Knight Review of the Fire and Rescue authorities in England

Written evidence from Lancashire Fire Authority (RFF 12)

Lancashire Fire Authority

1. Lancashire Fire Authority comprises the 12 districts within the Lancashire County Council area and two unitary authorities of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool. It covers just over 3,000 square kilometres including 400km of coastline from West Lancashire in the south to Morecambe Bay in the north. With a resident population of 1.45million, it is one of the most populated and urbanised shire counties in Brit ain with a legacy of historical and industrial heritage. In contrast, large parts of the county are sparsely populated with estuary and coastal landscapes; moorland; or arable countryside. Our diverse communities that make up our county vary in age and ethnicity, with 20% of our population being over retirement age, and 7% being from the BME community.

Executive Summary

2. As an Authority we anticipate that there will be a number of evidence submissions for the Select Committee to consider and in respect of this have chosen to be as succinct as possible. We will avoid therefore detailed defensive or pedantic analysis but moreover seek to inform the committee of some of the implications that arise from the approach adopted and conclusions made.

3. In general terms we accept that the report is informed by evidence and is therefore correct ‘in broad terms’ to a greater or lesser extent within some Fire Authority areas and conversely incorrect in others. Indeed it is true to say that within Lancashire area we feel that we stand up well against its findings. Of principal concern however is how Government may view the report’s findings alongside other reports recently published and the recently announced spending review. We believe it provides a useful stimulus to inform debate but should not be approached as a blunt tool for applying further grant funding reductions across the sector in a collective manner which will not take into account the degrees of efficiency difference between Fire Authorities that would be exposed by employing a methodical and intelligent method.

4. We also recognise that some of the conclusions aligned to the narrow baseline data utilised is, perhaps understandably, unsophisticated and has removed the nuances that would have provided a richer picture to evaluate the true value of individual Fire Authorities.

5. Lancashire Fire Authority is supportive of the CFA governance model and would stress that we have a strong track record of achieving efficiency changes utilising existing tools as oppose to seeking further ‘enabling’ tools. This has included achieving a 25 percent reduction in whole time operational staffing and increasing significantly the ‘on call’ disposition of stations.

6. The report suggests that there are ‘inexplicable differences in expenditure with no evidence to support that higher levels of expenditure produce higher levels of performance’. There is no analysis contained in the report that scrutinise the full range of outcomes that are delivered by fire and rescue services or that falling incident levels require greater attention to the level and frequency of training and assurance of competency. Indeed Lancashire Fire Authority have faired worse than most regarding funding, being on the floor since precepting was introduced until the most recent CSR period and have delivered strong performance outcomes across the range of measurable indicators but this does not allow for a simple equation to be made between funding and outputs. We are concerned that there could be a natural path to entrenchment in terms of wider community outcomes.

7. Expenditure when only referenced as ‘cost per head’ does not allow for intelligent conclusions to be drawn without a more nuanced analysis that takes into account the range of services offered and their wider impact on the pressures across the public sector collectively, nor indeed does it allow for the impact of geography.

8. Savings delivered since the 2011/12 period have not been included and this potentially masks the impact of the current CSR period and may paint an unreasonable picture for example in Lancashire we have delivered £1.4m savings in 11/12, £3.6m in 12/13 and have plans for a further £6m over the next three years.

9. It is important to also note that restructuring our services to reduce costs, on occasions requires capital investment. This is true in Lancashire with regard to the extension of ‘Day Crewed Plus’ duty systems and rationalising our functional hubs such as HQ and training sites which therefore require capital reserves and capital investment.

10. Revenue reserves are also required to facilitate the differential time lag between change implementation and workforce attrition, importantly the report notes that there are no other mechanisms available to support such. Indeed the lack of redundancy mechanism (including the recent removal of pensions rule A14) places an increased need to hold reserves and to facilitate changes and manage the increasing level of financial uncertainty. Greater certainty beyond the two year period of financial settlements (capital and revenue) would assist the planning process.

Questions for Sir Ken Knight

11. We recognise that in producing an FRS anonymous report that there will be a natural tendency for individual FRSs to wish to stress their own positions but, have we lost something by not being specific and not identifying FRSs where the greatest efficiencies could be derived such as those with little or no use of the ‘On call or Retained’ duty systems?

12. Given the research undertaken by Sir Ken, what does he believe is an optimal service, what would it be delivering and does an example exist?

13. What does Sir Ken believe Government should do to support greater efficiency within the fire service whilst maintaining the standards that the public currently enjoy? And; would the sector benefit from compulsion to restructure such as that seen in Scotland?

Area for Government Consideration

14. The spending review announcement of a £30 million fund to support collaboration along with the comments in the report about greater efficiency that may be achieved through such, would appear to provide an endorsed ‘green light’ for pursuance of mergers. However there is concern that the direction an Authority may choose to explore could be latterly influenced by a government endorsement of a particular approach such as that identified in the recent report in ‘resilience in the emergency services’. As the Fire Minister will not be responding to the Sir Ken Knight review until the autumn there is the danger of creating an immediate period of ‘inertia’.

June 2013