10. The FAIRMaP has been compiled in
accordance with National Government policy and has drawn heavily on advice contained
in Fire Service Circulars and that given directly by the Fire Service
Inspectorate.
11. The
Council’s Corporate Plan has the strategic objective of:
“Creating
safe and crime free communities.”
12.
The FAIRMaP with its emphasis on prevention and
improved public safety links directly to the Council’s delivery of the
strategic objective referred to above.
CONSULTATION
13. The consultation strategy (detailed in
Section 10 of the FAIRMaP) was developed in partnership with The Isle of Wight
Council’s Community Partnerships Manager and Communications and PR Manager.
14. In addition, the Isle of Wight Council’s
2003 public consultation included three questions relevant to community fire
safety. The results of this are
attached as Appendix C.
15, The main conclusions reached by the Isle
of Wight Council survey are:
·
71% of people agreed or strongly agreed with the
policy of redeploying some personnel from operational duties to a community
safety role.
·
87% of people agreed or strongly agreed that the Fire
and Rescue Service should work in partnership with a wider range of
organisations.
·
87% of people agreed or strongly agreed that carrying
out educational work in schools is an effective use of resources.
16 All members of the Fire and Rescue
service have had the opportunity to attend FAIRMaP presentations conducted by
the Chief Fire Officer. (see details of
programme - Appendix D). The Fire and
Public Safety Select Committee considered the FAIRMaP process at their meeting
on 9 June 2003. Likewise, the Fire
Brigades’ Union and other Representative Bodies have been consulted on
FAIRMaP.
17. The Fire Authority entered into a
partnership with an independent market research company, Questions Answered Ltd
(QA), to facilitate the public consultation and to analyse the responses on
their behalf. The report from this
company forms Appendix B.
18. The main conclusions reached by QA found
in their Executive Summary p.10 (Appendix B) states:
“The
rudder is set and the move to modernise is afoot, the process of implementation
is critical and the continued communication to all stakeholders (and
particularly staff) is paramount. If
this is done properly and people see planned actions becoming reality (and as
such realise that there is no hidden agenda), so will others accept and agree
that this is the right way forward and put their weight behind the new
philosophy.”
19. Her Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate
(HMFSI) are mandatory consultees and their detailed comments are included in
Appendix E.
20. Of particular note is the Radar Chart that
the Inspectorate produced. This
measures the FAIRMaP and Improvement Programme against the average score for all English and Welsh
Fire and Rescue Services.
We
scored above the national average for:-
·
Our commitment to the principals of modernisation and
the philosophy of the White Paper.
·
Our action plan (Improvement Programme).
·
Our identification of the Resources Requirements to
implement the plan.
We scored at the national average for:-
·
Our
policies and standards.
·
Our
identification of opportunities for improvement.
We were below the national average
for:
·
Identification
of risks to the community.
·
Evaluation
of current arrangements.
21. As regards the identification of risk to
communities, in the consultation document a conscious decision was taken to
only include certain details. However,
following the comments from HMFSI this section has been greatly revised and
updated (Appendix A, Section 7 Isle of Wight Risk Profile) and although the
FAIRMaP will not be reported on again by the HMFSI during this round, we have a
verbal acknowledgement that the work we have done on this section since the
draft will have significantly improved our score.
22. With reference to evaluation of current
arrangements our performance indicators are published in the Best Value
Performance Plan and as such are publicly available. Consequently they are not
referenced in FAIRMaP. However, to
satisfy the need to evaluate
current arrangements in the future some improvements will be necessary to the
Fire and Rescue Service ICT infrastructure including the implementation of the
Fire Service Emergency Cover Model (FSEC).
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
23. Sub section 5.1 of the FAIRMaP
(Appendix A) refers to the general financial considerations.
24. The detailed budget implications of the
FAIRMaP and Improvement Programme will be considered as part of the normal
budget planning process. Given the emphasis on the FAIRMaP and it being the
foundation that the service will in future be built upon, the whole of the Fire
and Rescue Service budget is arguably directly linked to the FAIRMaP. The Fire and Rescue Service Plan 2004/05
contains a number of bids, which are needed as a direct consequence of
FAIRMaP. Members’ will be aware these
amounted to £625,000.
25 At the meeting of Full Council on 23
February 2004 the budget decision failed to fund the bids submitted by the Fire
and Rescue Service. The impact of the
decision is detailed at paragraphs 43 - 46 of this report.
26. The option for containment within the
existing budget (option 3 at paragraph 39) provides funds for:
ICT information system and Intranet
facilities £50,000
plus
Training Retained 88,298
General Training 65,321
Expenses
4,184
Total £157,803
plus
One off Training Reserve £99,000
Fire Service
College IPDS Courses
One
off virements £59,000
for Recruits
Training
27.
All other
aspects of the Action Plan/Improvement Programme can only
be
progressed if there is no cost attached.
28. Since the submission of the budget bids it
has become obvious, through additional information received from the ODPM and
the Fire Service College that the original bids for IPDS would be insufficient
for the needs of the service and is more likely to be in the order of £423,000
for 2004/05 and in the region of £430,000 for 2005/06 and £340,000 for 2006/07
(Appendix J expands upon IPDS funding).
29. The part year funding option (option 4 at
paragraph 39) would enable the IPDS and FSEC requirement to be pump
primed.
IPDS - £54,462
for 2004/05
FSEC - £62,821
for 2004/05
30. This has an implication for full year
funding 2005/06 onwards. The part
funding and full year costs are expanded upon in Appendix G for FSEC and
Appendix J for IPDS.
31. In addition the Fire Service Emergency
Cover model provided by the ODPM is to be supported for 18 months or so at
which time Brigades should move on to their own system at their own additional
expense.
32. As a result of the recent Audit Commission
Fire Service Pay and Conditions Agreement – Verification Work, (Appendix K)
they commented under the heading of “Barriers to progress”-
“The
tension that exist between delivery (of) the modernisation agenda and being
susceptible to Council budgetary changes has yet to be resolved.
This will severely curtail the brigade’s
ability to deliver a robust IRMP and make the appropriate changes to the service
to achieve improvement”.
33. Under IRMP Diagnostics – of the
Verification Work (Appendix K)
“… risks need to be categorised
and prioritised. Adoption of FSEC would
facilitate this”.
“Budget preparation is
currently a major problem at the authority as bids to support implementation of
the modernisation agenda are subject to the overall financial status and
decisions of the Council at a time of difficult decision”.
LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
34 Section 1(1)(a) of the Fire Service Act
1947 places a duty upon every Fire Authority to:
“make provision for fire-fighting purposes and in particular
secure – the services for their area of such a fire brigade and such equipment
as may be necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements”.
The FAIRMaP sets out how the Council
will fulfil that duty.
35. On 12 January 2004, the new
Fire and Rescue Services Bill was presented to Parliament and is
expected to become law in Autumn 2004.
This Bill will repeal the Fire Service Act 1947.
36. Section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Services
Bill, places an explicit duty on the Secretary of State to prepare a Fire and
Rescue National Framework.
Section
21 (2) states; The Framework –
a. Must
set out the priorities and objectivities for fire and rescue authorities in
connection with the discharge of their functions;
b. May
contain guidance to fire and rescue authorities in connection with the
discharge of any of their functions;
c. May
contain any other matter relating to fire and rescue authorities or their
functions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
37. The Draft Fire and Rescue National
Framework Chapter 1, sets out the principles and aims of risk management and
prevention and states;
“1.2
The old standards of fire cover, which set out the speed and weight of response
to fires depending on building density, were insufficiently flexible to allow
Fire and Rescue Authorities to respond to the needs of their communities. In future they will be replaced by local
Integrated Risk Management Plans (IRMPs).”
38. The Council also has a statutory duty to
deliver Best Value services. The
continual cycle of review and consultation contained within the FAIRMaP
Improvement Programme will address this duty in respect of the Fire and Rescue
Service.
OPTIONS
39. The Executive has the following options:
1. To
consider the consultation responses (Appendices B, C and E) and approve the
revised FAIRMaP (Appendix A)
2. To commission a review of Appendices F
to J, and associated budget implications, to be conducted with the Best Value
Unit. The Review is to make
recommendations to the Executive on 16 June 2004.
3. To
approve the action plan subsequently amended in accordance with the available
budget, 2004/05.
4. To approve the action plan funded by
the part year funding at paragraph 29 and detailed in Appendices G and J
(£117,283), (year on year costs for the part funded items only would be
£120,797 the previous bid was for £200,000).
5. To approve the action plan funded to a
level determined by members with due regard to Appendices G and J.
6. To approve the action plan funded to
the 2004/05 Service Plan bids (£625,000).
(Service Plans for 2005/06 and 2006/07 onwards not yet compiled).
7. To propose changes or amendments to the
FAIRMaP.
8. To reject the FAIRMaP.
EVALUATION/RISK
MANAGEMENT
40. Having evaluated the responses and
considered them carefully, and having due
regard to the QA and Isle of Wight Council consultation, on balance, of the
responses received, there is no compelling arguments made to change any of the proposed improvements.
41. The changes to the Risk Profile (Section
7) as explained in Paragraph 19 above, the fact that the Improvement Programme
Document has now become an initial working document for the Fire and Rescue
Service, and with the addition of a new Section 13, to more clearly describe
the actions to be taken, these are the only changes that have been made to the
FAIRMaP.
42. The
ODPM has required every Fire Authority to produce an Integrated Risk Management
Plan, which must be consulted upon, and then all responses to the consultation
process fully considered by the Fire Authority before the final plan is approved and implemented. The FAIRMaP must be implemented from April
2004.
43. The FAIRMaP Improvement Programme first
year action plan (Appendix A Section 13) of development is entirely dependant
upon funding for its success. Future
improvements to both intervention and prevention very much depend upon IPDS,
ICT, FSEC and Community Fire Safety.
·
Failure to fund IPDS will mean that firefighters and
officers will not be trained to the National Standards and is high risk at a time
of movement from rank to new roles.
High
Risk to the Fire Authority in non-provision.
·
Failure to fund FSEC will delay the change to risk
based standards of fire cover from being implemented in 2006/07 to at least
2007/08 and only then if it is funded next year. Change to the existing standards will be extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to justify unless a risk modelling programme like FSEC is in
place, and supported.
High Risk to the Fire Authority in
non-provision.
·
Failure to fund ICT will prevent the Fire and Rescue
Service from having the efficient processes and data exchange which feed future
improvements to both intervention and prevention which very much depend upon
the collection and analysis of fire and incident statistics and data. The Council agreed ICT Strategy for Fire and
Rescue will be delayed a further year even if it is funded next year.
Medium to High Risk to the Authority in non-provision.
·
Failure to
fund additional fire safety work for schools and home fire safety checks will
delay the coverage of the fire safety message in schools and dwellings.
Low
Risk to the Authority in non-provision.
44. The Fire Authority should seek to provide a
robustly supported and effective FAIRMaP; failure to do so could lead to:
·
An adverse report in subsequent years’ consultations
on FAIRMaP with
Her Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate.
·
Adverse comments by the Audit Commission both during
the next verification study and subsequent CPA.
·
Intervention by the Minister either currently under
Best Value legislation or subsequently under the provision of the Fire and
Rescue Service Bill (See Paragraph 46 below).
45. The Fire and Rescue Service Comprehensive Performance
Assessment (CPA) will feed into the Council’s overall CPA score. Intervention by the Fire Service Improvement
Team could seriously impact upon the Council’s final CPA assessment.
46. Failure to produce a FAIRMaP and
associated Improvement Programme, to consult
adequately or to implement the plan on time could lead to intervention by FSIT
of the ODPM.
Part 3, Paragraph 22 from the Fire
and Rescue Services Bill states:
“Intervention by Secretary of
State”
(1) This
section applies if the Secretary of State considers that a fire and rescue
authority is failing, or is likely to fail, to act in accordance with the
Framework prepared under Section 21.
(2) For
the purpose of securing that the authority acts in accordance with the
Framework the Secretary of State may by order require the authority-
(a) to do something;
(b) to stop doing something;
(c) not to do something.
(3) The
Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (2) only if he considers
that making the order would promote-
(a) public safety,
(b) the economy, efficiency and
effectiveness of the fire and rescue authority in respect of which the order is
made, or
(c) economy, efficiency and
effectiveness in connection with the matters in relation to which the fire and
rescue authorities have
functions.
(4) Before
making an order under subsection (2) the Secretary of State must give the
authority an opportunity to make representations about the order proposed.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
Option
1 – To consider the consultation responses and approve the revised FAIRMaP.
Option
2 – To commission a review of the Appendices F - J, and associated budget
implications, to be conducted with the Best Value Unit. The Review is to make recommendations to
the Executive on 16 June 2004.
|
BACKGROUND
PAPERS
47. Background papers are listed in Section
12 of the FAIRMaP (Appendix A) plus the Fire Service Pay and Conditions
Agreement – Verification Work undated, published by the Audit Commission.
(Appendix K)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
48. The
Audit Commission Fire and Rescue – National Report – Verification of the
progress of modernisation
– March 2004 (published 31 March 2004). (Appendix L)
49. This report asks Fire Authorities to note
that they will need to have done more even to maintain their rating in the
second phase of the auditors review due in the summer.
“Time will have moved on and the
prescribed guidance will, by then, have required more to have been done. We suggest all authorities should consider
whether:
·
the cost implications of their IRMP have been
estimated robustly and built into the budget and planning cycle;
·
they are up to date and in full compliance with
government guidance as regards detailed risk maps and how these maps should be
used; and
·
the IRMP action plan is specific realistic measurable
(SMART).
Much of
the purpose of the IRMP is concerned with making realistic assessments of the
opportunities it offers for change. In
the second phase of our review we will be looking for evidence that this
opportunity is being taken effectively.”
50. Members will be aware that our present
rating is “little or no progress” on the modernising agenda.
APPENDICES
Appendix A FAIRMaP
Appendix B QA
Consultation Report
Appendix C Isle
of Wight Survey Results
Appendix D Presentation
Programme
Appendix E HMFSI
IRMP Assessment
Appendix F Service
Plan Bid 1 2004/05
Appendix G Service
Plan Bid 3 2004/05
Appendix H Service
Plan Bid 6 2004/05
Appendix I Service
Plan Bid 7 2004/05
Appendix J Service
Plan Bid 2 2004/05
Appendix K Audit
Commission Fire Service Pay and Conditions Agreement – Verification Work Paper
and Action Plan
Appendix L Audit Commission National Verification of the
progress of modernisation – March 2004
Contact
Point: Richard Hards, Chief
Fire Officer. 01983 823199,
richard.hards@ iow.gov.uk
|
R
HARDS
Chief Fire Officer
|
D KNOWLES
Portfolio
Holder for Fire, Emergency Planning and Consumer Protection
|
