Memorandum by North Yorkshire Fire and
Rescue Authority (NYFRA) (FRS 53)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Fire and Rescue Service has responded
positively to the modernisation agenda set out in the Government's
White Paper of 2003 and the subsequent Fire and Rescue Services
Act 2004. However, it is recognised that such fundamental change
to an operating environment will need to be supported and reviewed
to ensure maximum public benefit is gained from the process. Clearly
progress has been made and changes embedded that are delivering
higher levels of public safety and service delivery. However,
North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority (NYFRA) supports the
need for an Inquiry that will assess the level of progress made
and assist in taking forward those measures that will enable the
Service to build on the benefits gained to date and maximise service
delivery opportunities.
1.2 In compiling this document NYFRA were
keen not to duplicate evidence and unnecessarily complicate the
Inquiry process. Therefore, it used the Chief Fire Officers Association
(CFOA) draft Inquiry submission as the basis of a discussion document
to stimulate debate on the issues contained within the Inquiry
Team terms of reference. Although the CFOA submission highlights
key issues that need to be considered, NYFRA considered the Inquiry
would benefit from a separate submission that captures a more
local perspective. Therefore, the information provided in this
document builds on the CFOA evidence submission and outlines the
viewpoint of NYFRA on the key issues considered pertinent to the
Inquiry in relation to the Authority's perspective.
1.3 The perspective put forward relates
to the organisation's specific operating environment, which is
worth outlining to put the submission in context. The Service
provides operational cover across the largest county in England
which has within its boundaries a range of risks, including a
number of densely populated urban areas, numerous rural communities,
some high risk industrial sites, heritage buildings, national
park land and a wide range of military facilities. To meet the
unique challenges faced within such a large county the Service
makes use of wholetime staff, retained personnel and volunteer
units.
1.4 The service delivery needs of such a
complex environment necessitates an innovative and flexible approach
and the new freedoms coming from the changes to legislation and
conditions of service have been welcomed. However, to make full
use of those freedoms and to maximise public benefit the Government
must support local FRSs through governance systems and mechanisms
that positively encourage stakeholder participation. In addition,
the systems that reward and encourage change need to be used effectively
and managed in a way that supports diverse communities and local
service delivery needs. This includes the use of specific funding
arrangements, management freedoms, and reward schemes linked to
the achievement and not merely the acceptance of a change agenda.
Without appropriate Government support the modernisation agenda
may not be fully achieved as the risk to individual Authorities
will outweigh the benefits.
1.5 The first substantive assessment of
the Fire and Rescue Service in recent times is the CPA process
which resulted in this Authority being awarded a "Good"
rating. This is encouraging despite the fact that this Authority,
although serving the largest county in England, has the second
lowest population density and a lower than average size population
(0.75 million). This demonstrates that medium/smaller Authorities
can and do perform as well as larger ones.
2. REGIONAL CONTROL
CENTRES
2.1 NYFRA supports any initiative that will
improve service delivery and maximise the use of resources. The
Authority understands the potential benefits that a Regional Control
Centre may provide but is concerned with the lack of detail in
relation to the Full Business Case. This is seen as a fundamental
weakness in terms of gaining local support for the initiative
and undermines the ability of the Authority to outline the local
benefits of the system. Specifically, NYFRA would welcome further
detail at the earliest opportunity in respect of the Governance
arrangements, statutory responsibilities, operating costs, local
performance management improvements and benefits. In addition,
information is sought on those residual activities which will
not be transferred to the new Regional Control Centre but which
are currently performed by our Control Staff (because it represents
the most efficient use of our available resources) and which will
remain necessary to be carried out elsewhere within this organisation.
2.2 Only once the above detailed information
becomes available can a true comparison of the costs and benefits
be made of the new arrangement as it impacts the communities of
North Yorkshire and the City of York and thereby address concerns
and assist in the medium term financial and operational planning
of the local Service.
3. FIRELINK PROJECT
3.1 Similar local concerns to those highlighted
in regard to the Regional Control Centre Project exist with this
project. NYFRA would welcome a business case that sets out the
financial implications, ongoing resource needs and governance
issues.
4. FIRE PREVENTION
4.1 NYFRA believes that this item in the
Inquiry's Terms of Reference may result in a failure to appreciate
the full scope of FRS work being undertaken under the protection
and prevention banner. NYFRS, in addition to meeting its statutory
fire safety education and protection responsibilities, is heavily
involved in a range of prevention and education initiatives surrounding
Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs) because our IRMP community risk
profiling identified this as a significant area of risk. NYFRA
would respectfully request that the Inquiry Team examines progress
beyond that which falls within the strict Fire Prevention heading
and considers the progress made by FRSs across the full spectrum
of community safety in order to obtain a more accurate reflection
of the wider and evolving role which this and other FRAs currently
perform.
4.2 NYFRA believes the Service has responded
positively to the change in emphasis and the need to channel resources
into community safety. The Service has been very successful in
delivering a wider range of services which have impacted positively
on public safety. However, the opportunity should not be missed
to build on those successes by ensuring the Service is recognised
as a key partner that can support wider community initiatives
and as such should be involved in the development, planning and
delivery of Local Area Agreements (see also Para 5.4 below).
4.3 The successes gained through the delivery
of a broader community safety remit has required a wider engagement
of the public through various partnerships and necessitated changes
to basic working practices. This extended remit has clearly impacted
on service delivery and changed the workload balance in relation
to the Service's overall capacity.
4.4 Although working practices are now more
effective the Service must recognise and respond to new and competing
priorities including the workload burdens associated with the
introduction of the Regulatory Reform Order, New Dimensions, Civil
Contingencies Act, Operational Assurance Standards and extended
duties relating to Special Services, Water Rescue and Road Traffic
Collisions. All of which have resource requirements that need
accommodating if public safety standards are to be met. The difficulty
NYFRA and other FRAs are facing is balancing the growth in workloads
against challenging efficiency savings as set out in the Gershon
targets and public sector funding constraints, which in reality
necessitate reductions in staff numbers, given that at least 80%
of FRA budgets are staff related.
4.5 The Fire Prevention legislative change
to be introduced in April 2006 brings into force the Regulatory
Reform Order and is of particular significance to the Service,
as this shifts the responsibility for fire safety on to owners
and occupiers and brings with it the risk of reduced standards
that could adversely affect public safety. To accommodate this
change the Service is having to re-train staff, invest in new
software systems and expand its enforcement capabilities to cover
all premises. This is a major workload and the danger of overloading
the Service cannot be ignored when one sets that particular issue
alongside the need to deliver a more efficient Service, an expanded
operational remit and the immediate need to develop a more resilient
and operationally capable service that can deal with terrorism
events, environmental disasters and major incidents.
4.6 The challenging operational environment
in which we now operate necessitates higher operational safety
standards and more training time to enable front line staff to
prove and maintain competence across a wide skill range. It requires
the development of contingency plans that provide the highest
level of assurance and preparedness. This work is essential and
not yet complete and also competes with the delivery of community
safety initiatives and the new priorities relating to and partnership
working.
4.7 It has to be recognised that Fire Prevention
is a single strand of the overall working environment and cannot
be viewed in isolation. The competing pressures, as outlined,
have created a very fluid change management environment and the
Service is adapting to manage each of the areas noted but it needs
supporting through this period with transitional arrangements
and funding that assist Fire Authorities to embed change and meet
the expectations of the public.
5. INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS
5.1 NYFRA is fully supportive of the modernisation
agenda and has developed a comprehensive change management programme
which is currently being delivered. However, progress is being
hampered by Governance systems that do not proactively support
this process.
5.2 Although NYFRA recognises the Retained
Firefighters Union (RFU) and UNISON for consultation purposes
(there is currently limited membership of Fire Officers Association
with this Authority), the National Joint Council (NJC) only recognises
the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) for negotiation purposes. This is
despite the Retained Fire-fighters Union and the Fire Officers
Association having a legitimate interest in terms and conditions.
This monopoly position afforded the FBU for negotiation purposes
stifles debate, change and undermines the ability of the NJC to
operate in a fair and inclusive manner.
5.3 Regional Management Boards (RMB) have
been formed to provide strategic direction and a coordinated approach
in six key areas. However, individual Fire Authorities are responsible
for service delivery in their local area and must operate in a
manner that ensures "Best Value". As evidenced by the
Comprehensive Performance Assessment NYFRA is a strong performer,
effectively collaborating with partner agencies and delivering
"Best Value" by fulfilling the needs of a diverse and
complex community. The added benefit to be gained through the
current performance management measures, powers and Governance
arrangements relating to RMBs is unclear and needs to be re-assessed.
5.4 NYFRA is gaining advantage from being
an active partner in various local forums. The Service is well
placed to support a wide range of community activities and safety
measures and as a respected community service, has been able to
actively engage with hard to reach groups. The ability to deliver
results through its position of respect and trust needs to be
recognised and the Service should be seen as a key figure within
the Government's Partnership Strategy. It needs to be involved
in the development, planning and delivery of Local Area Agreements
and recognition given to its ability to deliver a broader range
of services. NYFRA believes there is a potential that FRAs may
not be recognised as a full partner at the strategic level in
LAAs in much the same way as experienced following the inception
of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships; it was only as a
consequence of the subsequent Police Reform Act 2002 that FRAs
were formally recognised by some CDRPs as legitimate members.
NYFRA, therefore, would welcome Government support towards securing
FRA involvement at all levels within LAAs. The risk otherwise
is that FRAs may expend time and effort arguing the case to become
a full member of a Local Area Agreement rather than being able,
as an accepted member of the LAA, to get on with actually delivering
improvements to local services.
5.5 Although operational assurance and standards
is a central concern of this Authority and the Government it has
not been externally validated for some time and does not form
part of the CPA review process. It is considered essential that
some form of external validation process is provided which ensures
annual action plans associated with Integrated Risk Management
Planning process maintain and enhance the operational capability
of individual FRSs and provide the necessary assurances to all
stakeholders. Various options need to be considered, including
the use of peer assessments, the potential for the development
of a Centre of Excellence, or the provision of a suitable toolkit
and external audit process.
6. PROMOTING
DIVERSITY
6.1 NYFRA is fully committed to providing
a service that represents its community and developing a working
environment that values diversity and encourages positive action.
A vital element of the NYFRA modernisation programme is cultural
change and this authority is forging ahead with transformational
leadership and cultural diagnostics in support of continuous personal
and organisational development. Those people in the community
that may consider the FRS as a career need to be encouraged to
come forward. This requires a positive image to be created, the
development of flexible working conditions and a clear career
path that shows prospective candidates the variety of opportunities
that are available within the Service, together with the positive
societal impact that a career in the FRS is able to offer.
6.2 The creation of a positive image and
culture requires a clear communication strategy that engages with
a broad cross section of the community and provides a better understanding
of the role of a fire-fighter beyond what might be considered
the more traditional stereotype. The skills and professional standards
required to be a fire-fighter need to be clearly articulated and
the wider community role evidenced. In support of the work conducted
by Fire Authorities in this area, central attraction, recruitment
and information campaigns should be used to reinforce this message
and provide support for local campaigns through the use of mainstream
media facilities and arrangements.
6.3 NYFRA recognises the need to develop
a variety of employment opportunities that enable part time working,
job share, flexible working patterns and multi tier entry. This
approach creates a more flexible, work-life balanced organisation
and encourages diversity due to the choice of working patterns.
However, not all stakeholders are supportive of the changes to
terms and conditions that will create this environment and there
needs to be a more robust negotiation framework to support Authorities
that are faced with a resistance to change, as noted in paragraphs
1.4 and 5.2.
6.4 In support of the above measures a clear
development system needs to be embedded in the Service that starts
with the national firefighter selection (point of entry) standards
and evidences the various management tiers within the Service
and is aligned to externally recognised standards. This will have
various benefits, it will ensure the skills base of the service
is recognised throughout industry, it will support multi tier
entry and provide recognisable professional standards that will
enhance the image of the service and encourage a more diverse
range of prospective applicants to the Service. In support of
that approach there needs to be a development path to accredit
each management tier with the core function of critical incident
management. Multi tier entry will provide advantages to the diversity
needs of the Service but will be undermined if such entrants cannot
fulfil the full role.
6.5 An important driver in this regard is
the Human Resources Strategy for the Fire and Rescue Service,
the resolution of which should be expedited in order to support
much of the excellent work being undertaken in terms of organisational
development and continuous improvement.
7. EMERGENCY
SERVICES JOINT
WORKING
7.1 NYFRA is working proactively with other
emergency services and developing partnership arrangements that
are proving to be a driving force for change and improved community
safety. However, some of the mechanisms that are in place to encourage
such work rely on the individual Services choosing to go beyond
the minimum level of engagement. This can prove difficult due
to competing priorities, different governance models, funding
arrangements and a lack of central/joint policies at Government
level.
7.2 An example of this is the funding arrangements
for the Civil Contingencies Act; the Fire and Rescue Service is
a Category 1 responder and has clear duties under the Act. To
fulfil its responsibilities, NYFRA is an active partner in the
Local Resilience Forum and is putting significant resources into
the development of appropriate systems and control measures. However,
the funding stream supporting this process has not recognised
the burden on individual Authorities such as NYFRA.
7.3 Another example is the benefits to be
gained from co-responding schemes, which support communities,
especially large rural Counties such as North Yorkshire. Although
progress has been made at a local level it has been a slow process
and would benefit from a clear central policy that prioritises
the initiative and provides a joint approach.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 This Authority has already made significant
progress towards the modernisation agenda and achieved, in large
part, the Gershon targets through changes in crewing arrangements.
However, whilst there is some further scope for improvement, we
should not underestimate the potential for industrial action which
could, if protracted, cancel out those gains made to date. Further
improvements therefore need to be achieved within a realistic
timescale and in a manner which would secure further benefit without
provoking industrial action.
8.2 In order to realise the full potential
of partnership working for example Local Area Agreements greater
clarity surrounding governance arrangements and accountabilities
need to be set out. Failure to do this might result in partnership
performance falling short of expectation.
| 
