Knight Review of the Fire and Rescue authorities in England

Written evidence from Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (FRR 11)

We were not intending to submit a formal response to Sir Ken Knight’s efficiencies report for a number of reasons. The government, of course, wants to take time to consider the full implications of the Review, and it seems appropriate local fire authorities do the same. Further, we still do not know the full impact of the latest Comprehensive Spending Review and any consideration of the future must feature a commentary about the resources required and the resources available. However, we understand that there is to be a Select Committee Enquiry and a debate is taking place, and so we feel it helpful to add a number of early - and brief – observations from a local, Greater Manchester perspective - notwithstanding the need to reserve a more considered response when all the facts and issues are known.

1. Reform of the sector

Fire and Rescue Services (FRSs) in England have three core purposes that, together, form an integrated approach to "crisis" management:

· deliver a crisis response;

· regulate the (fire) safety of the built environment ( through protection and enforcement); and

· undertake true prevention work through community safety activity.

These core purposes emerged from the major reform programme initiated by the Independent Review in 2002 - the so-called Bain Review. That earlier work also considered the role of government in relation to public policy, and reinforced the reality that good public policy for a key service such as the FRS - against the backdrop of the complexity of the ris ks managed - must transcend a local focus and local interests. And the complexity of the risks have increased rather than decreased – climate change, the terrorist threat and an ageing population to name but a few of the complex challenges before us. So, any fundamental change to these purposes, or fundamental change to the way they are delivered (i.e. a national fire service; combined blue light authorities etc.) remains a matter for government, not the sector itself, to decide if and how to implement.

But any decision to change should be taken carefully because, as Sir Ken identifies, the Sector has been hugely successful in reforming and transforming itself. Indeed, a report commissioned for the US Government described the change as "nothing short of revolutionary" (TriData, 2007). And this success is manifested by the hundreds, if not thousands, of people still alive today as a direct consequence of the shift in approach of fire and rescue authorities to placing the importance of safety work alongside that of emergency response.

We do not believe, therefore, that assigning the responsibility for further reform to "the Sector", and asking it to decide for itself, is a proper way to proceed. Rather, we support Sir Ken’s findings that the multiple funding models, governance arrangements and other forces that exist around the issue, all act as massive impediments to serious collaboration - or mergers.

What individual FRSs can and should do, is look for ways of making further efficiencies within their current remit and governance models; and look at best practice and specific examples from other FRSs to identify whether they can be replicated to meet the unique demands of their own communities.

2. Is there still scope for efficiencies and if so where?

The financial figures in Sir Ken Knight’s report go up to 2011/12. However, the reduction to fire service funding in the first Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was back loaded. This means that the further, extensive cuts for the years up to 2015 had already been agreed - and in the process of being implemented - but were not referenced in the report. In other words, the possible savings are being double counted and, for Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS), this equates to a reduction of £9m between 2011 and 2013, and a further reduction of £10m between 2013 and 2015.

It is worth extending this point because we do not recognise some of the data in the Report around staffing levels and efficiencies.

In 2000/01 GMFRS employed 2108 firefighters. At the end of 2012/13 we employed 1660, a reduction of 21%. It is estimated that by the end of 2014/15 we will have 1418 firefighters, a reduction of almost 33% since 2000/01. The figures in the Report indicate a very different proposition to this, so it is clear that some fire and rescue authorities have either made no reductions in staffing levels or, worse, increased their staffing levels. Whilst it is not a matter for individual fire authorities to be set one against another or to point accusing fingers at each other - there does need to be an honest commentary and full analysis about the efficiencies that have already taken place, in the interests of fairness and equity. It is clear that not everyone starts from the same position - though we also acknowledge the difficulty constructing distribution mechanisms accepted as fair by all.

And, although the link can be made between falling fires and the ability to reduce firefighter headcount, we would argue we have aligned our approach to this correlation, and there is only so far this can go.

In crude terms, in Greater Manchester (GM) fires have fallen by about 50% and we have reduced our workforce by about 30% giving ourselves (and our communities) a sensible contingency because, after all, we still provide a crucial emergency service. That said, a point will be reached where a service no longer has the necessary levels of resilience to deal with large scale unforeseen incidents, incidents which continue, in part, to define the role of an emergency responder. In an interview about security arrangements at the Olympics, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is quoted, "you can't look at a warship and say, 'How can I bring a lean management model to this?' – because it's doing different things with different levels of resilience that are not generally required in the private sector."

3. Wider Economic Impact

Sir Ken’s report looked at the cost of the fire service, but not the money it saves in the wider economy, and we feel this is an omission.

DCLG figures from 2011, place the total cost of fires in England at £8.3billion per year – and this is with all the prevention work that has taken place and identified in the report. The thrust of the report-that a direct link exists between reductions in fires, deaths and injuries and a reduction in expenditure -does not truly give fire authorities credit for their achievements; or consider the possibility that if we do not continue with the same level of preventative work, then fires and deaths will rise again. Furthermore, significantly reducing the numbers of emergency response vehicles lengthens response times, which means that the risk of death, injury and economic loss may well increase once more; ultimately costing the wider economy far more than it will save.

4. Efficiencies

Since 2005 GMFRS has delivered the largest cumulative efficiencies of any FRS in the UK, saving, by the end of 2015, c. £153 million. This has been achieved through a range of activities including; improved procurement; increased collaboration; reductions to support and management costs; revisions to shifts / crewing; reducing ill health retirements and investment in sustainability. Indeed, virtually all the approaches advocated by Ministers and Officials.

Further significant efficiencies - we believe – are not possible through back / middle office or management costs (there is a bottom line here too) and will, therefore, require a fundamental change in thinking. In support it will require a change to the way fires are controlled and extinguished, utilising new or adapted technology and techniques.

We were pleased to be able to demonstrate some of this ground-breaking thinking to the Minister when he visited GFMFRS recently.

But, such changes are not easy or achievable in the short term, and require training and a major culture shift. This can only be implemented safely and efficiently by engaging the workforce and over a number of years rather than months. This is why we have made the decision to invest some of our capital budget in a new training facility that will allow us to fight fires more efficiently, whilst maintaining public and staff safety. Again, we welcome the CSR announcement to make funding available to support this kind of innovation and transformation.

5. Workforce planning

We have introduced a mixed economy approach to workforce planning that has involved reviews of staffing and management structures at all levels.

At the top we reduced numbers considerably, working our way down through every layer of the organisation complimented by "Star Chamber" reviews. This has involved the reduction of staff numbers; changing terms and conditions (e.g. rosters, work patterns); civilianising where we can, particularly with prevention work; outsourcing / collaborating with Local Authority partners or other FRSs; and the extensive use of volunteers. Last year, for example, we used 348 volunteers to deliver 45,000 hours of support including Home Safety Checks, arson patrols, youth engagement and more. The majority of savings for 2011-13 – in fact - were achieved through reductions in management and support costs to protect front line resources. Ongoing changes to crewing and rostering patterns will result in further reductions to front line costs during 2013-15 and will see a saving of £89m over ten years to 2015.

6. Local commitment to reform and robust political scrutiny

The Fire Authority has also led from the front and fundamentally changed its structure and political arrangements to align with the Purpose and Aims of the organisation. We now have just three Committees supporting the main Committee, adopting a much more strategic, direction setting role, alongside a scrutiny and challenge role. Here too, we do not recognise the criticism of the Report about Elected Member engagement on fire authorities and their scrutiny responsibilities. We have won two North West Employers awards for our member development, achieving exemplar status in 2011.

Furthermore, robust political scrutiny has allowed us to salvage some of the resources spent on the scrapped national FiReControl project and to successfully launch a unique joint Control project with three other FRSs. From 2014, North West Fire Control will handle all fire service 999 emergency calls and be responsible for mobilising firefighters and appliances to incidents in Cumbria, Cheshire, Lancashire, and Greater Manchester (GM). It is a unique venture utilising the existing Regional Control Centre building and some of its equipment with new, state of the art technology.

This will realise considerable savings (just under £1m per year for GMFRS) by harmonising the way we do things, enable the continuation of a high level of service and pave the way for greater collaboration and cooperation between North West FRSs.

7. Sector-led improvement and peer challenge

After the abolition of the Comprehensive Area Assessment, GMFRS has sought external assurance using the international European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Model. In 2012, GMFRS was externally assessed by approved EFQM assessors for the first time. Under the Recognised for Excellence process we were awarded with three out of a possible five stars. We are the first (and currently only) FRS to achieve this award. We have committed ourselves to driving improvements through and undertaking subsequent assessment using the model every two years to benchmark our success.

We believe there is scope for a new robust, independent assessment of service delivery built around what communities should rightfully expect from an FRS. This independent inspection model should be designed to ensure that FRSs deliver the key principles of Transparency; Accountability; Robustness; Rigour; and Public Value.

8. Standardisation and interoperability. Should operational delivery be a matter for local determination?

GMFRS works in partnership with other FRSs when procuring new equipment, resulting in regional procurement frameworks, trials and testing that have provided assurance to FRSs that products meet the required standard, whilst saving time and effort by reducing duplication and speeding up procurement. For instance, we have worked extensively with Northamptonshire FRS on ultra high pressure lances. We have taken their work and current operational policies and looked to expand and develop what they have already initiated to avoid re-inventing wheels. Last year, we hosted a major new technology event that included other FRSs as well as industry providers. As part of ‘SMARTFIRE’ we are working with other FRS’s in Europe to develop improvements to our Personal Protective Equipment. GMFRS is also committed to other collaborations including procurement of IT through the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA); building contracts let through AGMA contract and shared payroll services with Lancashire FRS.

We have also identified with North West Ambulance Trust (NWAS) opportunities for collaboration and the sharing of buildings, facilities etc., as well as closer working around Co-Responder schemes and we have a desire to extend this work as far as possible. We have recently appointed a new Medical Director from NWAS, helping ensure we have seamless patient care between the work of our own trauma technicians and NWAS. At Irlam and Whitehill, we already share our stations with community policing teams. But we also see our stations as community assets and we have a programme of opening our stations to the public and key agencies - we now run driver testing with the Department of Transport at two of our fire stations.

9. Adding public value and social cohesion

GMFRS sees "operational delivery" in a much broader - and we would argue more modern - context than many would conceive. For us, our operational delivery spans as a wide range of activities including not only our emergency response function but also our wider community work.

As well adding social and public value, this work is intrinsically linked with our prevention and protection work. For instance, engagement activities targeted at children and young people fall into two broad categories. The first are those that are clearly aligned to GMFRS’s core responsibilities, protecting children and young people from the risks associated with fire and fire-related crime. The second category involves those initiatives such as the Prince’s Trust, Community Fire Cadets or Firefly programmes with the wider scope of supporting partnerships looking at troubled families and improving the quality of life for communities across GM. These programmes are delivered through varying methods and staff including uniformed, non-uniformed specialists and volunteers. The objectives of these activities are to prevent children, young people and their families being harmed or killed in fires or causing fires through ignorance or carelessness; but also to prevent children and young people becoming involved in crime, anti-social behaviour and social exclusion; and we go even further to prepare and support young people into education, training and/or employment; and to equip young people with skills for life.

Conclusion

We said at the outset that our initial comments in terms of the Efficiencies Review would be brief and reflect a local perspective. Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority (GMFRA) has already delivered savings, governance reforms and interoperability on a large scale. We will continue to seek out further efficiencies, especially where new processes and new technology enable this, whilst remaining cognisant of the fact that emergency prevention, protection and response requires a core level of resources to ensure adequate levels of resilience are maintained.

We look forward to the Minister’s response later in the year.

June 2013