Memorandum by the Avon Fire Authority
(FRS 22)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Avon Fire Authority welcomes the
modernisation of the Fire and Rescue Service. The process of modernisation
began locally long before the recent industrial relations difficulties,
and before the Fire and Rescue Service became higher on the Government's
agenda.
2. The drive for modernisation has given
impetus to the changes we have been introducing, and noticeable
improvements have resulted on the ground. Our local communities
now receive our preventing, protecting and responding services
to a much higher standard.
3. Whilst we are not resistant to change,
there are elements of the modernisation programme that remain
of concern.
4. We wish to focus on the FireControl Project.
We want to emphasis from the outset that this authority has never
opposed government policy on this issue, and we remain committed
to the principle of establishing a Regional Control Centre for
the South West. However, we continue to hold serious concerns
about the process that has been used to get us to the current
position.
REGIONAL CONTROL
ACCOMMODATION
5. The Avon Fire Authority has been involved
in protracted and prolonged correspondence with the Minister(s)
and the ODPM on this issue for two years. This has significantly
impaired the working relationship.
6. Avon Fire Authority has clearly and consistently
set out its position from the outset of this project. Avon has,
in its ownership, an existing control centre at Lansdown, near
Bath. This control centre was designed and built with a regional
capability very much in mind. The concept of regional controls
is not new, and was an issue under consideration when Avon acquired
the site in 1994.
7. Whilst the control centre at Lansdown
has the capacity and functional capability of operating as a Regional
Centre, it has never been used for this purpose. Despite Best
Value Reviews conducted in 2000 confirming that Lansdown had the
capability of providing the control function for one or more other
Authorities, none were minded at that time to use our existing
facilities.
8. When the FireControl Project was announced,
we naturally believed that change would result, and that the Lansdown
facility could be used to full potential.
9. It became evident from the outset that
the procurement route chosen by the ODPM Project Team was going
to make that impossible. The original OJEU Notice was clearly
biased towards private developer bids. From the beginning this
was the only route open for establishment of Regional Controls.
This excluded existing facilities from being considered which
we believed was unfair.
10. Following representations made by Avon
Fire Authority, the process was amended to allow for Authorities
to submit bids, which had to be agreed by Regional Management
Boards. Avon put forward Lansdown for consideration as an existing
facility. The submission included proposals for minor modifications
that could have been made to enable the Regional functionality.
The bid was supported by the Regional Management Board, together
with other green field sites identified by other Fire Authorities
in the South West.
11. The Avon bid was rejected at the first
stage of the procurement evaluation process. The reasons given
were that it had failed the first "mandatory" criteria
of site size. When questioned, the ODPM Project Team confirmed
that the Avon bid had been ruled out because the land area was
of insufficient size to accommodate the building design they had
previously commissioned. Being ruled out on site size was increasingly
frustrating as we would contend that the control room within the
Regional Control Centre has been over specified. The number of
operator positions provided bear little resemblance to the volume
of work likely to be required in the south west region.
12. This was clearly not the intention of
our submission. We did not submit Lansdown for consideration to
be given to accommodating a new building. Our intention was to
secure a proper evaluation of the existing building and facilities
as an alternative option to a new build. We had hoped this would
have then been included in the business case.
13. Following further representations, ODPM
eventually agreed to offer an "evaluation" of Lansdown,
but subject to Avon accepting that if this was accepted, nothing
would change. We saw little point in such an exercise at that
time and declined the offer.
14. An "evaluation" report was
subsequently sent to Avon Fire Authority in August 2005. We continue
to dispute that this was in any way a thorough evaluation. The
report was attached to a letter which stated that the two main
conclusions were that:
(a) the building works required would seriously
impact on our ability to provide a service; and
(b) the costs involved would not represent
value for money.
We find it very hard to accept these conclusions
on the basis of the report. No account was taken of Avon's well
established and proven resilient fall back control at a separate
location, which enables the Fire Service to guarantee continuity
of service even in the event of catastrophic failure at Lansdown.
There would be no disruption to service if building works were
needed at Lansdown. The conclusion relating to costs are hard
to accept when no costings are included in the report, and no
comparison is available to the new build costs.
15. We have argued long and hard that the
process has had the unfair effect of excluding existing facilities
from consideration. Our reasoned arguments have never been accepted.
16. We remain concerned over the additional
costs that will be incurred by pursuing the new build option,
when there were alternatives that were not event considered. We
now accept that our position does not coincide with the Governments
preferred option.
17. We would contend that the process used
was significantly flawed from the outset. This Authority has volumes
of correspondence and evidence to demonstrate what we believe
is a genuine grievance. Out of sheer frustration on getting no
satisfactory responses from ODPM over a two-year period, we recently
submitted a formal complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The
Ombudsman has advised us that there are no powers to investigate
complaints by public bodies.
18. We are submitting this Memorandum because
we believe there must be accountability somewhere. We hope the
Inquiry will look further into the issues we have identified.
We believe there are pertinent questions to be asked of the ODPM
FireControl Project Team, the answers to which we believe will
demonstrate that our grievance is genuine. Such questions could
include:
— At the outset of the project, was
any assessment made of existing control centre facilities?
— If so, then precisely when were such
assessments carried out?
— Did anyone from the project team
consider the facilities that exist at Lansdown, in Avon at that
time?
— What was the conclusion of the project
team following the existing facilities assessment?
— Precisely when was the conclusion
to exclude existing facilities reached?
— Precisely when was the OJEU Notice
for Fire Control issued?
— Precisely when were Fire Authorities
invited to submit bids via Regional Management Boards?
— Why was this change to the procurement
process introduced?
— How many regions submitted bids?
— How many Authorities put forward
existing facilities in their bids?
— What was the outcome of the evaluations
of the Regional bids?
— Avon Fire Authority claim they were
advised by the ODPM Project Team that their submission was ruled
out on "site size". Is that correct?
— Can the Project Team specifically
explain what was meant by the "site size" criteria?
— Precisely when was the Avon Fire
Authority debriefed on its bid?
— What was the outcome of the debriefing
of Avon Fire Authority?
— Precisely when were the Avon Fire
Authority sent an evaluation of their existing facilities at Lansdown?
— What were the main conclusions from
the evaluation of Avon Fire Author facilities?
— Has anyone from the ODPM Project
Team ever visited the Avon fall back control at Kingswood in Bristol?
— Were any costings or financial comparisons
included in the evaluation report sent to Avon?
19. As an Authority, we accept that we are
unlikely to see any significant change as a consequence of this
Memorandum. We do believe however that if the process had been
managed differently, and that assumptions made at the outset tested
properly, then the FireControl Project would have gained fuller
support from the Elected Members and Officers of this Authority.
We would be grateful if this could be acknowledged by this Inquiry.
20. The Chief Fire Officer & Chief Executive
of Avon Fire and Rescue Service has all the detailed documentations
and evidence if required by the Inquiry.
21. This Authority would wish to delegate
responsibility to the Chief Fire Officer & Chief Executive
to speak on its behalf should oral evidence be required.
REGIONAL CONTROL
GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
22. In response to Government Consultation
earlier in the year, Avon Fire Authority, and the South West Regional
Management Board, expressed their preference for the Lead Authority
option for the governance of the Regional Control Centre in the
South West.
23. In September fire and rescue authorities
which had previously expressed such a preference were asked to
reconsider their previous decision and to accept the government's
stated preference for a Local Authority Company solution. That
request was accompanied by very little financial or other information
upon which to base a decision; no proper cost/benefits analysis
of the options was provided.
24. Members of the Authority were concerned
that the government's preferred approach might lead to increased
costs with no perceived improvements in service expected. Moreover,
Members were concerned that this approach would further distance
the Control function from front-line service delivery and from
the Fire and Rescue Service itself.
25. The problems faced by members are not
limited to governance issues alone.
26. The Authority has certain duties under
the Fire & Rescue Services Act to make arrangements to deal
with emergency calls and to mobilise its resources. It also has
duties in relation to Best Value. On all these matters the Authority
is required to make proper and rational decisions. The Authority
has very real difficulties at present in complying with those
obligations, in relation to the Regional Control Centre Project.
27. In reality, all major decisions on the
project are being made by government. We understand that the government's
objectives extend beyond meeting the needs of individual Fire
and rescue authorities and that the government therefore wishes
to run this as a national project under its control and direction.
28. All we as Fire and rescue authorities
are being asked to do is to endorse decisions which the government
has made. There is no effective choice for Fire and Rescue Services,
now, nor will there be in the future after implementation of the
project. In many cases, the government's choice does not accord
with the Authority's preferences and, in others, quite simply
we do not have sufficient and reliable information on the government's
choice and the competing options to make a valid judgement. For
the Authority to adopt the decisions of the government as its
own without applying its own mind to all the relevant issues would
leave it open to serious challenge both with the local Council
tax payers and indeed in the Courts.
29. Whilst, in general, the Authority would
not wish to be directed by government as to the manner in which
it carries out its duties, the Authority considers that, in this
case, for the reasons outlined above, this is necessary to establish
a proper legal framework within which the Authority can carry
out its duties. The Authority would therefore encourage the Secretary
of State to use his powers under Section 29 of the Fire &
Rescue Services Act or other appropriate powers) to direct the
Authority (and other Fire and rescue authorities) to adopt the
government's preferred solutions.
CONCLUSION
30. Avon Fire Authority welcomes this Inquiry
in to the modernisation and reform programme of the Fire and Rescue
Services.
| 
