Memorandum by Bedfordshire and Luton Combined
Fire Authority (FRS 33)
INTRODUCTION
1. We are pleased to have this opportunity
to submit evidence to the inquiry which provides a useful stock-take
of progress and success, whilst also identifying some of the barriers
to that in an environment of almost unprecedented change.
2. We wish to take this opportunity to express
our view in each of the areas indicated as of interest in the
Select Committees' November press release.
3. Fire Authority Members and the Fire Chief
Officer will be pleased to give further evidence to the Committee
on these or any other matters that it may wish to explore.
1(a) The Introduction of Regional Control
Centres
1.1 This Authority is ambivalent about the
development of regional control centres because we believe that
this is a matter of output. It is imperative that the fire and
rescue service has access to high quality mobilising and operational
resource management facilities and if that can be achieved effectively,
the scale of the organisation providing it is of no consequence.
1.2 Once this Authority can see a tangible
improvement in our existing in-house service, we will be happy
to migrate.
1.3 We do, however, have some concerns as
to whether this is achievable:
(i) The Business Case is not clear,
and we do not feel all options have been explored;
(ii) Funding arrangements are not fully
resolved in respect of the burden which will fall on our taxpayers;
(iii) There is insufficient detail available
concerning the governance model, accountabilities and responsibilities
which will remain with local fire authorities and those that will
not. The consequences of miscalculations could be met in lives;
(iv) We believe that the future of control
centres should be decided on the practical decisions of functionality,
cost and most effective service delivery, and not on any local
or national political consideration;
(v) In view of the doubts surrounding
(i), (ii) and (iii) above, this Authority has some reservations
as to whether this direction will actually deliver improved value
for money. We do, however, recognise that genuine improvements
to our services are worth paying for.
1(b) Firelink
1.4 There is no real doubt that a national
radio scheme which is fully interoperable and provides improved
data transmission is overdue within the fire and rescue service.
1.5 We are concerned about the growing complexity
of the project which is probably due to a lack of clarity in the
business case or the product methodology.
2(a) Community Fire Safety and Fire Prevention
2.1 There is no doubt that the expansion
of our fire prevention role to include a wide range of community
safety initiatives is already paying dividends. Reduction in fire
deaths and injuries, primary fires and arson are very good indications
of this, as are increases in smoke detector ownership and the
prominence of the service working in our community with youth
and road accident reduction.
2.2 Most of this new work is funded by careful
examination of our resources and effectively delivering more with
similar resource levels.
2.3 We are pleased with our achievements
in this area, but recognise that there is still much more preventative
work to do and future funding must recognise these demands and
increased responsibilities based on demographic research which
balances each aspect of service delivery. It is simplistic to
suggest that these new measures can be met from efficiency savings
indefinitely.
2(b) Operational Service Delivery
2.4 Our communities enjoy an increasingly
high level of operational service across a wider range of activities,
including specialist rescue, civil resilience, and mass decontamination.
The Service also maintain the ability to deal with the completely
unexpected or unthinkable. This requires good equipment, a high
level of effective training and constant operational preparedness.
2.5 It is our view that whilst we strive
to constantly improve our fire prevention services we will not
do so to the detriment of that operational efficiency. It is equally
our view that it is our reputation for high quality response which
gives us the public confidence to engage in all of the much-wider
community safety agenda. This is a credibility that some public
services are apparently losing.
2(c) Institutional Arrangements
2.6 We welcome the new freedoms and greater
local flexibility that come from the new Fire and Rescue Services
Act and resultant changes to fire service institutions and procedures.
2.7 This is already accruing great benefit
to improving service delivery and balancing our strategy through
integrated risk management planning based on well-researched risk
assessment.
2.8 Regional Management Boards, whilst delivering
against some of their objectives are questionable in creating
sustained, measurable cost efficiencies. We believe it would be
far more effective to drive a higher level of inter-service collaboration
through an additional set of best value performance indicators
for each fire authority or fire and rescue service in the six
key themes.
2.9 We are disappointed with the lack of
progress in developing negotiating machinery to replace the National
Joint Council, and in the development of a negotiating and consultative
body for senior officers below Assistant Chief Fire Officer grade.
2.10 This is, in some way, reflective of
the reluctance of the Fire Brigades Union to engage in the development
of reforms, other than those which fulfil their own specific aspirations.
2(d) Governance
2.11 This Authority believes that there
should be a single governance model for fire authorities and that
this model should be reflective of the current combined fire authority
or metropolitan fire authority model which are broadly similar.
2.12 We believe this model creates the following
opportunities:
(i) Precepting and direct accountability;
(ii) An identifiable, stand-alone authority;
(iii) Greater flexibility in the local
deployment of resources;
(iv) Allows more effective financial
planning and the management of reserves and balances;
(v) creates greater public ownership.
2.13 This Authority believes that quality
service delivery is related to effective governance and management,
together with appropriate resourcing. There is some speculation
that many authorities are too small. Unfortunately this is not
supported by any evidence. Indeed, successive government reports,
(such as : the report of Sir John Banham; Audit Commission reports
"Streamlining The Cities" 1993, and "In The Line
of Fire"; The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Memorandum
1984, and "The Independent Enquiry" by Sir George Bain
2002), suggest the contrary but have been misinterpreted by some.
The concept that the fire and rescue service is a local service
provided locally is the right one. This is further supported by
the fact that here in Bedfordshire and Luton, we exceed national
average performance in all service delivery indicators, despite
reducing council tax in the current financial year.
2.14 The publicised position of ODPM is
that combination to create larger fire and rescue services and
authorities is a matter for local determination where it provides
a clear case for sustained capacity improvement. We believe that
this is the right approach, and decisions should be based on clear
evidence. We deplore any politically or otherwise-motivated imposition
of structural review.
3(a) Finance
3.1 As discussed previously, we believe
that the self-precepting model offers the greatest opportunity
for financial stability and planning with direct accountability
to the council taxpayer.
3.2 It also offers greater monitoring opportunity
by central government and a more realistic indication of "whole
service" costs.
3.3 Whilst we welcome the improvements to
grant allocation we remain concerned that the overall percentage
of fire service funding provided by grant is comparatively very
low. This places a disproportionate burden on the taxpayer in
relation to the fire and rescue service, but we recognise as well
that the overall effect is still relatively small in cost per
capita.
4(a) Management
4.1 We believe that the safe and effective
management of a fire and rescue service is best provided by officers
that understand critical incident command balanced with high quality
development in managerial skills.
4.2 We have deep reservations about the
long term effect of fire services being managed by non-operational
people. Conversely, we are concerned that the current void left
by the abolition of the "Brigade Command Course" and,
more importantly, its selection procedure, has left us without
recognised means to develop operationally-competent personnel
into top management positions.
4.3 We have no difficulty with fast tracking
talented people more quickly to top positions through IPDS, provided
that such fast tracking includes incident command competences.
4.4 We believe that the organisational risk
is too high to put untrained people into vulnerable positions
simply to demonstrate intent or tokenism.
5(a) Promoting Diversity
5.1 We believe that more must be done to
enrich our workforce with women and minority ethnic people, despite
the fact that we are one of the top performing services in the
country in terms of representation in the workforce by those groups.
5.2 We welcome stretch targets even though
they are practically unachievable, but would like to see the performance
indicator widened to include all staff. We believe this would
enable us to demonstrate "critical mass" in terms of
potential recruits feeling that the fire and rescue service is
genuinely seeking their interest.
6(a) Civil Resilience
6.1 We welcome the government's investment
in civil resilience and the wider role it presents for the fire
and rescue service.
6.2 This Authority would have been pleased
to be hosting more of those resources and now have an impending
concern about how we would meet a new public expectation without
resources to do it. An example is the capabilities of the urban
search and rescue units, which have become public knowledge but
are actually only available in a limited number of services as
a regional resource. We now have to consider how to resource for
an incident which is too small for a regional response but beyond
our existing technology and training.
6.3 Notwithstanding this, in terms of large
scale resilience we believe the fire and rescue service has worked
hard to develop new procedures and understandings that have been
successfully rehearsed and enhance our existing mutual aid arrangements.
7(a) The Future—10 Years On
7.1 We believe that over the next 10 years
a number of key factors will impact on the fire and rescue service
:
7.2 People:
The combination of demographic and sociological
change together with developments in human resources and recruitment
practices will have impacted on our workforce in the following
ways:
— Integrated Personal Development System
(IPDS) workplace assessment/development and integral.
— More diverse workplace/small recruitment
pool.
— Greater flexibility of duty systems
in place.
— Integration of core skills, regardless
of duty system.
7.3 Operations:
A wide range of factors will impact on operations
over the next ten years, these may include: increased population,
more housing, higher divorce rate, later average marital age,
greater longevity, more emphasis on leisure and work/life balance,
increased care in the community and personal independence, more
road traffic, greater inter-service collaboration, developments
in operational techniques and equipment design, new policies,
procedures and risk analysis techniques will have become effective.
The result of these factors may be:
— More targeted response.
— More single occupied dwellings—increased
risk aversion, more calls for help.
— Increased road traffic collisions.
— Automatic fire alarms (AFAs) reduced.
— Malicious calls reduced.
— Joint operations response.
7.4 Resources:
The direction of the National Framework and
in some cases work that is currently underway, indicates that
the way we use and secure our resources will evolve over the next
ten years. These examples give some idea of what that evolution
may produce:
— Community fire stations.
— Key support services outsourced or
collaborative.
— Specific equipment designed for risk.
— Creative use of technology.
— Embedded National Procurement strategy.
7.5 Finance:
Assuming that current economic pressures and
developments in local government financing continue, many of our
key cost drivers may change or result in change to the way we
are funded. Within ten years we will have to have considered and
accommodated the effects of issues including:
— Realising maximum benefits from Regional
Management Board (RMB).
— Continued cost effectiveness.
— Greater use of challenge funding.
— Review of local tax mechanism.
7.6 Fire Safety:
The use of community and statutory fire safety
as part of risk management, together with technological advancement
and legislative change, will have significant impact on our fire
safety role over the next ten years. It is reasonable to expect
a number of additional developments to be in place:
— Increased advisory and educational
role/less enforcement.
— Regional enforcement/technical task
group.
— Smoke detector in every home.
— Sprinklers in high risk premises
and dwellings.
— Integrated fire protection in all
new buildings.
7.7 Governance:
Increasing emphasis on performance audit, political
accountability and public scrutiny, coupled with the full impact
of legislation such as freedom of information—may drive
development in governance, or the way in which the organisation
is governed rather than managed, in a number of key areas:
— More focussed political engagement.
8(a) In Summary
8.1 Bedfordshire and Luton Fire & Rescue
Service are committed to modernisation, value for money, and continuous
improvement.
8.2 Much has already been delivered but
we need measured and consistent support from government to allow
us to make considered and evidence-based decisions on the provision
of services which best suit our local communities.
| 
