APPENDIX "A"
FIRECONTROL
AND FIRELINK
The Authority acknowledges that the benefits
identified by the ODPM in terms of resilience and greater interoperability
can improve the safety of personnel and our communities, but contend
that these will accrue if and only if, the outcomes suggested
by Government are reached. We have several deeply held concerns
related to how the projects are developing and the implications
for fire authorities in financial, capacity and interim continuity
terms.
It is not surprising that as primary stakeholders,
fire authorities have concerns over the successful delivery of
these projects and the modernisation agenda in general as failure
to do so would indicate an abdication of the statutory duties
that not only currently but in the future will continue to fall
on individual fire authorities.
The current concerns of this authority that
we wish to draw to the Committee's attention include the following
(it should be noted that these concerns have not been assuaged
by the previously given responses to repeated enquiries at all
levels of the project).
1. The robustness of the business cases and
impacts on our local "value for money" priority
It is noted that it was intended to provide
a regional breakdown of the FiReControl Outline Business Case
in the summer of 2005. This has not been forthcoming and there
appears to be no intention of providing greater clarity of financial
issues at the regional level at this time. The FireLink project
has only issued limited financial information on the capital costs
of provision of additional equipment beyond the current scope
of supply. It is understood that Ministers are currently reviewing
revenue implications. Failure to provide sufficient information
on both of these projects is causing significant concern as the
recent announcement of the two-year settlement for local government
(inequitable from the point of Oxfordshire County Council) cannot
address these unannounced costs. The lack of timely information
with which to plan for the future, whilst government highlights
the spectre of Local Authority capping, militates against the
successful implementation of both projects.
2. Increased costs of local project delivery
and interim business continuity (including new burdens issues)
The level of New Burdens funding remains a significant
area of concern. It is acknowledged that recent statements have
clarified that "net additional expenditure" may be met
eg for redundancy but only if all alternatives are exhausted and
if the decision is identified as Best Value. However, there remain
areas of uncertainty and disagreement. These primarily relate
to the costs of ensuring the existing control rooms remain fully
functional until cut over to the RCC eg retention schemes for
staff and support for interim technical upgrades required due
to the extended project timetable and the revenue costs associated
with the migration eg training for a wide range of staff due to
changes is procedures and new technology. Training costs for are
currently limited to ODPM funding a "train the trainer"
level not the full costs of training.
As yet there has been little indication that
any new burdens funding is available for the rollout of the FireLink
project. It is understood that the project has provided outline
guidance of their expectations for resourcing successful local
rollout. This authority would welcome clarification of this and
other funding issues relating to FireLink.
3. THE
ONGOING FUNDING
ARRANGEMENTS AND
LOCAL IMPACT
OF REVENUE
COSTS, ONCE
ESTABLISHED
The headline average saving of 30% claimed by
ODPM for FiReControl is considered to be as yet unsubstantiated.
Two main issues can be identified, additional costs relating to
higher security standards that currently are in place and residual
costs of "out of scope" activities remaining in services.
Recent indications are that the ODPM now believe
there are no additional costs relating to the requirement for
higher security standards as part of the Critical National Infrastructure.
The requirements, although modified, still remain as do their
cost. As a result costs shown in the Draft Outline Business Case
formerly paid centrally, will be transferred to FRS's (possibly
10% of anticipated rental payable on each building). Such transfers
of costs must inevitably have an impact on the headline 30% "saving".
This fire authorities position remains that as National resilience
is not a fire authority responsibility any additional costs should
not be accrued.
Of greater concern is the ongoing revenue effect
of those tasks currently carried out in the Control Room, which
will not be transferred in totality by the Regional Control Centre.
Such out of scope activities have only recently been investigated
fully and fire authorities have recently resubmitted information
that indicates the level of current expenditure that cannot be
included in the full national / regional business case. The original
ODPM outline business case did not fully take account the tasks
that would remain with Brigades and thus the basis of the business
case must be revisited. The current work, and therefore costs
that will still be incurred by fire authorities locally will be
further refined once the detailed processes and technology to
be used by the Regional control Centre are finalised. This will
require a further examination of the business case and again calls
into question the headline savings previously claimed.
4. Legal liabilities, accountabilities and
the structure of governance for the Control Centre
This authority has grave concerns over the undeniable
complication of the governance structures at a regional level
and the remaining legal liabilities that will continue to fall
on individual fire authorities.
Whilst the consultation on the governance arrangements
for the RCC is eagerly awaited, there remains the issue of the
transfer of legal liabilities of operational failure at the regional
level to the constituent fire authorities who individually appear
to have little direct control over the regional entity. There
is, as yet, little statutory basis for the regional management
board or the local government company limited by guarantee. Clarity
of legal responsibilities is essential. In addition the costs
for each individual fire authority to establish that the arrangements
for all wider corporate governance issues are adequate are currently
not identified and sufficient new burdens funding must be forthcoming
for these necessary activities.
5. The effect on fire authority staff of
the project, in terms of capacity, retention and continuance
This fire authority is concerned that the national
project has not given sufficient cognisance of the limited capacity
available in individual brigades to successfully complete both
projects with their inter-related (but as yet) indistinct project
timetables.
While the location of the Regional Control Centre
is known, many employment issues remain for the staff involved
and uncertainty remains. Staff and managers responsible for the
project remain frustrated with the apparent lack of information
over employment issues. Several of these may be resolved when
the governance issues are addressed allowing an employing entity
to be created. Meanwhile the uncertainly is debilitating for staff
and adversely affecting morale. Maintaining the current Fire and
Rescue service is the Service's key concern and therefore retaining
existing staff and their expertise is the greatest challenge in
Oxfordshire. Whilst it is acknowledged that the responsibility
for maintaining existing control rooms remains with FRA's, staff
consider that the national project have little understanding of
the impact of delay and uncertainty on them and the authorities
ability to continue to provide what is a key statutory duty.
6. Project Delivery Issues
The alignment of the FireLink and FiReControl
projects is welcomed, particularly as they are closely related
and interdependent. Issues of cost transfer between the projects
remains a concern, particularly with the relative absence of information
due to no full business case for either project before their alignment.
The adoption of a PRINCE2 project methodology
is welcomed, as this should reduce risks to all stakeholders.
However, it is apparent that the methodology is not being applied
consistently and as a result regional and local teams cannot fully
utilise this best practice approach.
The effect of delay to the project (the national
project team has not yet managed to keep to any of its own target
dates) is causing difficulty in services due to our inability
to plan resourcing arrangements meaningfully. This has effect
on the quality of work that can be accomplished in often limited
timescales, increases stress on the very staff who are facing
potential redundancy and is inefficient in that staff resources
provided at the expense of the authority (and not supported by
new burdens) could be underutilised.
Well-planned and executed communications are
essential to successful project delivery. Whilst it is accepted
that communications will never meet all needs the national project
team project has consistently failed to:
— Send documents out for meetings in
a timely manner;
— Circulate documents through the agreed
coordinating points of contact in regional teams;
— Make clear to regional teams what
information can be shared with FRAs;
— Set up the ODPM-standard collaborative
software that would allow teams within the national project to
access key documents, and would make communication with regional
teams simpler and more reliable;
This does affect the ability of the FRAs and
regional teams to:
— Deliver a considered response to
the national project
— Accept the results of consultations
— Work efficiently to overcome resource
issues
FIRELINK—SPECIFIC
ISSUES
The authority is aware that several stakeholders
and potential respondents to the select committee are lobbying
for the remit of the FireLink project to be extended to accommodate
incident ground communications, potentially in support of ICS
and CCBRN considerations. This is understandable and as a matter
of principal should be seriously considered. However, there are
a number of issues that must be fully addressed prior to any decisions
made concerning this development which could adversely effect
the continued provision and commercial viability of current incident
ground (largely UHF based) radio communications. These are:-
— The current technical limitations
of TETRA based systems in direct mode operation (DMO) and in point-to-point
(via the nearest cell base) mode. Current users of the Airwave
Service informally advise that coverage and reliability issues
are of concern (NOTE the current operation assumptions for FireLink
never included "in building' coverage and were based on vehicle
mounted systems)
— Capacity concerns if the system requires
significant cell capacity when working on a point-to-point basis
The absence (as identified above) of detailed
revenue costings for in use charges. Current systems are very
cost effective and are based primarily on a cost of ownership
arrangement without significant revenue effect. The reliance on
an external contractor to provide all communication needs must
be questioned until all information is available for fire authorities
to undertake a detailed business case.
CONCLUSION
This authority has deeply held reservations
concerning both the FiReContol and FireLink projects and welcomes
the select committee's inquiry as a useful mechanism to increase
the project transparency and level of understanding of all stakeholders
involved.
| 
