Memorandum by the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority (LFEPA) (FRS 21)
1. The London Fire and Emergency Planning
Authority (LFEPA) welcomes this Inquiry and the opportunity to
submit evidence to the Select Committee. It would be willing to
attend the Committee to provide oral evidence if this would be
helpful.
2. The Authority strongly supports, on a
cross party basis, the modernisation of the fire and rescue service.
Indeed, prior to the Government's White Paper "Our Fire and
Rescue Service" and the passage of the Fire and Rescue Service
Act 2004 the Authority had consistently argued for the service
to be modernised. It had identified that the legislation and national
framework within which the service then operated was outdated
and no longer met the needs and aspirations of those it was seeking
to protect. In particular it argued that individual fire and rescue
authorities should be given the flexibility to plan and deliver
services according to their knowledge and understanding of local
risks, and that the role the public had come to expect the service
to play in responding to non-fire emergencies should be recognised
as part of its core functions.
3. It therefore welcomed the provisions
of the Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004, in particular the extension
of fire and rescue authorities' statutory powers and duties, and
the introduction of integrated risk management planning into the
service.
PROGRESS WITH
MODERNISATION OF
THE SERVICE
IN LONDON
4. The Committee will be aware that the
Audit Commission carried out two exercises in 2004 to verify the
progress being made by individual fire and rescue authorities
in implementing modernisation of the fire and rescue service and
the national pay and conditions agreement with the Fire Brigades
Union. Subsequently the Audit Commission assessed this Authority
as a "good" authority under the Initial Performance
Assessment. A reconciliation exercise then confirmed that "good"
rating under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment for the
fire and rescue service.
5. This verification work looked at progress
in a number of areas of modernisation:
— integrated risk management planning;
— the move from rank to role for operational
staff;
— delivery of the integrated personal
development system for staff;
— changes in duty systems;
— introduction of part time working;
— delivery of the wider modernisation
agenda; and
— financial issues, including delivery
of anticipated savings from modernisation.
6. We are proud that on both occasions the
Commission found that no fire and rescue authority was making
better progress than LFEPA in implementing modernisation of the
service.
7. This change has, of course, taken place
at the same time as the need to enhance our resilience to respond
to a terrorist attack, or other major catastrophic incidents.
As the capital city, London faces a higher risk of such an event
than the rest of the country, as was tragically shown by the July
bombings.
OUR ACHIEVEMENTS
8. The pace of change has been fast, and
a great deal has been achieved in a small amount of time. We would
wish to highlight the following achievements in London.
9. Over the last five years, London has
seen a 20% reduction in deaths from accidental dwelling fires.
There has also been a 23% reduction in deaths from non-accidental
fires in the home. Total injuries from fire have reduced by 20%,
and hoax calls by 30%, exceeding the 20% target reduction set
by government.
10. These improvements picked up speed last
year, when we saw a 13% reduction in the more serious fires in
London—for example, those in buildings—over the previous
year; dramatic reductions in total fire deaths, from 86 in 2003-04
to 40 in 2004-05; and in accidental fires in dwellings from 60
to 22.
11. London now has the lowest number of
fire calls per 10,000 population when compared to England's other
major cities. It has the lowest number of deaths from accidental
dwelling fires per 10,000 population and the lowest number of
serious deliberate fires per 10,000 population. It also has the
lowest number of false alarms from automatic fire detection systems
per 10,000 population.
12. We are confident that it is no coincidence
that these improvements have happened as we have increased our
emphasis on prevention work, which has been a major priority for
the Authority since it was set up in 2000.
13. We have introduced a programme of home
fire safety checks, linked with a programme to install smoke alarms
where they are not already fitted.
14. We have also rolled out a range of innovative
schemes to work with young people to improve fire safety awareness,
reduce the incidence of anti-social behaviour, such as deliberate
fire setting or making false alarms, and to develop their self
confidence as part of wider efforts to tackle social exclusion.
We have also continued and improved our programme of working with
schools to increase fire safety awareness among children.
15. We have brought together the full range
of our services (community fire safety, fire safety regulation
and the emergency response) together within Borough teams, under
the management of a Borough Commander. This has helped us to develop
much better joint working with the London boroughs, other emergency
services and other local agencies, community groups and businesses
at a local level to tackle common problems and improve community
safety.
16. We have made massive investment in additional
vehicles, equipment and training for staff to be ready to respond
in the event of a major terrorist attack or other major emergencies.
The bombings on 7 July showed that this investment had proved
worthwhile, when some additional vehicles, equipment and training
were used to good effect.
17. At the same time, we are demonstrating
innovation and creative problem solving on some of the largest
construction projects in the world. Heathrow's Terminal 5, together
with major transport intersections, will accommodate 30 million
passengers a year and we are working closely with BAA to ensure
effective fire safety measures are built into the new terminal.
Thames Gateway is one of the largest development opportunities,
and we are working to ensure that not only the new developments
have appropriate fire detection and suppression systems fitted,
but also that we are prepared to provide effective emergency cover
that reflects population growth and changing risks Major transport
developments such as the Channel Tunnel link and Crossrail pose
their own challenges and again we are working with the developers
to make sure that effective fire safety measures are built in.
18. The government has now streamlined fire
safety arrangements with the introduction of a new framework that
pulls together more than 100 different pieces of earlier legislation.
These changes come into effect in April 2006, and will nearly
double the number of premises subject to detailed regulation.
We are planning to deal with this expansion within current resources
by adopting a risk-based inspection strategy, where the frequency
of our visits to check premises reflects the assessed fire risk
in those buildings.
19. We have prepared two Integrated Risk
Management Plans, consulting widely on both of them, and are now
consulting on a further Action Plan for 2006-07. These Plans took
advantage of the flexibility provided by the new Fire and Rescue
Services Act to provide emergency cover which better reflects
the patterns of risks across the capital. We have set new attendance
standards which apply across all of London, and by moving some
fire engines we will be able to improve our performance. This
means that for those incidents that need two or more engines,
both engines will arrive within eight minutes in over a thousand
more cases a year than has been the case until now.
20. All these improvements have been achieved
while we have continued to deliver efficiency savings of several
million pounds a year; year after year.
REGIONAL CONTROLS
AND FIRELINK
21. This Authority is of course the only
regional fire and rescue authority in England, and we believe
that planning and delivery of the fire and rescue service on a
London-wide basis is both efficient and effective.
22. We have recently introduced our new
regional control centre in Docklands. This delivers a cost effective
service and, supported by modern software, is helping us deliver
improved services (for example by using call challenge to reduce
the number of malicious false alarms we attend).
23. The Authority has recently decided to
support the FiReControl Project subject to future review which
will consider issues such as:
(a) receipt of the final business case from
the ODPM and confirmation of the benefits of the project to this
Authority;
(b) satisfactory resolution of abortive and
any other costs issues;
(c) the Authority's position in the rollout
programme being appropriate and agreed with the ODPM; and
(d) the Authority's current and proposed
IT and information systems integration and architecture not being
disadvantaged by adopting a regional mobilising system delivered
by the Regional Fire Control Room Project.
Advantages and disadvantages of FiReControl
24. When reaching this decision the Authority
carefully considered the potential advantages and disadvantages
of its participation in this project.
25. The potential benefits for responding
to emergency calls and enhancing resilience to deal with a major
catastrophic incident include:
(a) immediate support from the other regional
controls in spate conditions, ensuring that all calls are answered
within 20 seconds;
(b) in the event of the London's control
centre becoming unavailable for any reason, any one of the other
regional controls would be able to immediately take over the receipt
of emergency calls and the management and mobilisation of London
Fire brigade resources. Among other things, this could also remove
the requirement for a dedicated London fallback control, with
consequential financial savings; and
(c) common processes and procedures will
improve interoperability between regions and Brigades which will
be of particular benefit when responding to large scale, cross
border emergencies.
26. However the Authority also noted the
following potential risks which will need careful management and
mitigation if the project is to meet its aspirations and London's
requirements:
(a) the long term solution developed as part
of the regional control project must support the integrated risk
management planning process. In London we are not currently using
the FSEC tool developed by the ODPM, but have developed an alternative
approach which we believe better meets our needs. We would wish
to continue to have the flexibility to develop and use those tools
best able to support our approach to integrated risk management
planning;
(b) the Authority's current and proposed
IT and information systems integration and architecture are well
advanced and it will be essential that any potential problems
with (a) meeting critical national infrastructure requirements
and (b) interoperability between these systems and the FiReControl
systems are identified early and that they are capable of being
resolved; and
(c) our current mobilising arrangements became
operational in April 2004 and it is estimated a major technology
refresh or replacement system would be due in 2010-11. The premises
for the new control are leased until 2011 with provision for a
five year lease extension. With London being awarded the 2012
Olympics any new system should be in operation some 18 to 24 months
earlier. There has already been some slippage in the FiReControl
project, and already the earliest date for implementation would
be early in 2009. FiReControl is however a very complex project
and is intricately linked with the complex FiRelink project. Some
further slippage seems likely, if not inevitable and this could
result in the Authority having to consider the accommodation options
as the current lease on the control building expires in October
2011.
27. However, the potential risks identified
above would apply at any time the Authority refreshes its current
system. With rigorous project management arrangements, and regular
and effective liaison with ODPM, these problems should be minimised
and mitigated, especially as roll out of the new systems to London
will be at the end of the national programme.
28. The Authority also noted a number of
drawbacks to not committing, in principle, to the FiReControl
Project. The major ones are:
(a) the location of London's mobilising centre
(primary control) and its fallback control would not meet the
requirements of critical national infrastructure;
(b) there would be more limited scope to
develop common processes and procedures with other Fire and Rescue
Services and their controls, which could result in difficulties
with cross border mobilisation and operations, including those
to major cross border incidents;
(c) a fallback control would have to be maintained,
and service delivery and attendance times in London could be affected
during the transition from the primary control to the fallback
control; and
(d) London would be outside of the national
procurement arrangements and, if we had a different supplier,
would bear the full costs of software development and upgrades.
29. On balance therefore, the Authority
decided to commit, in principle, to participate in the FiReControl
project subject to the qualifications set out in paragraph 23
above. However, unlike other aspects of the modernisation programme,
this decision did not command all party support.
30. The Authority decided in 2002 to support
and participate in the national FiReLink project. The replacement
of the current radio scheme in London is now overdue and the Authority
is anxious that the new national scheme is available in London
as soon as possible, particularly as it impacts directly on the
Authority's planned move to a new Headquarters. We are therefore
anxious that the timetable for implementation of the national
scheme does not slip further and that it is rolled out in London,
as planned, in 2008.
31. However, it is essential that the new
control arrangements and the new radio scheme are in place well
before the 2012 Olympics. The new systems need to be operating
(and any initial problems with their operation resolved) before
we meet the major challenge of ensuring that the Games pass off
safely, given the particular profile they may present as a potential
terrorist target.
PROGRESS WITH
IMPLEMENTING FIRE
AND RESCUE
SERVICE REFORM
Fire prevention
Fire safety regulation
32. The main challenge facing the fire and
rescue service on fire safety enforcement is the impending implementation
of the Fire Safety (Regulatory Reform) Order 2005 in April 2006.
This will involve a change of culture for both the service as
the enforcing authority and the business community with whom we
work. It will also considerably increase the number of premises
that the service has detailed enforcement responsibility, which
has potential resource implications.
33. The Order will replace the prescriptive
regime of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 with a risk based approach
where the onus rests with the person responsible for the building
to comply with the legislation and secure public safety. Effectively
this change will extend the approach already adopted in the Fire
Precautions (Workplace) Regulations.
34. It will mean that fire officers involved
in regulation work will have to move away from reliance on codes
to dealing with cases on an individual, risk assessed basis. This
will have considerable training implications to equip those officers
to use risk based techniques and deal at a professional level
with architects, fire safety consultants etc In effect they will
have to be able to think "outside of the box".
35. The Authority has long argued for changes
along these lines, and we welcome the new Order and its introduction
next April.
36. In line with the provision in the new
Order, this Authority will be putting in place new inspection
regimes for different categories of premises, based on the risks
they present. Our approach will be to set inspection frequencies
in line with assessed risks, and we expect that this will allow
us to handle the much greater number of premises covered by the
new Order without significant increase in our dedicated fire safety
teams.
37. The change in legislation will also
impact on the business community. Many small and medium sized
firms rely heavily on advice and assistance from the fire and
rescue service on fire safety issues in their premises. In the
future they will have to become more self reliant. However, during
the transitional period while the new approach is bedding down,
we expect that fire and rescue authorities will need to supply
a degree of support to the business community.
38. The increasing reliance on fire engineered
solutions in modern buildings will also increase the need for
the fire and rescue service to have professional officers, with
the requisite skills and knowledge to assess such innovative solutions
and to negotiate with architects, fire safety consultants about
their proposals. In London, this is a particular challenge given
the increasing number of very large and complex developments such
as Heathrow Terminal 5, the new Wembley stadium, White City and
the Olympic sites.
39. As well as managing the changes arising
from the new Fire Safety Order, other legislation such as the
new Licensing Act 2003 and recent changes to housing legislation
also pose challenges to the fire and rescue service. We will need
to work in partnership with other enforcing agencies, and agree
new working relationships with them to achieve our common goal
of improving public safety and minimising risk. Again, this widening
of our responsibilities could have resource implications, especially
as it comes at the same time as we are coping with the increased
number of premises covered by fire safety regulation.
40. There are some other issues relating
to fire safety regulation which we would wish to highlight:
— the experience of the introduction
of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations shows that the
Government needs to do more to publicise changes in fire safety
legislation. Their commitment to do so will be tested with the
new Fire Safety Order;
— the advent of the e-Fire portal next
year will change the way in which the fire and rescue service
interacts with its users. E-Fire is however only a start and we
will need to develop further ways in which we can make better
use of modern technology to improve our service delivery;
— as the complexity of fire safety
regulation activity grows, and we move away from a very prescriptive
or "tick box" approach, we will need to keep under review
how best to make sure that staff have the necessary skills and
competencies for this new rule. This will involve looking at the
balance between specialist fire officers and use of station based
or other staff, and the appropriate mix of uniformed and non-uniformed
staff within those dedicated teams;
— it is essential that the Government
continues to support our efforts to persuade, or where the risk
justifies it to require, developers to include domestic sprinkler
systems in new or refurbished premises. There has been a sustained
campaign in which we and other informed organisations, such as
the Local Government Association, have pressed for the introduction
of sprinklers on a risk assessed basis as a means of tackling
fires in those classes of residential and other property where
the potential for fire is known to be high. Examples of premises
where we believe the building regulations should include a requirement
to install sprinklers would include schools, new homes in major
developments such as those in Thames Gateway, and rented older
houses in multioccupation or care homes. Modern sprinkler systems
are reliable and rarely cause unwanted damage through malfunction,
but are very effective in limiting fire spread and fire damage
and ensuring that people have the time to leave premises safely
if fire does break out. Nationally, fires in schools continue
to represent a huge cost counted in tens of millions of pounds,
not to mention the serious educational disruption and upset that
often results from them. Yet, one major insurance company has
estimated that the cost of installing a sprinkler system in a
school can be recouped within seven to eight years through reduced
insurance premiums. Overall, we think the Government has been
too slow and cautious in responding to the potential that smarter
use of sprinklers offers as a means to mitigate known fire risks,
and we would welcome recognition of their benefits in future changes
to Building regulations;
— the service will continue to discuss
with Government, the building insurance and fire protection industries
how to promote the use of UKAS accredited third party certification
for fire safety products to improve their competence and reliability;
— we will continue to lobby for improvements
in standards and building design codes to incorporate proven fire
safety technologies, particularly where this can help to ensure
effective fire safety design in new and complex building projects
in London; and
— we believe the relationship between
the fire and rescue service and local authorities on a range of
enforcement work (building control, entertainments licensing,
environmental health etc) should be reviewed with a view to improving
joint working where this can improve community safety or reduce
burdens on business.
Community Fire Safety
41. We welcome the provision in the Fire
and Rescue Services Act 2004 of a statutory duty to promote community
fire safety. Unlike fire safety regulation work however, there
is little in the way of detailed central guidance as to how this
new duty should be discharged. The demise of the National Community
Fire Safety Centre will not help to remedy this situation.
42. We would agree that to some extent community
fire safety initiatives should reflect local circumstances, risks
and needs. However, we also believe that there is scope for greater
collaboration between individual fire and rescue authorities and
for more effective involvement by the ODPM—not just in providing
direction but in providing resources such as support materials
etc In addition, experience has shown that national campaigns
require a greater degree of co-ordination than at present to ensure
that the service is given adequate notice of these campaigns,
can align them with local initiatives, and receives sufficient
supplies of materials etc.
43. In harmony with our new statutory responsibilities
to promote community fire safety this Authority is increasingly
demonstrating its influence and potential in wider community concerns;
supporting strategies which impact on neighbourhood renewal, health
inequality, crime reduction and social exclusion.
44. The fire and rescue service enjoys unique
public respect and support, and we have shown that we can use
that trust and our record of helping people in a variety of ways
to lead and inspire members of the community in projects which
make a difference. This is not entirely altruistic, since there
is a strong positive correlation between improving quality of
life in local neighbourhoods and lower levels of nuisance and
the frequency and consequences of fire.
45. Community fire safety work is resource
intensive. Our approach has been to make more effective use of
the time of our trained fire officers at fire stations, and increase
the time they spend in their local communities spreading fire
safety messages. This has enabled us to make a real impact in
improving safety, without substantial additional investment.
46. However, this is not the whole story.
Some of our initiatives are supported by volunteers from among
staff across the whole organisation, often working in their own
time because they believe in the positive outcomes that can be
achieved. Some of our key youth engagement activities, eg our
successful Local Intervention Fire Education (LIFE) scheme or
our work with the Prince's Trust, are supported by external funding
from agencies and are therefore at jeopardy should that funding
cease or be reduced. Securing external funding is itself also
resource intensive and the project based nature of such funding
can cause uncertainty and, on occasions, disappointment when we
are unable to meet expectations which we have helped to raise.
47. Similarly the Government's support for
Operation Scrap It (the scheme to remove abandoned vehicles from
the streets promptly) has helped to achieve a substantial reduction
in the number of such vehicles on the streets. This has not only
helped to improve the environment in the locality but, as these
vehicles are a target for arson, has also helped us to achieve
a dramatic reduction in the number of fires in derelict vehicles.
The withdrawal of Government financial support for this scheme
is a cause for concern, lest it results in a reversal of recent
improvements and an increase in derelict cars on London's streets
and the number of fires they attract.
48. As the number of these schemes grows,
as they are rolled out more widely and as they are sustained over
years, rather than months, there will be long term resource implications
which will impact on fire and rescue authorities' budgets and
therefore on precept demands for the council tax payer.
49. There are some other issues relating
to community fire safety work which we would wish to highlight:
— we believe further consideration
should be given to setting up a non-emergency contact telephone
number for fire and rescue service (similar to the police); and
— whilst Government funding for such
initiatives as the Arson Task Force and Home Fire Safety Checks
is welcome, there are difficult choices once such funding ceases
between continuing them (which means an additional burden falling
on council tax payers) or stopping them and reducing the impact
we are having in local communities.
Institutional arrangements. including finance
50. Financial issues are a key aspect of
the modernisation of the fire service. It was envisaged that a
more flexible, risk based approach to protecting local people
from the effects of fires and other emergencies would both help
to improve services and deliver significant efficiency savings.
51. This Authority has met those twin objectives,
delivering efficiency savings of some £7 million in 2004-05
and over £10 million in 2005-06, while also delivering the
service improvements set out in our integrated risk management
plans.
52. However there remain a number of significant
concerns regarding the finance of the fire and rescue service,
particularly as it impacts on London.
53. The provisional grant settlement for
2006-07 was announced on 5 December 2005. We welcome the postponement
of the repayment of Transitional Relief into 2007-08. However,
we are concerned at the impact of the adjustment in respect of
the change of firefighters' pensions financing could have on precept
or service levels in 2006-07.
54. The LFEPA supports the changes to pensions
financing, because it should protect fire and rescue services
from significant fluctuations in pension costs year-on-year. However,
it is concerning that the move to what will be a less volatile
system could have such a disruptive one-off impact. The Authority
was aware that a change of this complexity would mean that the
individual impacts on different fire and rescue authorities might
not be cost neutral. But the Government's calculations suggest
a much higher degree of turbulence than expected—the pensions
loss of grant for LFEPA is £7.7 million more than we forecast.
By itself, this is adding 6% on our precept level in 2006-07.
55. Given that the actual costs of pensions
will ultimately be borne by fire and rescue authorities through
the employers' contribution rate, the effect of the deduction
from the Fire Service Settlement for pensions if it turns out
to be too high is that council tax payers are being asked to pay
"up front" for a cost which may not actually materialise,
and which, if it did, could be included in considerations influencing
the next actuarially reviewed employers' contribution rate.
56. Therefore, we have asked that the Government
either give further consideration to the amount which it is deducting
from fire and rescue authorities' grant to pay for pensions cost
in the future, or alternatively consider lowering the employers'
contribution rate initially and stepping it up over a period (as,
for example, local authorities often do when responding to actuarial
valuations). Such a review should have regard to the risk, which
central government, rather than individual fire and rescue authorities,
might reasonably bear when making suitable provision for future
pensions liabilities.
57. We have already referred to the changes
which the Government proposes to the Firefighters' Pension scheme
from next April. The Authority is generally in favour of these
changes, but we have commented to Government that we have some
reservations about increasing the age of retirement for some existing
firefighters. We feel that such an increase—from 50 to 55
for those not eligible to retire by March 2013—is rather
arbitrary and that it is unfair for the terms of the scheme to
be varied for existing staff, thereby disrupting the plans individuals
may have, and appears to be out of step with the review of arrangements
for other public sector bodies—such as the Civil Service,
Teachers and Health Service pension regimes—where the normal
retirement age is apparently to remain unchanged in so far as
existing staff are concerned.
58. We welcome the significant funding we
have received from Government for improving our resilience to
respond to major catastrophic incidents, such as terrorist attacks.
This amounted to some £2.5 million in 2004-05 for example.
However our costs are substantially higher than this, £11.6
million in total in 2004-05 mainly in respect of equipment which
was not provided by central government and which they have not,
before now, seen as within the remit of their national New Dimension
programme.
59. We believe that London faces particular
risks, given its role as a capital city, and that this should
be fully recognised by the Government by meeting the full costs
of the additional investment we consider essential to improve
our resilience. The need to invest in additional Fire Rescue Units
(FRUs) is a prime example where we consider an unfair share of
the burden would fall on Londoners under present arrangements.
Experience of the attacks on 7 July has shown that at one time
all the available FRUs were deployed to the four separate bombing
incidents. The deployment to the bombings necessitated redirecting
one FRU on its way to a road traffic collision. Conclusions from
the review of the events surrounding the July bombings are that
an additional six Fire Rescue Units would further strengthen our
resilience to respond to catastrophic incidents, while maintaining
the capacity to continue to respond to other incidents (such as
road traffic collisions).
60. The costs of providing this additional
equipment to further improve our resilience are £3.3 million
in 2006-07, £8.3 million in 2007-08 and £9.9 million
in 2008-09. We welcome the indications from the Mayor and London
Assembly that they support the need for this additional investment
but both the GLA and LFEPA believe strongly that these costs should
be met in full by the Government, and should not fall on London's
council tax payers.
61. We have repeatedly raised the matter
with central government, and would hope that the Select Committee
would support our case for such costs to be met by Government.
Procurement
62. This Authority has taken a very clear
role in recognising the importance of procurement to the fire
and rescue service. We produced the first procurement strategy
for a fire and rescue service in the country four years ago and
have recently approved a second three year procurement strategy.
The Procurement Department has also achieved Investor in People
and ISO 14001 accreditation, the first time either of these awards
have been made to a procurement function in the fire and rescue
service. In addition the Procurement Department has received funding
from the London Centre of Excellence to undertake investigations
into the state of contract management through local authorities
in London and recently won an award for "Most Innovative
Organisation" for procurement recycling initiatives from
the Mayor's London Remade programme.
63. LFEPA initiated the Integrated Clothing
Project which has since been adopted as a national project and
worked on the development of the national procurement strategy
for the fire and rescue service that has recently been published.
We have seconded a number of procurement staff to the interim
Firebuy company to assist with the start-up arrangements for national
procurement.
Industrial relations issues
64. The Authority has been progressing the
modernisation agenda in line with the national agreement, including
introducing new industrial relations and employee relations procedures
and a revised provision for trade union facilities. We remain
anxious to develop effective joint working arrangements with the
FBU, as with the other trades unions. However, there is little
evidence locally or nationally that the FBU are prepared to engage
in a constructive way with any proposals to modernise the service.
65. Our objective is to have a robust and
effective working relationship with the Fire Brigades Union. However,
regrettably, they are currently refusing to attend meetings set
up as a result of the revised industrial relations procedures
because they refuse to sit at a table with the Fire Officers'
Association, who are one of the Authority's accredited trades
unions. The FBU has been advised that their seats within the revised
procedures are available to them and they continue to be invited
to meetings. The Authority would wish a speedy resolution and
the full engagement of the FBU within the Authority's procedures.
66. In October 2005 we successfully introduced
one of the most far reaching changes in the fire and rescue services
for many years, when we moved from the old rank structure for
the Brigade to a new role based structure. However discussions
with the FBU on this change (which was a key part of the agreement
which settled the pay dispute) were protracted and difficult,
both nationally and locally.
67. Another aspect of modernising the way
that the service operates and which was included in the agreement
was the removal of the FBU's objections to pre-arranged overtime
and the introduction of appropriate arrangements for such overtime
working in individual fire and rescue authorities. However, in
the first quarter of 2005 FBU in London balloted for industrial
action in an attempt to undermine the application of the Authority's
pre-arranged overtime policy. Protracted discussions were required
before the threat of industrial action was lifted and the Authority
was able to implement its policy for pre-arranged overtime.
Promoting diversity
68. Promoting diversity remains a key priority
for this Authority; in terms of both our service delivery and
our role as an employer.
69. The Authority is committed to developing
a workforce which reflects the diverse communities we serve. This
will not only help us to provide more responsive services, but
will also help to build confidence in each part of the community
that we understand their particular needs and aspirations.
70. We have joined with the rest of the
GLA Group in setting a target to reach Level 5 of the Local Government
Equality Standard as soon as practicable. We will continue to
work towards meeting this challenging target. We have also joined
with the GLA and other partners to provide access for members
of the public and for our staff to a community language service,
which includes British Sign Language, to improve how we can communicate
with those members of the community who do not speak English as
their first language.
71. The Authority supports a programme of
community events, designed to support achievement of our overall
equalities objectives. This programme is developed in consultation
with different parts of the community, and with different groups
among our own staff. We make sure that each of our Borough teams
supports at least one major event in their area each year, as
well as maintaining continuing links with different parts of the
community.
72. Arrangements are in place to monitor
the impact which this programme has in helping to meet our goals
and we carry out assessments on the impact of our plans on different
parts of the community. For example, some 35% of the home fire
safety checks we have carried out this year have been to black
and minority ethnic households. We will use these impact assessments
to review and improve our programme in later years.
73. The Authority's procurement strategy
makes sure that contractors are sensitive to the needs and aspirations
of London's diverse communities and we promote equality of opportunity
to all our contractors as well as seeking evidence of their own
commitment to this goal. We continue to encourage businesses from
across London's diverse communities to apply for contracts with
the Authority and make sure that the way in which we structure
and let these contracts places no unnecessary obstructions in
the way of such applications.
74. It will be important that the new national
procurement agency for the fire and rescue service (FiReBuy) continues
to ensure that equalities and diversity issues are fully reflected
in its structure and how it goes about its work.
75. The Authority continues to make good
progress in developing a more diverse workforce, although we accept
that still more needs to be done. Our non-uniformed workforce
continues to be broadly representative of the communities it serves.
Black and minority ethnic fire officers now represent 8.78% of
our operational workforce, and 2.84% of the operational workforce
are women.
76. This has been achieved by:
— changing our selection tests to ensure
that these are explicitly job related, and that they have no unintended
adverse impacts on any particular group, particularly those currently
under-represented in our workforce;
— continuing our programmes of outreach
work to encourage people from under-represented groups (who may
not traditionally have considered the fire service as a career)
to apply to join the fire & rescue service; and
— continuing to run positive action
programmes to support applicants from among parts of the community
currently under-represented in the Brigade, recognising that they
may have been disadvantaged by historical discrimination, whether
overt or indirect.
77. We welcome the Government's efforts
to review national entry selection criteria for the service, and
hope that they will learn from the best practice developed in
this Authority in recent years.
78. We would also urge the Government to
review the national targets for workforce composition in the service
to make sure that, while they should remain challenging, they
are based on empirical evidence (particularly in relation to the
number of women entrants) and are achievable.
79. The modernisation of the service has
provided the opportunity to develop more flexible ways of working,
and to provide opportunities for staff to work flexibly, through
the introduction of prearranged overtime, part time working, different
shift patterns which may be better suited to some people's working
lives, multi-tier entry to the operational service, and developing
more specialist roles to increase the range of job opportunities
in the service. We have also modernised other aspects our human
resources management, with the implementation of the Integrated
Personal Development Scheme for uniformed staff (including NVQ
accreditation), development of an appraisal scheme, an updated
selection process to match the new role maps and programmes for
mentoring and targeted development which it is hoped will particularly
benefit staff from groups currently under-represented in the service.
80. The Authority is fully committed to
providing a work environment which is free from harassment and
bullying; one where every employee is treated with respect and
dignity. We continue to challenge any example of harassment or
bullying among staff, taking a victim centred approach when we
come across unacceptable behaviour and seeking to take action
which would help to prevent such problems happening again.
81. We provide support to groups of staff
who are currently under-represented in our workforce and when
they have set up networks and mutual support arrangements and
support the involvement of our staff in national support networks,
such as Networking Women in the Fire Service.
82. The Authority has been granted the government
employment service's 2 tick symbol accreditation, and will now
use the disability symbol in all relevant literature.
83. We welcome the extension of the Disability
Discrimination Act to apply to all of our staff, including operational
staff, although this has raised considerable challenges in ensuring
that our policies and procedures are compliant.
84. The Authority continues to be part of
the Stonewall Champions initiative, and has applied for the first
time for a place in Stonewall's Corporate Equality Index for 2006.
This index ranks the top 100 employers on lesbian and gay issues.
Competition for places in the index is high, but although the
rankings will not be confirmed until January 2006, we understand
that the Authority will appear in the index next year.
85. This commitment to develop a diverse
workforce and a supportive working environment is underlined by
programmes of work such as:
— delivery of an innovative training
programme for all our staff—Training To Succeed—which
is designed to develop and support staff in their understanding
of equalities and diversity issues;
— development and delivery of measures
to secure a better work life balance for our staff, through policies
covering areas such as childcare, parental leave and job sharing;
— making sure that every fire station
has separate washing and changing facilities for men and women
and that clothing, protective equipment and the design of operational
equipment are all suitable for use by women and men, and by operational
staff from different religions; and
— making sure that none of our procedures
and practices discriminates unlawfully on grounds of faith. We
have recently introduced a multi-faith chaplaincy that will advise
the Authority on faith issues and provide support to all our staff,
whatever their faith.
JOINT WORKING
WITH OTHER
EMERGENCY SERVICES
86. We work closely with the neighbouring
fire and rescue authorities to make sure that effective arrangements
for cross border working are in place and that we can support
each other when this is needed at major incidents. This includes
regular liaison with each of the six fire and rescue authorities
with which we share a boundary and carrying out joint exercises
periodically.
87. We make sure that our procedures, equipment
and working arrangements are compatible so that safe systems of
work are not compromised when crews from more than one brigade
are working at the same incident.
88. The arrangements to improve resilience
in response to the increased threat of terrorist attack or other
major incident have been planned on a national basis, and we are
ready to use the resources based in London anywhere in the country
if needed. The Authority has therefore signed a national mutual
aid agreement under which all brigades agree to do all they can
to help each other in a major emergency.
89. Care is taken to make sure that effective
command and control arrangements are maintained when Joint working
takes place, in line with the national guidance on incident command.
90. London has developed exemplary arrangements
for joint working between the emergency services, which we believe
provide a model for other parts of the country in this key area.
The London Emergency Services Liaison Panel (LESLP) brings together
the police, ambulance and the fire and rescue services together
with representatives from the London boroughs. It has agreed the
respective roles and responsibilities of these agencies at any
major incident, and has developed arrangements and procedures
for command and control at such incidents.
91. These arrangements are tested at major
exercises such as Atlantic Blue, to make sure that the arrangements
work as intended and that lessons can be learnt to improve arrangements
for the future.
92. These were tested for real in the response
to the bombings on 7 July, and the attempted attacks on 2l July.
These showed that the emergency services were well prepared to
deal with such incidents, and that the arrangements for co-ordination
and joint working to respond to these tragic events worked well.
93. As part of the efforts to co-ordinate
responses in the event of a major catastrophic incident, the London
boroughs have agreed to work together to provide effective arrangements
to respond to such an event. These arrangements are known collectively
as "Local Authority Gold". They are designed to manage
the collective response of the London boroughs to a catastrophic
incident, recognising that it will have an impact which cuts across
borough boundaries and which requires a rapid and coordinated
response from London's local authorities.
94. This co-ordination is provided by one
of London's local authority chief executives attending the Gold
Coordination Group. This chief executive represents the boroughs
at this group, and is supported in this role by the London Local
Authority Coordination Centre. Chief Executives from a number
of boroughs are on call, in rotation, to attend the Coordination
Centre and manage the local authority response.
95. At the request of the boroughs, this
Authority has agreed to provide logistical support to LA Gold,
which involves maintaining the rota and call out arrangements,
provision of training to the Chief Executives involved, and establishing
and maintaining a databases of relevant information such as contact
details, protocols, procedures, manuals and handbooks.
96. These arrangements were also tested
in earnest during the London bombings and were also found to work
effectively.
RESILIENCE
97. The Authority, with support from the
Mayor and London Assembly and from the Government, has made good
progress to improve our resilience to respond to major catastrophic
events, including terrorist attacks.
98. We will continue to make significant
investment to improve our resilience, working closely with the
Government to introduce new vehicles and equipment including bulk
foam carriers, hose laying lorries and bulk water carriers. This
equipment will also be available to enhance our day to day operational
capability.
99. The Authority has doubled the number
of its Fire Rescue Units (from five to ten) and expanded their
role and all of these appliances are now ready to respond to emergency
calls. However, we have already commented earlier in this evidence
(paragraphs 55 and 56 refer) on the need for an additional six
of these appliances, together with funding for the expenditure
this will involve, in order to improve our resilience.
100. The first high volume pump has been
received (with five more to follow shortly), 10 interim Mass Decontamination
Units are currently operationally available and the first of the
Urban Search and Rescue units has been received.
101. The programme of familiarising, training
and qualifying drivers in the extensive range of New Dimensions
and London Resilience vehicles and their operating systems continues
and over 430 drivers have now been trained and qualified in various
aspects of London Resilience requirements. Progress is also being
made in training personnel on the wide range of specialist equipment
and also on safe systems of work in specific high risk environments.
The programme includes a series of seminars for senior officers
on incident management techniques and training in the IT equipment
and software that supports many of the specialist vehicles.
102. We have worked with partner emergency
services to identify the most likely areas that an attack might
take place. We have put our specialist vehicles into stations
that are outside of these areas, but in a position to be able
to respond quickly to them. In this way we can reduce the chance
of our important response vehicles and equipment being affected
by any attack, thereby making them unusable.
103. In 2004-05 a multi-agency initial assessment
team was set up on a trial basis to provide a rapid initial assessment
at catastrophic incidents. The trial was due to end in July 2005
but was extended until the end of November in the light of the
London bombings. Assessments by these trained personnel from across
the emergency services helped to minimise the risks to the public
and emergency service staff from such incidents. This team brought
together staff from the police, ambulance and fire and rescue
services in liaison with the Health Protection Agency and was
staffed 24 hours a day throughout the year and was available to
attend major incidents within 15 minutes across central London.
This Authority provided the accommodation from which the team
operated and, with Home Office funding, made available a lorry
and a personnel carrier to enable the team to operate as intended.
104. The government provided financial support
for this pilot project, and provided much of the equipment used.
The pilot has been independently evaluated on behalf of the Home
Office, with the recommendation that the concept of the team be
continued, but that three separate teams should be formed (one
within each of London's main emergency services). These teams
would work with agreed operational protocols and procedure and
undertaking regular joint training, but each would work discretely
within its parent organisation. This Authority believes that the
capability provided by such a team is an important addition to
our preparedness to respond to a major incident, and has accordingly
approved interim arrangements pending decisions on its draft budget
submission to the Mayor, which includes provision to continue
to provide such a capability within the Brigade.
| 
