Memorandum by the Royal Berkshire Fire
Authority (FRS 35)
Further to the invitation inviting submissions
to the ODPM Select Committee on Fire & Rescue Service modernisation,
Royal Berkshire Fire Authority met on 14 December 2005 where this
matter was discussed.
As the Chief Fire Officer I have been tasked
to bring the following points to the attention of the Select Committee:
1. With regard to the first of the two main
issues to be considered by the inquiry, Regional Control Centres,
this Authority has already expressed its concerns regarding the
regional fire control project and can reiterate the main issues
that it has with this project:
— The unacceptably short time
for consultation.
— The lack of effective consultation.
— The ambitious timescale for
the RCC project.
— The lack, even at this advanced
stage, of a full business case.
— The failure to acknowledge the
full transitional costs.
— Our concerns regarding the technical
issues—will it be done?
— Our concerns regarding the governance
issues—how will it be run?
In addition to these concerns, which are on
record from previous Authority meetings, we would add the corrosive
effect that the long delays have had on the morale of our Control
staff, who are still providing an effective 24/7 service to the
public.
2. The second key issue for the inquiry,
FireLink, raises similar concerns. Although it is clear that the
ODPM is directing and funding the roll out of the FireLink project
the ultimate funding for the project is likely to fall upon Fire
and Rescue Authorities. Once again there is insufficient detail
on funding and governance issues for Fire and Rescue Authorities
to make effective decisions for future arrangements.
3. Similar issues also arise with other
modernisation initiatives: the funding and governance arrangements
of the FireBuy project are equally unclear. And whilst the ODPM's
commitment to public safety in supporting improved resilience
through the New Dimensions initiatives is welcomed there has only
been limited consultation with Authorities over the actual impact
that deploying such assets will have.
4. A key issue for this Authority, as with
nearly all Fire and Rescue Authorities, is that of capacity. The
Audit Commission noted that capacity was an issue for FRS's overall
and felt that effective planning for improvement was being hindered
by a lack of resources. The current tight financial strictures
imposed on fire and rescue authorities bring about a "Catch
22" situation where improvements required by government cannot
be implemented without incurring sanctions form the same government.
Although transitional funding was given for this purpose it was
applied on a one size fits all basis and took no account whatsoever
of how effectively an Authority was already being run. Although
efficiencies of scale do exist the initial estimates of the savings
that could be made were general not specific and were based in
many instances on little more than anecdotal evidence. On this
issue the previous inquiry reported, in January 2004, that: "We
have concerns about the distribution and recovery of this loan.
Government must ensure appropriate distribution and equitable
recovery". For us those concerns remain. The recent, welcome,
announcement that the transitional loan can be paid over two years
does not address the inequity of the notional loan.
5. Other issues also remain unresolved from
the January Inquiry.
— The government have yet to run
any widespread information campaigns to prepare the public for
the changes that are occurring through the IRMP process (paragraph
45).
— The government would appear
not to have addressed the inquiry's proposal.
"for the introduction of sprinkler systems
in schools, houses of multiple occupation and the domestic properties
of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. We strongly recommend
that in this year's revision of the Building Regulations, Ministers
introduce a requirement for sprinklers to be fitted to all new
build properties of these types, as this would have more impact
on public and firefighter safety, than any other proposal in the
White Paper." (paragraph 55)
— There is no standard measure
of consistency for IRMP's as suggested in paragraph 42, although
an operational toolkit is being trialled by this and other Authorities.
6. The funding mechanisms for FRA's are
also in need of review. The FSS process is unclear, apparently
arbitary, and again places little or no emphasis on the base cost
per head of a Fire and Rescue Authority.
7. This Authority, like many others, is
delivering against the targets set for it by the ODPM. Currently
we are recording an average of 0.125 accidental fire deaths in
dwellings per 100,000 population, (BVPI 143(i)) and have reduced
the number of deliberate fires by 27% in five years—against
a target of 10% in 10 years. We have also demonstrated our corporate
health by scoring one point off excellent in the recent, rigorous,
CPA process. It is against this background that we would submit
to the committee our concerns that genuine, often innovative,
improvements that are evidence led and based on improving our
service to, and the safety of, the public are being marginalised
by an overly prescriptive approach. We would contend that the
National Framework should indicate the outcomes that the government
rightly and understandably wish to see the Fire & Rescue Service
deliver rather than seeking to prescribe the means that are to
be used to achieve those aims.
|
