Memorandum by Hampshire Fire and Rescue
Service (FRS 47)
INTRODUCTION
Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority is a Combined
Fire Authority serving the administrative areas of: Hampshire
County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council.
The Fire and Rescue Service provided by the Authority protects
over 1.6 million residents and covers an area of 3,770 km2.
1(a) The implications for citizens and the
Fire and Rescue Service of the introduction of Regional Control
Centres
1a.1 The national project to establish regional
control centres, together with the Firelink Radio Scheme, represents
one of the largest single projects undertaken by the fire and
rescue service.
1a.2 This project encompasses a radical
new way of delivering the logistical deployment of fire service
resources. The considerable back office processes involved means
that the project is much more extensive than might be envisaged.
It will involve the convergence of the constituent authorities'
individual working protocols and operational procedures. Therefore,
the project represents considerable risks during the process of
transition and early implementation.
1a.3 Hampshire, like many other authorities,
is justifiably proud of the quality of the service its local control
provides. It has committed to the project on the basis that it
ultimately provides at least as good a service to its communities
and many other fire authorities take a similar stance.
1a.4 As the project is ostensibly run centrally
by the ODPM, with the regional working groups often confined to
narrow technical consultation, there is a growing sense of detachment
from the decision making. This situation is exacerbated by the
continuing absence of a full business case and the previous restriction
of financial information under the premise of commercial sensitivity.
1a.5 Hampshire's own corporate risk assessment
illustrates the predicament for authorities of being unable to
adequately assess the considerable financial, legal and business
continuity risks. We are obliged to place faith in the central
project team that matters will be resolved, but mindful that it
is ultimately the individual fire authorities that will bear the
liability from project failure, overspend and service discontinuity.
1a.6 The project needs greater transparency
and ownership by fire authorities if it is to be robust and earn
the confidence of the public.
1(b) The implications for citizens and the
Fire and Rescue Service of the introduction of and implementation
process for FireLink radio services
The Authority is extremely frustrated that it
is unable to properly plan for the implementation of FireLink.
This is due to uncertainties over timescales for its rollout and,
specifically, about the lack of information available on the financial
implications for the Authority—both during initial installation
and more importantly for the ongoing maintenance of the system.
If the financial impact is anything like that experienced by the
Hampshire Police Authority, the Select Committee will appreciate
our concerns. When the O2 Airwave system was implemented, we understand
that maintained costs for Hampshire Police increased four-fold:
from £0.75 million to £3 million per year. All local
authorities are expected to produce medium-term financial plans
and to anticipate future spending needs; but, the lack of timely
information on a major project such as FireLink—compounded
by the similar lack of information for the implementation the
new Regional Control Centres—makes it very difficult indeed
to operate sound and meaningful forward planning processes.
2(a) Fire Prevention
2a.1 Part of the existing framework document
refers to the expectations placed on fire and rescue services
to engage with the Crown Premises Inspection Group with the aim
of enhancing the risk management of Crown premises. There is currently
no mention however of the MOD Fire Service who are responsible
for risk management activities at MOD establishments. Hampshire
Fire and Rescue Service has a significant number of MOD establishments,
many of which are of considerable strategic importance and should
therefore feature in our Integrated Risk Management Plan process.
We consider that the future National Framework should introduce
an additional expectation that fire services, where necessary
as part of the local IRMP, should engage with the MOD Fire Service.
Our recommendation aims to empower all fire authorities with the
ability to identify risks in all types of Crown premises and engage
in positive risk management activities with the appropriate Crown
authority.
2(b) Institutional arrangements and reform,
including transitional arrangements and finance
2b.1 There are few institutions within the
industry which remain untouched by the modernisation programme
and most are currently in a process of transition to meet new
requirements and roles. This is not true of the national negotiating
machinery, whose failure was at least a contributory factor to
the industrial unrest of 2002-03.
2b.2 The present arrangements are predicated
on a adversarial approach, that remains driven by constitutional
processes, rather than focussing on solutions and co-operation.
It remains bi-polar rather than pluralist and would benefit greatly
from the independence and objectivity that a neutral third party
could bring to the proceedings.
2b.3 It would be of considerable disappointment
and irony if the one institution that remained unaltered by the
modernisation was the very body that should be driving improvement
in industrial relations across the fire service generally.
2b.4 A fundamental element of providing
a more tailored approach to communities is the local IRMP. Previously
Fire and Rescue Authorities faced with central prescription are
now at liberty to structure their prevention, protection and response
resources to best meet the specific risks and demographics of
that community.
2b.5 The IRMP is proving to be a vehicle
for creativity and performance improvement as it focuses on the
needs of local communities. This therefore creates considerable
tensions when set against the government thrust towards collaboration
at a regional level.
2b.6 On the grounds of gaining economies
of scale, there is increasing emphasis on a regional model for
Service provision, including procurement, training and human resourcing.
This in many ways militates against the localist approach. This
will represent a major challenge for fire authorities to reconcile
both the local targeting of resources and wider area service delivery
2b.7 The regional control centres are probably
the starkest example of this tension. Where on one hand government
welcomes "the initiative taken by some authorities to re-examine
their mobilising and resourcing policies in a regional context"
(Draft National Framework 2006-08 p11) and yet exhort authorities
to maintain IRMPs to reflect local needs.
2(c) Promoting diversity within the Fire
and Rescue Service
No comment.
3. Joint working between the Fire and Rescue
Service and other emergency services
3.1 In Hampshire, as elsewhere, the co-operation
with our partner emergency services and the Maritime and Coastguard
Agency is extensive and well developed. New responsibilities under
the Civil Contingencies Act will, in many cases, only formalise
the operational co-operation which has existed for some time.
Services know that inter agency co-ordination is essential to
deliver an effective response to complex and larger emergencies.
3.2 The Civil Contingencies Act has, however,
created new burdens for the Service, something which has been
recognised by Government for local authorities by way of a 113%
increase in the emergency planning grant, but not for combined
fire authorities who, by their nature, stand alone from local
authorities. Despite lobbying, neither the ODPM or Civil Contingencies
Secretariat have conceded what is sauce for the goose needs to
be sauce for the gander.
3.3 Co-terminosity
There is no question that the government thrust
for greater inter-service co-operation will be undermined by the
current intention of separate government departments to reduce
the number of police forces and the ambulance trusts.
3.4 Most worrying is not the difficulties
created by mismatched boundaries and disproportion sizes, but
the lack of clarity in government thinking. At a time when greater
collaboration and interagency co-ordination is extolled, it is
manifestly lacking between the Department of Health, the Home
Office and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
3.5 Clearly the Government's thinking for
the Ambulance and Police Services is larger than county entities,
however, this is not mirrored by the ODPM. Here the thrust appears
to be no longer "regionalisation" but closer collaboration
or voluntary merger. As such, we are likely to see a patchwork
of emergency service organisation, none of which share geographic
borders.
| 
