6 Relationship between Local Authority
Controlled Companies, Regional Control Centres and existing local
control rooms
Regional Control Centres (RCCs)
80. The Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs) within
a particular region will own the new Local Authority Controlled
Companies (LACCs) that will operate the Regional Control Centres
(RCCs). The LACC company directors are drawn from the FRAs.[97]
One such LACC, the East Midlands Fire and Rescue Control Centre
Ltd., described its formation in its written evidence. Formed
in November 2006, its senior management team has been in place
for two years, with a small administrative support function, and,
more recently two staff training positions readying the RCC for
full system training. The RCC is now substantially equipped with
the IT infrastructure, on site facilities and equipment as one
of the 'first wave regions', due to go live in May 2011.
[98]
81. When asked in oral evidence how much the RCCs
are currently costing, Shona Dunn commented:
At the moment there are eight regional control
centre buildings that have reached practical completion. The
ninth regional control centre, which is London's, will achieve
practical completion in the next few weeks. At the moment I think
the monthly lease costs for all of the buildings is around £850,000
and that will rise to just over £1 million a month once the
ninth regional control centre is completed.[99]
Shona Dunn described the various ways that staff
employed at the RCCs spend their time:
There are a number of staff that are operating
in the centres. There are regional project teams and regional
control centre operations teams which are operating out of those
buildings. There are a number of activities taking place in those
regional control centres. Some of them are being fitted out with
equipment. Some of them are being used for training purposes,
familiarisation purposes and so on.[100]
82. In response to a written question in November
2008, CLG gave the monthly cost of maintaining the South West
RCC in Taunton as £140,783, which equates to a running cost
of £4,692 a day. Sadiq Khan, the then Under Secretary of
State at CLG, wrote:
The building is used for a range of purposes
including the testing and development of FiReControl IT systems
and also technical workshops which bring together Fire and Rescue
personnel. It is also used for meetings of Fire and Rescue Authority
elected members who are responsible for setting up and running
the new Regional Control Centres. Additionally, the Regional Project
Team also works out of the South West Regional Control Centre.[101]
83. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
(LFEPA) memorandum criticises the RCC building specifications:
The buildings themselves appear to be over specified
and are clearly too large just to house a regional control centre.
The security arrangements incorporated into the premises appear
to be in excess to the threats potentially posed to the buildings.
These two things have led to significantly increased costs that
will result in a long term revenue burden to fire authorities.
Although too late to change, we would like to challenge the design
of the buildings and ask why they are so large as we are unaware
of the user input into the design process. Had users been more
fully engaged in the design process the buildings may have been
more suitable for purpose and there may have been more than one
design of building that could have catered for specific user requirements.
Such an approach may well have led to reduced overall costs.[102]
Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the FBU, told us
that
[...] we have a number of empty buildings which
are of no current use to the Fire and Rescue Service costing the
taxpayer £40,000 a day. That is more than it costs to employ
a firefighter for a year and that is a gross waste of public money.[103]
84. John Bonney said that the level of over-specification
in the centres was 'staggering'.[104]
Councillor Pearson commented on a £25,000 coffee machine
recently installed in the London centre[105]
and concluded:
There was a rush to procurement at the beginning
of the project and that is why we have these over-specified buildings.
When we tell you about over-specified buildings we are talking
about security levels that just are not necessary for the Fire
and Rescue Service […] I think there was a naivete in what
the Fire and Rescue Service actually needed when the Government
embarked on this project.[106]
It could be argued that an over-specified project
is preferable to an under-specified project, especially where
security is concerned. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the
procurement process for the buildings was not properly informed
by input from users. The lack of consultation and collaboration
on the project has resulted in buildings that have been designed
without adequate consultation on specifications needed by those
that will work in the buildings and by those who have statutory
duties under the 2004 Fire and Rescue Services Act.
85. All the RCC buildings are the same size and,
according to the North East Regional Management Board, are far
larger than FRAs in the North East would require.[107]
The Board goes on to say that it is currently discussing sub-letting
parts of the building in order to offset some of the future costs
to FRAs.[108]
86. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
(LFEPA) memorandum cites failures in the procurement procedure
as reasons for the lack of convergence of the buildings and the
IT systems:
The concept of running two separate procurement
processes, one for the buildings and one for the IT infrastructure,
has led to significant cost overruns, as the buildings have or
will be completed well in advance of the procurement of the IT
infrastructure services. This results in leases, service costs
and utility payments on underutilised buildings. In hindsight
one must question if this was the correct process and if not,
what can be learned for future procurements. We understand that
IT and property procurements are very different but believe there
should have been closer management at a programme level that could
have taken early action to prevent such a divergence in delivery
timescales.[109]
87. When the Minister was asked why the procurement
of the building was separate from the procurement of the IT system,
the Minister defended CLG's position:
I think that it is quite unusual to get one company
that can do both these very different jobs. One is a kind of
technology-based business change project and the other one is
a building project. Of course the objective was to try to ensure
that they met at one point in time but, because of the delays
that we have had on the technology side, clearly the buildings
although being well utilised in all honesty will be better utilised
once we get the go live dates in those regional control centres
[...] I think once we get the go live dates, once they kick into
action, that is when you will really see the fruits of the investment
that has taken place and is taking place.[110]
Legal issues
88. As previously said, FRAs retain the statutory
duty to make arrangements for dealing with calls for help and
for summoning personnel for the purpose of extinguishing fires
and protecting life and property in the event of fire, under Section
7 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Written evidence
from the North East Regional Management Board stresses the importance
of FRAs making the final decision on whether to move their services
to LACCs:
Senior stakeholders in the North East Fire and
Rescue Authorities are concerned about CLG and EADS' ability to
deliver the project and to the requirements that will enable FRAs
to meet their statutory responsibilities. The final decision
on whether the system is acceptable to an FRA is vested with each
Authority following the advice of their respective Chief Fire
Officer/Chief Executive Officer […] CLG [does] not appear
to have a robust stakeholder engagement plan to address FRAs'
concerns, especially those who are currently believed to be unwilling
to transfer their control room service to the RCC. Indeed there
also is a distinct lack of a contingency plan. As a first wave
region this is a concern as if not resolved runs the risk of either
preventing or delaying go-live in all first wave regions and subsequent
follow on regions.[111]
Cornwall Council raises similar concerns:
There are still concerns that clarity on the
financial detail and ongoing financial commitment post cut over
is needed before the FRA can make any informed decision on whether
the Service will migrate to FiReControl. The FRA will require
assurance that Chief Fire Officers will still have direct control
over the deployment of their resources.[112]
89. However, when asked in oral evidence whether
CLG had concerns if a local fire authority unilaterally decided
it wanted to opt for an entirely different system, Shahid Malik
seemed unaware of any dissenting authorities:
Everybody is broadly on board. It would not
make sense unless everybody was on board. That is the whole point
of having this integrated system with the operability. You have
to have buy-in […] At this point in time I think we are in
a better position than we have ever been in.[113]
On the basis of the evidence given to us by representatives
both of FRAs and of the professionals in the fire service, however,
we are unconvinced that all FRAs will ultimately sign up to the
new system. The Minister's remarks need to be supported by CLG
involving FRAs far more intimately in ensuring that FRAs and the
Chief Fire Officers are persuaded of the merits of the FiReControl
project.
90. We note that the position is that if FRAs do
not sign up, they will need to pay the costs of upgrading their
own existing control centres from their existing resources.[114]
Existing local control rooms
91. Many existing local control rooms are becoming
insufficient for current needs because FRAs had not previously
updated or replaced them, in anticipation of the FiReControl RCCs.
Some FRAs are upgrading their existing systems. John Bonney told
us that "Surrey upgraded about two and a half years ago on
the basis that they could not wait for their regional control
centre to be delivered so they were forced to do that at their
own cost."[115]
Councillor Pearson from the LGA commented on Cheshire FRA:
There are a number of fire and rescue authorities
who expected this project to be in by now who have not invested
in renewing their control systems, and their control systems have
fallen over. There is an example in Cheshire where two years
ago they had to renew at vast expense. CLG are picking up the
tab for this [...][116]
Our evidence session suggests that CLG has been inconsistent
in its financial aid to FRAs. John Bonney told us:
Where there has been sufficient and very hard
lobbying, CLG have relented and paid a degree of the project replacement
costs. They have not paid for the hardware. They have usually
paid for some of the project management costs, which was the case
in Cheshire, but that was not the case in Surrey, so it has been
a patchwork.[117]
92. In supplementary written evidence, the CFOA provided
a table of a sample of 25 FRAs that had replaced or upgraded existing
systems and that had received financial help from CLG. The cost
of the works ranges from £30,000 to £479,000. Of that
sample, CLG contributed £384,000 to the cost in three FRAs,
out of a total cost of around £6,718,000.[118]
This supplementary evidence illustrates the piecemeal approach
that CLG has taken towards contributing to FRAs' costs.
93. A later letter to our Chair from the Minister
attempts to clarify the Department's position on this point:
Your Committee asked, at question 109, whether
I was indicating a change in policy with regard to meeting costs
associated with the Fire and Rescue Authorities maintaining their
current control systems. For clarity, I was not announcing a new
policy. I was confirming our long-held policy to support the genuine
net additional costs for FRAs associated with delay in accordance
with New Burdens principles. We have stated that where FRAs have
to pay unavoidable additional costs to keep their systems operational
for a longer period then we will
meet the extra cost Beyond specific FiReControl funding there
are well established funding streams for the Fire and Rescue Authorities
which contribute towards costs of replacing assets and systems.[119]
The Minister adds
I should also clarify, to avoid any misperception,
that our agreement to provide funding has been based on evidence
and our objective assessment of the case made rather than as a
result of external lobbying.[120]
97 London does not have a LACC because the London Fire
and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) will have responsibility
for running the London RCC as a single authority. Back
98
Ev 122 Back
99
Q 112 Back
100
Q 113 Back
101
Hansard, 12 January 2009, col 240w. Back
102
Ev 63 Back
103
Q 3 Back
104
Q 4 Back
105
Q 3 Back
106
Q 5 Back
107
Ev 71 Back
108
Ibid. Back
109
Ev 63 Back
110
Q 115 Back
111
Ev 70 and 71 Back
112
Ev 121 Back
113
Q 107 Back
114
Qq 51-2 Back
115
Q 36 Back
116
Q 36 Back
117
Q 39 Back
118
Ev 84 Back
119
Ev 99 Back
120
Ibid. Back
|
