APPENDIX A
Charging by Fire Authorities—A response
to the ODPM Consultation Document by the Business & Community
Safety Forum
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper has been produced by the Task &
Finish Group, established by the Business & Community Safety
Forum to produce a response to the ODPM consultation on Charging
by Fire Authorities. All members of the Business & Community
Safety Forum were invited to nominate representatives of the group
and/or to submit comments and it was agreed that the Association
of British Insurers, the Federation of Small Businesses and Professor
Rosemarie Everton, Chair of Fire Law from the University of Central
Lancashire should also be invited to attend and/or produce comments.
Jonathan O'Neill of the Fire Protection Association acted as Chair
of the Group, which because of the short timescale before the
closing date for consultation met only twice to consider comments.
This paper is the result of the submissions and the discussions
within the Group and will be tabled at the fourth meeting of the
BCSF as its formal response.
1.1 Membership of the Group
The Fire Protection Association (FPA)
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
Fire Industry Confederation (FIC)
Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)
Association of British Insurers (ABI)
Chair of Fire Law (University of Central Lancashire)
2. GENERAL COMMENTS
2.1 The Role of the Fire & Rescue Service
2.1.1 The Group welcomed the clear vision
that the government had produced for the fire service in the White
Paper and the recently published Framework document. However it
was felt that the service's priority must be in the provision
of a first class response to its core activities of fire prevention
and fire fighting. It was felt that at a time of such enormous
change in the fire service that any deviation from this activity
would be an unnecessary distraction.
2.1.2 Whilst it is understood that fire
brigades have become involved in the provision a number of non-core
emergency and rescue activities, it is questioned why they continue
to be involved in the provision of a range of services that are
perceived as being more appropriately provided by the private
sector such as; loan and hiring of crews for special events; removal
of dangerous structures such as trees and television aerials;
lift rescues and dry riser testing. The group recognised that
in emergency situations it maybe necessary for the fire service
to become involved in these activities, but it was generally felt
that there are already a number of private sector and non-governmental
organisations that provided (or may be better placed to provide)
such services and that fire service involvement should only be
necessary as the "provider of last resort".
2.1.3 It is felt that in a number of areas,
particularly fire safety (including training) that any expansion
of chargeable services would lead to unfair competition from the
fire service to private sector suppliers of similar services.
There is concern that as the fire service was looking for "cost
recovery only" that this would undercut private sector providers
This is not seen as a desirable outcome particularly as it is
taxpayers and local ratepayers who have funded the capital investment
in terms of facilities, infrastructure and training of fire brigade
personnel. Concern has been expressed that it would therefore
be extremely difficult to determine "real costs" rather
than marginal costs for the fire service and that a number of
services would in effect be subsidized. It is questioned whether
this is the most appropriate role for the fire service of the
future and whether it is most appropriate use of public funding.
The Group would like clarification as to whether the Office of
Fair Trading had been consulted on these proposals and if so,
what conclusions have been reached and what safeguards are proposed
to ensure that fire authorities are not allowed to hold an unfair
trading position in the market.
2.1.4 Before considering an expansion in
chargeable services, brigades must consider the costs involved
in setting up the mechanism to charge and to chase payment, which
could be considerable. Thought also needs to be given to the problems
of late/non-payers and the cost of recovery. As these costs would
inevitably have to be recovered as part of any charging strategy,
the charges themselves would have to rise and would be subject
to quite wide regional variations and may not cover the charges
themselves. The net benefits to brigades would therefore become
negligible.
2.1.5 To summarise our views on the role
of the fire service, the group felt that:
— The role and expectations of the
fire service had been quite clearly expressed in the White Paper
and the new framework document and that the service should now
focus on its core activities; prevention and emergency intervention.
— Many of the non-core activities referred
to in the consultation document could (and should) be provided
by the private sector, with the fire service only being required
to respond in emergency situations.
— Any move to charge for fire safety
activities would put the service in direct (and possibly unfair)
competition with private sector providers and that the Office
of Fair Trading should be consulted before any such moves were
undertaken.
— The costs of administrating chargeable
services would make any net benefits to fire authorities negligible.
2.2 Funding of the fire service
2.2.1 All members of the task group expressed
the view that they saw the fire service as a public service that
should be funded from taxation and local rates. They recognised
the comments made by Bain, that much of the service was only deployed
on intervention activities for a relatively short period of any
working day and fully supported the proposals that increasing
preventative work to assist in further driving down the incidence
of fire.
2.2.2 There was concern expressed however
that in times of pressure on public funding expanding fee earning
activities could become more important for some brigades than
non-fee earning preventative activity such as Community Fire Safety.
In fact if all restrictions were taken from fire authorities for
fee-earning, some fire authorities could become so driven in pursuit
of income generation that a perverse incentive could be created,
where driving down non-emergency calls may be discouraged as they
would have an adverse effect of fire authority finances.
2.2.3 Business Groups expressed concern
that if the scope of fire authority funding were in anyway expanded,
their members were effectively being asked to pay twice for brigade
services, which was felt to be extremely difficult to justify.
2.2.4 To summarise our views on fire service
funding the group felt that:
— As an emergency service the fire
service should be funded from the public purse.
— Any moves to diversify income generation
for the fire service could lead to resources being moved away
from preventative activity such as Community Fire Safety.
— New perverse incentives could be
created.
— Business would in effect be asked
to pay twice.
2.3 The Principle of Charging
2.3.1 It is understood that the consultation
paper that has been produced by the ODPM is a result of the comments
made in respect of fire brigade charging by the Independent Review
of the Fire Service (Bain) and the Fire & Rescue Authorities
Bill that is currently progressing through the parliamentary process.
2.3.2 Concern was expressed by members of
the Task & Finish Group (the Group) that any increase in charging
by fire authorities would be result in an increased burden on
their members and their member's customers. It was felt that the
Fire & Rescue Bill would outline the statutory duties and
powers of the service, which as a public emergency service should
be funded publicly by taxation and rates.
2.3.3 Whilst recognising that the 1947 Fire
Services Act did allow for an element of cost recovery for special
service calls, there was concern expressed that in practice the
number of brigades who currently levied any payment and the amounts
and range of services for which charges were raised lacked any
consistency of approach. Any proposals to increase the range of
discretionary chargeable services would further cause further
confusion adding to what was described as a "postcode lottery"
in service provision. The Group did not have access to the aggregate
amounts recovered by fire authorities for attendance at special
service calls but it was felt that were probably relatively insignificant,
which given the costs involved with administration would currently
give little or no net benefit to brigades.
2.3.4 The Group recognised, although did
not support, that charging was part of a general trend in the
provision of local government services, but felt strongly that
it was inappropriate for the fire service as an emergency service
to become involved in income generation.
2.3.5 It was agreed that any increase in
scope of the provision of chargeable services should be accompanying
by a full and comprehensive Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA).
Several members of the group expressed concern that previous RIA's
in respect of fire had tended to underestimate the full costs
to industry and commerce and it was suggested that prior to commissioning
any assessment in respect of charging; that the BCSF should be
consulted to advice on its the scope and extent.
2.3.6 To summarise our comments on the principle
of fire authorities charging, the group felt that:
— The role, duties and powers of this
emergency service were defined by Statute and that the funding
of the service should from the public purse.
— Any proposal to increase in the power
or scope to charge for services would inevitably lead to an increase
in burden on industry, commerce and community groups and should
be accompanied by a comprehensive RIA.
3. SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
AND COMMENTS
3.1 Fire Safety Advice
3.1.1 It is strongly felt that in moving
the fire service from primarily to preventative activity, the
provision of fire safety advice would be a key component of the
role. It is recognised that the fire service will inevitably concentrate
its activities into the targets of reduction of deaths and injuries
in the home, but is strongly felt that business forms an important
part of the community and that the effect of an important local
employer having its business destroyed by fire could have a devastating
effect on the local economy.
3.1.2 Although the forthcoming Regulatory
Reform Order is in many ways simply reinforcing the existing (Places
of Work) Workplace Regulations, recent surveys have suggested
that a large number of businesses have little knowledge of their
current obligations in this respect. A move away from fire certification
to employers undertaking their own risk assessments is a considerable
change for a large number of businesses who will inevitably require
a great deal of assistance in adopting the new approach.
3.1.3 It is felt that if fire authorities
start to charge for fire safety advice, this will send out the
wrong messages, particularly to small businesses, who may simply
not bother to seek any assistance at all, which it is felt will
have a detrimental effect on levels of commercial fire safety.
This would appear to be contrary to the need to move the service
into the prevention activity, which was at the heart of Bain,
the White Paper and the current Fire & Rescue Services Bill.
3.1.4 Setting the level of advice to charge
for, and what should be available "free of charge" was
also felt to be problematic and could lead to quite different
interpretations by fire authorities. This would lead regional
variation in policy and price and would cause further problems,
particularly for organisations with branches throughout the country.
3.1.5 Whilst there was some sympathy with
the examples set out in the consultation document for the amount
of brigade resource that was being allocated for landmark projects,
such as the Channel Tunnel and Terminal 5 at Heathrow, and it
was recognised that some consultants and contractors were using
fire brigade resource in lieu of hiring their own fire engineering
consultants. It was strongly argued that advice on this type of
project should be restricted to statutory compliance only. There
was however, a view expressed that if the fire engineering on
these projects was complex, it was in the brigade's interest to
have a full understanding of how these buildings were likely to
react and perform in real fire scenarios as part of their life
safety and fire fighting roles.
3.1.6 The issue of appropriate skilling
also arose, as there was general agreement that there was a difference
in skills and service required for a charging consultancy service,
than one that looked only at statutory compliance.
3.1.7 A question of liability also arises.
If the fire brigade are to charge for the advice that they give
on a consultancy basis, where would responsibility and liability
lie? Presumably brigades that wish to go down this route would
have to establish their own limited liability companies, with
the necessary professional indemnity insurance as is required
by similar organisations in the private sector. The group was
concerned whether insurance cover was available for a company
owned by a fire authority having an action against it by the fire
authority itself.
3.1.8 As the new Regulatory Reform Order
will allow actions to be taken by the fire authority against negligent
contractors and consultants, extremely complex Chinese walls will
need to be created by fire authorities in the separation of their
consultancy and enforcement activities. Would actions by a fire
authority against the consulting arm of a fire authority be acceptable
or even possible?
3.1.9 To summarise our views on any proposals
to allow fire authorities to charge for fire safety advice; it
is generally felt that if this avenue were to be pursued:
— It will act as a disincentive for
businesses to seek any advice at a time when they will need it
most;
— Setting the level at which to charge
will be problematic and will lead to discrepancies between fire
authorities;
— A full understanding of fire engineering
is required by fire brigades in discharging their statutory duties
in fire fighting and should be restricted to enforcement advice
anyway;
— Any move to charge for fire safety
activities would put the service in direct competition with private
sector providers and that the Office of Fair Trading should be
consulted before any such moves were undertaken.
— The creation of independent companies
and the potential of actions for negligence or in appropriate
advice given by fire authorities acting as consultancies appear
to be over complicated and unworkable.
3.2 Automatic Fire Alarms
3.2.1 There is a great deal of concern surrounding
the comments made in the Bain review regarding the use of charging
as a route to reducing the number of false activations of automatic
fire alarms. It was felt that should this be allowed in the future,
a perverse incentive would be created as brigades may become reluctant
to actively pursue reductions in the attendance to AFA's if this
meant a corresponding drop in income. It was argued that some
of the worst offenders would be tempted to simply switch their
alarms off rather than risk incurring a charge from the fire authority
for attendance at a false activation and this would in turn have
a detrimental effect of the levels of commercial fire safety.
3.2.2 It is estimated that only 10% of businesses
have a persistent problem with automatic fire alarms and it is
argued that a more effective strategy would be to educate this
group on installation standards, maintenance and ensuring that
they had the most appropriate system for their own risks. It was
felt that the current ODPM initiative in supporting an education
process by the production of leaflets was a good first step in
this processes.
3.2.3 The proposed CACFOA policy for dealing
with alarms linked to central stations was similarly acknowledged
as being important in the process. The policy does allow for the
charging of Unique Reference Numbers for alarms, it was however
felt that a URN should only be required for the worst offenders,
and not for organisations that never caused the brigade a problem,
it was felt however, that sight of the final CACFOA policy would
be required before formal endorsement could be reached.
3.2.4 There was general concern regarding
the current confusion surrounding AFA strategies. It was recognised
that as part of the process in developing IRMP's differing response
options were probably inevitable over time. However, it was felt
that the IRMP guidance that was issued by the ODPM made it clear
to fire authorities that any changes to response were required
to be evidence-led. It was felt that the variety of different
options now emerging for AFA response, were not sufficiently evidenced
by increases in preventative measures or improvements in AFA performance
and so and were difficult to justify. It was agreed that until
full local evidence emerged a national policy on AFA response
should be established and agreed upon by all affected stakeholder
groups.
3.2.5 To summarise our views on proposals
to charge for attendance at AFA's the group felt that:
— A new perverse incentive would be
created with brigades being rewarded for false activations.
— Some of the worst offenders would
be tempted to simply switch off or disconnect their alarms.
— A national policy such as amended
CACFOA policy is required, until there is firm evidence that local
initiatives are seeing significant enough improvements in AFA
performance to allow for any deviation.
3.3 Attendance at Road Traffic Accidents
3.3.1 Bain also considered the possibility
of brigades charging for attendance at RTA's, which is acknowledged
as being an important (currently non statutory) role for brigades.
It was felt that should this be pursued there would be significant
implications, which would need to be considered in any corresponding
Regulatory Impact Assessment.
3.3.2 There was no enthusiasm or support
from the group for any moves in the direction of charging for
general attendance at Road Traffic Accidents as it was felt that
it would be difficult and costly to administer, that the insured
market would inevitably end up paying for non-insured drivers
and that the move would do nothing to reduce the level of road
accidents.
3.4 Other Special Service Calls
It was suggested that one area where charging
maybe justified was in dealing with spillages where costs had
been incurred for remediation or minimising the environmental
consequences of the spillage. This would seem to follow the general
principle of "the polluter pays", however as a number
of other agencies could also be involved in clean-up operation
there would need to be clear demarcation between fire brigade
and other relevant agency costs.
4. CONCLUDING
COMMENTS
We have tried as requested to produce a balanced
response to the consultation document, however for the reasons
stated above there was little enthusiasm to the proposals in Bain
or the recommendations from the ODPM Select Committee. The overriding
feeling of the Task & Finish Group was that the fire service
had a new role outlined in the White Paper and the framework document
and that the service should concentrate on preventative activity
and emergency response. We have considered the questions posed
in the consultation document and this paper reflects our considered
opinion to the issues that have been raised. We ask the Business
& Community Fire Safety Forum to endorse this paper as its
response.
| 
