Efficiency, effectiveness and economy: the key to closer working?

Government & Politics

Lt d

Efficiency, effectiveness and economy: the key to closer working?

ia

FIRE Correspondent Catherine Levin looks at the proposals set out in the government’s consultation paper, Enabling closer working between the emergency services, and asks, is it the right way forward?

Pa

vil io

hin g lis

nP ub

Thin End of the Wedge?

First, what does collaboration mean? There is no definition provided in the consultation paper. The duty is very likely to include the words ‘efficient, effective and economy’ – the consultation paper mentions these words frequently. If the duty is drawn very broadly ‘to allow local discretion’ it is likely to mean that the spectrum of response will be wide-ranging.

There is a requirement to consider ‘opportunities for collaboration’. Fine, but how? Would a standing item on the agenda at every ambulance trust, PCC and fire and rescue authority meeting be sufficient? Everyone suggests something, they all disagree but it is been considered, so let us move on. That may be slightly flippant, but while each service maintains its separate governance and funding arrangements, the outcome will be some very disjointed thinking.

The proposal later in the consultation paper to have the Police and Crime Commissioner on the fire and rescue authority where the fire and rescue authority does not agree to a merger starts to make sense in terms of exploring opportunities for greater collaboration. However, is this the thin end of the wedge and could it make a takeover by the PCC inevitable in the future?

an dM ed

T

he proposed duty to collaborate is a laudable ambition and for many emergency services simply reinforces what they already do at a local level. It comes after a period where the fire and rescue services have received £75 million from the Fire Transformation Fund. This funding has seen the development of a range of projects with a focus on closer working between fire, police and ambulance services.

However, the government is not content with this ‘patchy progress’ and now seeks to mandate collaboration between the emergency services through legislation in order to fill in these gaps and, as will become clear below, do it without further recourse to grant funding.

The duty to collaborate seems fairly innocuous at first glance, but on closer inspection, it is hard to see how this will work.

10 | October 2015 | www.fire–magazine.com

A recent multi-agency exercise involving Hertfordshire FRS firefighters Photo by Kieran Hancock: kieran-hancock.squarespace.com

“Is this the thin end of the wedge and could it make a takeover by the PCC inevitable in the future?”

There is no suggestion that the PCCs take on the responsibilities of the 11 ambulance regions, rather the government ‘encourages local ambulance NHS foundation trusts to consider engagement with their local PCC and whether to include the PCC on the council of governors.

This is much less drastic than the proposals for fire and rescue authorities but it is not clear why they are being treated so differently. This needs to be explained in more detail.

Enforcement Predicament With every duty comes enforcement. There is no mention of this in the consultation paper.

Who is the arbiter? Who decides that the opportunities have been explored or not? When local leaders do not agree, who decides who is right? It would certainly be useful to understand quite what the government intends to do here; without a fire inspectorate in place (unlike the police), this may be something for the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser’s Unit to take on.

The duty to collaborate ‘should not be

Government & Politics

However, there is a reference in the paper that says should a PCC fail to convince a fire and rescue authority of the business case for transferring functions, the Secretaries of State can intervene and ‘take a decision on whether or not to approve the transfer’. Universality through another route perhaps.

ia

an dM ed

“There is much to

hin g

think about and

much to debate: not

lis

all the answers are clear; not all the right questions have

Pa

vil io

nP ub

Electoral Insouciance According to the Electoral Commission’s report on the administration of the elections of Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales, published in March 2013: ‘Just over 36 million people were registered to vote in the November 2012 PCC elections. A total of 5.49 million votes were cast in these elections, representing a turnout of just 15.1 per cent – the lowest recorded level of participation at a peacetime non local government election in the UK’.

This is not a very inspiring start when considering whether PCCs should take on responsibility for fire and rescue authorities.

The government’s view is that ‘the sharp focus on directly accountable leadership’ makes PCCs ‘uniquely placed’ to deliver emergency services at a local level. It is hard to equate this ambition with a position that sees those elected to the office on just a 15 per cent turnout.

The government’s arguments about stronger local leadership under this model just do not stack up while turnout is lower than the local government elections that produce the elected local members who currently end up on fire and rescue authorities. The problem seems to be that the public does not directly elect the fire and rescue authority; it is this position that seems to be rather anathema to the government now and yet it has been in place for decades.

There are well-rehearsed arguments about why the turnout was so low in 2012 and there are positive noises about how much better it will be for the 2016 PCC elections. Holding them in May with other elections will certainly help. The Electoral Commission report provides plenty of advice on how to improve the process.

In his review, Sir Ken Knight wrote that he would ‘welcome a pilot that would examine the range of opportunities that such closer integration between the two services might bring’(Para 13, page 75). He goes on to say that subject to the outcomes of the pilot, ‘to become most effective and efficient, this model (from the pilot) would need to be adopted universally’.

The consultation paper does not propose a pilot nor does it propose universal adoption.

Geographical Anomalies One point to note is that in England there are 37 Police and Crime Commissioners (there are an additional four in Wales that are not covered by this consultation). There are 46 fire and rescue services and only 20 of these have the same geographic boundaries as the PCC. This creates a bit of a problem.

First, there are the county fire and rescue authorities. There are 14 of these and unravelling the fire functions from the county will not be easy in terms of budget, staffing and general feeling of county councillors losing something that belongs to them. The consultation paper acknowledges the difficulties, not least the funding complexities.

However, these difficulties pale into insignificance compared with the fire and rescue authorities whose boundaries do not match with the PCC (five out of 14 counties) and the 15 that are stand-alone.

Take a look at the south west region to see the problem. The PCC covers Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The corresponding fire and rescue services are Cornwall (a county), the Isles of Scilly (a county) and Devon and Somerset, a combined authority. The county of Somerset is teamed up with Avon for the purposes of the PCC. It is not that long since Devon and Somerset went through its merger, it is unlikely to want to go through another major change in any hurry.

Lt d

considered a burden to the emergency services’.

There is no chance of extra funding through a s31 Grant Determination. This makes sense of course, if the purpose of the duty is to improve efficiency and effectiveness, the logical conclusion is that it should cost less overall.

The consultation confirms the government’s intention to continue providing separate funding streams to the individual emergency services, but demonstrating efficiency and effectiveness often means spending less and with that comes cuts. With the spectre of 25 or even 40 per cent cuts to public service budgets looming, maintaining revenue support grant allocations at current levels looks like a fantasy.

been asked”

Brave New World Imagine this, then. A Police and Crime Commissioner would be the boss of the Chief Fire Officer and the Chief Constable, two entirely different functions where the consultation is quick to reassure the firefighter will not get arrest powers and vice versa. And then add to that the proposal for the PCC to appoint a Chief Officer who is the single employer; this would be someone from fire or police, accountable to the PCC for both fire and policing and share the same complaints process.

It is indeed a brave new world.

Naturally, this also leads to the classic merging of back office functions, the place where all good savings live. There is some reassurance that it will not just be the back office but the ‘upper tiers of management’ that are at risk too. In their totality, these proposals are such a huge departure from the norm, it is hard to see how any fire and rescue authority would support a business case for a PCC takeover of fire and rescue functions.

There is a relatively short section in the October 2015 | www.fire–magazine.com | 11

Government & Politics

greatest shake up of governance of the Fire and Rescue Service in a

hin g

an dM ed

generation”

Lt d

represent the

Contingencies Act and those arising out of devolution of local powers to metro mayors are not detailed but respondents are asked for their views.

The title of this consultation paper is about closer working between the emergency services and it is heavily weighted towards the relationship between police and fire. There is a lost opportunity here. An over emphasis on the governance of fire in relation to the police has led to oversight of the more obvious benefits that come from fire working more closely with ambulance services that have seen rising demand while the demand for the Fire and Rescue Service has reduced.

The government’s proposals should be more about developing further collaboration and stronger working relationships between fire and rescue services and ambulance services. This has to be the way forward, rather than focusing on fire becoming part of Police and Crime Commissioner kingdoms where police and fire are unlikely to be in a partnership of equals.

The consultation period runs until October 23. During this time all emergency services will be looking in great detail at the proposals and the implications for their own individual services going forward. There is much to think about and much to debate: not all the answers are clear; not all the right questions have been asked.

The changes proposed here represent the greatest shake up of governance of the Fire and Rescue Service in a generation. Now is the time for those involved in the delivery of the excellent services provided by fire and rescue authorities across England to voice opinions that demonstrate how fire can change to achieve efficiency, effectiveness and economy.

ia

proposed here

vil io

nP ub

Scrutiny Conundrum The separate but related question about scrutiny follows. It is hard to argue against the PCC and the Police and Crime Panel taking on a scrutiny function for the fire responsibilities if the PCC has already taken on their governance and particularly where the single employer has been accepted. It is just logical.

However, the representation of the Panel needs to be addressed so that it is not just full of people who know about police matters.

Finding those willing to sit on the panel who know about fire may just be a bit harder, particularly if there has been any resistance from the recently abolished fire and rescue authority.

The abolition of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) was a bit left-field. There had been rumblings of some changes but to have them so starkly laid out in the consultation paper was unexpected. For those not well versed in London politics, LFEPA is made up from a mix of Assembly Members from the GLA, some from the London boroughs and some Mayoral appointees, the latter are in the minority.

Over the years, the political balance has waxed and waned and, until recently, the Mayor did not get involved that much. However, as the consultation paper makes clear, the Mayor’s involvement has increased: ‘Having to repeatedly issue directions to a decision making body that has shown itself unable to engage responsibly with its city’s directly-elected Mayor is inappropriate, time consuming and costly to the taxpayer’.

“The changes

lis

consultation focused on performance. There is great praise for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and an acknowledgement of the peer review process that has been put in place by the LGA for fire and rescue authorities.

Taking Sir Ken Knight’s view that the latter needs work, the consultation asks how can independent assessment of performance best be met. Some alternatives to the well-worn and quite tired arguments about reintroducing Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Fire would be helpful.

Pa

Bigger Picture For the Mayor of London to take on responsibility for fire and rescue functions in line with its proposals for all PCCs, is entirely consistent with the overall approach set out in the consultation. The paper does not provide any detail on how this might happen, but asks how responsibility should be incorporated into the mayoral structure. It is very likely to take its lead from the proposals for the Northern Powerhouse of Manchester, where, subject to legislation, the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority will be abolished in 2017.

The impact on resilience is covered in short sections at the end of the consultation paper and seems like a bit of an afterthought.

The implications for duties under the Civil 12 | October 2015 | www.fire–magazine.com

The multi-agency exercise in Hertfordshire is one of many which take place across the country Photo by Kieran Hancock: kieran-hancock.squarespace.com