WRITTEN EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY
THE DEVON
& SOMERSET FIRE
& RESCUE AUTHORITY
(LOCO 09)
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the
ongoing debate on localism. The Terms of the Committee's inquiry
were discussed recently by the Members of the Devon & Somerset
Fire & Rescue Authority and the purpose of this letter is
to relay the views of the Authority to you.
At the outset it is worth stating that, as a combined
fire and rescue authority, the Devon & Somerset Fire &
Rescue Authority is not able to benefit from certain freedoms
(eg power of well-being) available to other types of local authority
to pursue local initiatives. The Authority would wish this position
to be redressed at the earliest opportunity and empowered to act,
lawfully, in the best interests of the community it serves. The
potential mechanism for doing this is explored later in this document.
By way of further introduction, it is perhaps appropriate
and realistic to say that it is difficult at this stage to advance
any firm ideas given a clear and transparent definition of "localism"
has yet to emerge. Indeed, raising the subject does tend to generate
more questions than answers, for example "how local is local",
how does one maintain an appropriate balance between "localism"
and a corporate identity etc.
Looked at from its widest perspective, the view of
the Authority was that "localism" should represent a
freedom from central government dictat, with the flexibility for
an authority—in this case the Devon & Somerset Fire
& Rescue Authority—to be able to deliver its services
and respond to the community it serves in the most efficient and
cost-effective way. Similarly, the Authority should be free to
determine the most appropriate method of judging its performance,
being answerable to the community it serves rather than necessarily
seeking to slavishly follow and satisfy centrally set targets.
Doing this would clearly involve a high degree of
engagement with the community served but the Authority is convinced
that this is the right direction and that decades of centrally-set
targets and performance measures (some of which have been dysfunctional
or "perverse incentives") have done little to really
assist in providing for the community served and that, at times,
the previous "one size fits all" approach has taken
the focus away from being able to respond to local issues in a
truly local way.
The issue of powers and duties of local authorities—and
in particular combined fire and rescue authorities—requires
careful consideration and where necessary rationalisation and
clarification. For example, this Authority annually incurs considerable
expense in responding to what transpires to be "false"
calls from automatic fire alarm (AFA) systems. Frequently, there
is a pattern of repeat "serial offenders" in this respect
and yet—at present—there is no sanction that this
Authority can impose on such "serial offenders" to motivate
them to take better steps in terms of maintenance of the systems.
This Authority is not unique in this respect and yet a relatively
simple measure—an amendment to the current Charging Order[2]
to enable the Service to recover the costs incurred in repeat
false AFA attendances—would place less of a drain on already
limited and finite resources and enable these resources to be
used productively in promoting prevention and intervention initiatives.
This Authority considers that it—and the fire
and rescue service in general—has already embraced many
of the principles that might be associated with localism. Centrally
set response standards no longer exist and, since the Fire and
Rescue Services Act 2004, fire and rescue authorities have been
responsible, in consultation with the communities they serve,
for setting their own response standards and initiatives aimed
at promoting safety, reducing deaths and injuries and safeguarding
the environment. The fire and rescue service is held in high esteem
by the public and any "localism" initiatives should
at the least maintain this high regard if not seeking to enhance
it.
This Authority is also engaged in a number of successful
initiatives with partner agencies again aimed at enhancing community
safety. These initiatives include:
¾ working
with social services to more accurately target initiatives (eg
the fitting of smoke detectors) to those most vulnerable in the
community;
¾ school
educational and youth community safety campaigns such as the 999
Cadet Scheme;
¾ a number
of road safety campaigns;
¾ arson
reduction initiatives; and
¾ station
open days.
There are other areas the Authority is also likely
to be pursuing in future months to foster local ownership of the
fire and rescue service, for example:
¾ badging/branding
which reflects both local identity and wider corporate identity;
¾ highlighting
local features/initiatives and the contribution made by local
communities to the Service (eg by local employers releasing employees
as retained firefighters) both in the Service internal magazine
and—proactive involvement—local media;
¾ promoting
greater engagement with all levels of local democracy, from District
to Parish/Town Councils; and
¾ investigating
the opportunity to integrate a community based budgeting approach
in the development of our Local Community Plans.
Many of the above initiatives currently rest within
the purview of the Authority to deliver. As indicated earlier,
however, the Authority is very mindful that there is a fine balance
to be drawn between promoting "local" issues and maintaining
a corporate focus for its service delivery, with robust and accountable
governance structures to enable a fair distribution of services
across the entire community it serves rather than creating multi-tiered
and potentially divisive/unequal responses.
As indicated at the outset of this letter, this Authority
is also very mindful that, as a combined fire and rescue authority,
it does not currently have access to certain legislative powers
that could facilitate more innovative and "local" solutions
to issues. This Authority would very much wish to embrace what
it perceives to be the underlying philosophy of localism (ie the
freedom to respond in the most appropriate manner to locally expressed
needs) although it considers that this may be difficult within
the current legislative framework. Mention has already been made
in this letter for a need to rationalise and clarify the existing
legislative provision. This is by no means an easy area, as the
recent experience over the Fire and Rescue Authorities Mutual
demonstrated when all participating parties fully believed, on
the basis of Counsel advice, that they had the power to establish
a mutual only to discover from the courts (via the decision in
Brent LBC v Risk Management Partners—the Brent case)
that they did not. Although this situation has now been remedied
and fire and rescue authorities may now lawfully establish mutual
insurance companies,[3]
it remains a salutary pointer to the need for all local authorities—including
combined fire and rescue authorities—to have the legislative
freedom to pursue innovative solutions.
In this respect this Authority is aware that, during
the time of the previous government, the Local Government Association
was promoting a bill to give authorities a wide-ranging "power
of general competence" that could be used as a measure of
first resort to effect initiatives that would either directly
or indirectly benefit the community served.
It is understood that the Decentralisation and Localism
Bill will feature the introduction of a "power of general
competence". This Authority would wish to see this power
drafted in the widest possible terms and for the power applied
to combined fire and rescue authorities rather than solely principal
authorities (which happened with the well-being power introduced
by the Local Government Act 2000 but which did not—because
of drafting—apply to combined fire and rescue authorities).
In taking forward any localism initiatives care must
be taken to manage expectations appropriately—balancing
addressing local needs in an effective manner while maintaining
a due level of control and overall, transparent governance arrangements.
In this context, this Authority is very aware of the issues between
the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service and the Royal Borough
of Windsor and Maidenhead Council where the latter has sought
judicial review on a decision relating to Windsor Fire Station
on the grounds that a proper public consultation was not undertaken
and that the assessment of risks surrounding the closure was inadequate.
The Council also sought to use the provisions of
the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to take responsibility for
the fire service in its area and thereby block the proposed closure.
This proved unsuccessful and the Minister at that time—in
the view of this Authority quite properly—asserted that
matters relating to the fire and rescue service rested squarely
with the relevant fire and rescue authority. This Authority would
wish to see this stance reinforced and would advocate against
any localism initiative that may have the perhaps unintended consequence
of eroding existing, locally accountable governance structures.
Care must be taken that "the baby is not thrown out with
the bathwater" and that the responsibility for decisions
continues to rest with those organisations best placed (by virtue
of the professionalism and expertise employed) to exercise it.
September 2010
2 The Fire and Rescue Services (England) Order 2004
SI No 2305. Back
3
The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act
2009. Back
| 
