the North West of England,
incorporating the boroughs of Halton and Warrington and the County
of Cheshire. The Service and its Combined Fire Authority oversee
the provision of fire and rescue services to a population of 984,300,
including 418,063 domestic and 30,716 non-domestic properties.
1.2 Cheshire Fire Authority forms part of
the North West Regional Management Board (the Fire and Rescue
Management Board) along with the Fire Authorities of Greater Manchester,
Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria.
2. CONTEXT
2.1 Cheshire Fire Authority and Cheshire
Fire and Rescue Service are widely seen as forward looking and
the Authority recently achieved a "Good" rating in the
Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) process. The Service
has consistently shown that it is keen to embrace the changes
and opportunities presented through the modernisation agenda.
This was demonstrated in autumn 2002, when the Service was visited
by Professor Sir George Bain and his team as part of the evidence
gathering phase of their inquiry into the state of the UK fire
and rescue service. The team visited Cheshire because of its well
developed community safety activities, and not, as was the case
stated for several other authorities, the result of composition
or structure. Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service has also previously
submitted written and oral evidence to this Committee during a
previous inquiry in 2003-04.
3. SUMMARY
3.1 Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service greeted
the recent announcement of the Minister, in relation to the introduction
of Regional Control Centres, as a positive development both in
terms of the impact on the local economy (the selected site lies
within the Cheshire Fire Authority area) and from a public service
perspective. It is felt that the new centre will improve resilience
and service delivery within and between fire and rescue services,
but also with other emergency services.
3.2 The Service also feels that the FireLink
project presents an opportunity to develop a much more integrated
means of communication that can only benefit the community and
be more effective. However, we would express concern at the slow
progress in assembling the FireControl project and the FireLink
project into a single programme of change; given the vital requirement
that both projects require a high level of interoperability and
are implemented in a complementary way. We would also suggest
that the Committee considers the issue of handheld or fireground
communications. Previously these have not been truly considered
as part of either project, being viewed as "out of scope".
We feel however, that this may cause communication problems in
the future and pose a significant threat to resilience, particularly
at the scene of major incidents where the need is greatest. The
extent of this risk was demonstrated through the terrorist attacks
on London in July 2005.
3.3 With regard to the second part of the
Committee's Inquiry, the Fire Service's Act 2004 and the National
Framework documents have enabled Cheshire to pursue many wider
projects and work-streams than was possible under the constraints
of the old 1947 Act; especially in the area of community risk
reduction and partnership working. The Service has developed a
number of innovative programmes designed to improve engagement
with local communities and to emphasise the fire safety message.
However, the Service expresses some concern at the narrow use
of the concept of "fire prevention" that continues to
hold sway in some areas of government and at the wider national
level. This narrow concept does not reflect the reality or the
true potential for the fire service nationally to develop its
services to meet modern community needs and risks; for example
the Service in Cheshire has recently led on an ambitious strategy
to combat death and injury on local roads, where we currently
rescue three times as many people than from fires.
3.4 Cheshire would like to see government
and national institutions adopt a more holistic concept of community
safety (within the Local Area Agreement purview) in order for
local fire services to have a genuine impact on reducing death
and injury in their communities and also to give fire authorities
the powers they require to support their partners in local government
and nationally to achieve these aims.
4. KEY ISSUES
4.1 FireControl
4.1.1 As outlined above, the announcement
of the Minister with regard to the implementation of the FireControl
project was greeted in Cheshire as a broadly positive development
in two respects. Firstly, the location of the new site has been
announced as Lingley Mere Business Park near Great Sankey in Warrington.
This is seen as a good development for Cheshire as the site is
within the Fire Authority area and there will be a positive impact
on the local economy. Secondly, from a professional and public
services perspective, the Service feels that the implementation
of Regional Control Centres (RCC's) will provide a more resilient
and responsive service to people across the North West. Additional
staff and resources will ensure that calls are answered more quickly
and there will be less danger of calls backing-up in the event
of major or high profile incidents. The prevalence of mobile telephones
means that even quite small incidents in high profile locations
can result in a volume of
4.1.2 The Service and Authority also acknowledge
public concern over the potential loss of local knowledge involved
in setting up a new control centre in a new location. We believe
however, that this will not be borne out in reality, as the enhanced
technology supporting the centre will automatically identify the
nearest available fire appliance, when a call is received. Modern
GIS systems and mapping technology also means that locations are
more easily and quickly determined than ever before, removing
the need to rely on local knowledge. A more valid concern involves
the political issues surrounding the implementation of such a
high profile regional project and its implications for local accountability
and for democratic control of the governing entity. A number of
elected Members remain concerned at the dilution of local councillors'
influence on key projects of this nature.
4.1.3 The Service and the Authority ask
for a wider recognition of these concerns on the part of government
and a more open approach with regard to their plans and ambitions
for the roles of regions. It is also suggested that the role of
the Regional Fire and Rescue Management Boards be further clarified,
especially in the light of developments with the Police and Ambulance
Services. Finally, we remain concerned with the funding arrangements
and the business case for RCC's, both in the short and long term
and believe that the true cost of the resilience dimension of
the project is not currently being fully recognised or acknowledged.
These are real risks for the reputations of local fire authorities
who retain responsibility if not control.
4.2 FireLink
4.2.1 Firstly, the Service strongly believes
that this issue should not be considered in isolation from the
implementation of regional control centres. Indeed, such is the
level of interoperability between the two issues that the Service
considers it vital that the projects be combined and their implementation
be brought together in more coordinated way. The Service cites
the sophistication of the technology involved in both projects
and the level of integration required, as a concern in terms of
ensuring effective resilience, both within the region and between
the nine proposed centres. We would also suggest that particular
consideration be given to the potential problems resulting from
the number of contracts and sub contracts involved in delivering
the project; we feel that there are too many points of failure
in the system and further consideration needs to be given to simplifying
the processes involved, to reduce these risks and enable better
project management.
4.2.2 On a wider issue, we feel that consideration
should also be given to the implications for the operational procedures
of individual fire services, resulting from the reality of several
services liaising with a single control centre. We feel that there
needs to be recognition at the national level of the need to simplify
and harmonise mobilising procedures in order to ensure interoperability
and resilience. Additionally, we also feel it necessary to highlight
the fact that fireground radios and handheld communications have
not been considered as part of either of these two national projects,
which means that there are important implications for the effectiveness
of both. We stress the importance of the ability of all communications
to be compatible and therefore, this is a vital issue with implications
for resilience and future effectiveness of both FireControl and
FireLink.
4.2.3 The final issue which we wish to raise
in relation to the first part of your inquiry relates to the perceived
disparity over the future direction of the national fire service.
This is highlighted through the recognition of "localism""
through Integrated Risk Management Plans (IRMP's) and the perceived
need to develop harmonised procedures at the regional and super-regional
level as a result of the development of regional control centres
and the requirements of national resilience.
4.2.4 We feel some further clarity is required
in this area from the government as this discrepancy will lead
to confusion as to the type of fire service emergency response
the public can expect.
4.3 Progress on wider fire and rescue service
reform
Fire Prevention
4.3.1 The continuing use of the narrow concept
of fire prevention at the national level has convinced Cheshire
that there is still an inability on the part of government to
appreciate the effect, or to see the future potential, of the
huge amount of work undertaken in the field of community safety
and risk reduction since the introduction of the Government White
Paper; and especially in the last twelve months.
4.3.2 The narrow description of Fire Prevention
used by the Committee and elsewhere at the national level, demonstrates
the short distance that perceptions in the centre have travelled,
when compared to the reality of the wide-ranging work undertaken
by fire and rescue services nationally. The Service acknowledges
the concerns over "mission creep" for fire and rescue
services, but asks that the Committee considers the potential
of the fire service to support wider government aims with its
partners in local government and based on existing examples of
good practice seen around the country. Special consideration should
be given to areas such as youth engagement, where Cheshire have
pioneered several successful schemes such as Fire Cadets, Kooldown,
Drive-Survive, Community Safety Teams and the country's first
Fire Cadet unit inside a Young Offenders Institute. This is helping
to change attitudes and improve young people's prospects, as well
as helping to preventing the occurrence of future problems such
as arson.
Institutional Arrangements
4.3.3 After considering the institutional
arrangements, which support the work of local fire and rescue
services, several major issues have been highlighted as requiring
further consideration to allow services to be delivered more effectively.
4.3.4 Firstly, following a protracted period
of negotiation with our representative bodies locally, Cheshire
has managed to secure the implementation of a new duty system
for our whole-time personnel. However, this has not been without
considerable delay and negotiation difficulties. Although we have
maintained positive relationships with trade union colleagues
locally throughout the process, it would be true to characterise
the FBU's organisational approach to change as one of resistance.
Accordingly, it is our suggestion that the negotiation protocols
be reconsidered by government as there remains the potential for
stagnation and stalling tactics, but nevertheless, we welcome
the freedom of local negotiation.
4.3.5 In addition to this issue, it is also
requested that fire and rescue services receive further clarification
on the future role HM Inspectorate of Fire Services and the basis
on which operational assurance will be provided locally. The Service
acknowledges the role of CPA in providing an assessment and a
benchmark for the effectiveness of a service's governance protocols
and processes, but the exclusion of operational effectiveness
from that procedure, and the corresponding changes to the name
and role of the Inspectorate, leaves a gap which needs to be filled
to give public confidence in an effective emergency response.
4.3.6 With regard to transitional funding
and financial arrangements, the Service considers full investment
in the fire service as vital for fulfilling the government's aim
of creating a modern, reformed and public-facing service. The
Service also wishes to highlight the fact that, to date, there
has been no communication programme on the part of the government,
setting out exactly what it has achieved through the modernisation
agenda so far and what it seeks to achieve in the long-term, including
the role of local, regional and national bodies. We feel that
this is an important step which needs to be taken, in order to
achieve public understanding and support for the changes and improvements
we are striving to introduce.
Diversity
4.3.7 As a result of the shifting emphasis
and resources from emergency response to prevention and fire safety
over recent years, there has been a significant reduction in the
recruitment of whole-time firefighters. This situation has made
it difficult for services such as Cheshire to make a real impact
in increasing diversity among the operational workforce. It is
important to note, however, that the growth of the prevention
and protection functions through the increased employment of non-operational
uniformed fire safety staff, fire and rescue services have successfully
recruited a significant number of personnel from under-represented
groups such as women and black & minority ethnic (BME) community
members.
4.4 Joint Working
4.4.1 The Fire Authority takes a leading
role in engaging with the North West Regional Management Board.
The Chairman of the Regional Board is the Vice Chair of Cheshire
Fire Authority and Leader of the North West Regional Assembly.
It is our view that there are many benefits to working in partnership
with our partner fire and rescue services in the North West. As
mentioned in an earlier part of this memorandum however, openness
and clarity of purpose are seen as key to enhancing regional working,
and for this there needs to be movement on the part of government
to set out clearly its intentions and expectations for the regions.
Only a clear message on regionalism will allow Regional Boards
to work together to deliver the many benefits offered by collaboration
without the suspicion of the introduction of regional fire authorities
by the back door.
4.4.2 It is an emerging theme that structural
change is likely given the situation with both the police and
ambulances services, therefore, there needs to be a requirement
and position from government on the way forward. It is fair to
say that RMB's are rapidly approaching a crossroads of achieving
almost all that can be achieved through collaboration. The next
step will necessitate further structural reform and constitutional
clarity. We are not necessarily advocating this step; rather we
are seeking clarity in order to avoid wasting time, effort and
resources in fruitless collaborative reviews as a prelude to "extinction".
4.4.3 The Service also works effectively
however, with a huge number of other partners to support and deliver
our services and priorities across Cheshire. We are represented
on a number of boards and panels with colleagues from local government,
other emergency services and the private and voluntary sector,
helping to deliver wider government aims such as sustainable communities.
To this degree we are very successful and highly thought of, however,
in the local authority pantheon we are very much the junior partner,
a situation resulting from our exclusion from the list of authorities
granted the use of the "wellbeing power" through Section
2 of the Local Government Act (2000). We feel quite strongly that
our inability to operate under this statute renders us less effective
than our partners in many situations where our experience, resources
and knowledge would enable us to make a real difference. This
would ensure that the fire services of the future play a full
part in contributing to the life of the local community.
| 
