An opportunity to reflect in a fast-changing world

Government & Politics

hin g

T

vil io

nP ub

lis

he LGA Fire conference 2020 took place against the backdrop of the Coronavirus pandemic.

In a fast-changing situation both nationally and internationally, the conference provided a last opportunity for a large scale gathering of the fire community before all such events were cancelled for the foreseeable future. There was much to discuss.

The conference provided a welcome and much needed focus on the recommendations set out in the first State of Fire report from HMICFRS. There has been enough time for fire and rescue services to digest the content and consider what it all means at a local level; the conference was a platform for the LGA, NFCC, FBU and HMICFRS to share their views at a national level with a wider audience.

Pa

Matt Wrack, FBU General Secretary

ia

an dM ed

An opportunity to reflect in a fastchanging world

Lt d

FIRE Correspondent Catherine Levin reports from last month’s LGA Fire Conference in Blackpool on March 10-11, the last large-scale event for the fire community before the Coronavirus pandemic caused cancellations

State of Fire Feedback As a quick reminder, the State of Fire contained four recommendations that covered the role of the Fire and Rescue Service and of firefighters: reform of pay negotiating machinery; operational independence;

and a code of ethics. These supplement the existing two recommendations from the Tranche 2 summary report about fire protection and improving the national capacity and capability to support the fire reform programme.

Both CFO Chris Strickland, speaking for the NFCC, and Matt Wrack, FBU General Secretary, said they wanted the government to clarify what it expects from the Fire and Rescue Service. That expectation is set out in the Fire and Rescue National Framework and has always been loosely formed and avoids where possible the use of the word ‘must’ because that equates to funding.

There is clearly a tension between the fire sector wanting to be told what to do and a government that wants a service that responds to the needs of communities that change over time without huge amounts of central direction. While the responsibility for fire has moved from the more hands-off MHCLG to the more controlling Home Office, this is still a Conservative government and telling public services what to do has its limits [notwithstanding limitations imposed by the Coronavirus pandemic].

The Grenfell Tower fire was a stark reminder of the need to keep an eye on all three elements of Fire and Rescue Service provision – prevention, protection and response – because to ignore one at the expense of another has consequences. All of the HMICFRS reports say that

“The NJC was not consulted during inspection or during the drafting of the State of Fire” FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack

www.fire–magazine.com | April 2020 | 19

ia

Lt d

Operational Independence The conference discussion about operational independence was separated out from the other recommendations. This is the third recommendation in the State of Fire and states: ‘By September 2020, the Home Office should consider the case for legislating to give CFOs operational independence. In the meantime, it should issue clear guidance possibly through an amendment to the Fire and Rescue National Framework for England, on the demarcation between those responsible for governance and operational decision making by the CFO’.

Sir Tom Winsor thinks that CFOs are best placed to determine the operational workings of their services and should be given more freedom to run their own organisations. ‘Chief Fire Officers should have operational independence to run their services effectively and efficiently to meet the priorities and commitments in their integrated risk management plans’, he states in the report.

Unlike chief constables, chief fire officers do not have operational independence. Sir Tom says that some authorities have prevented CFOs from making decisions related to efficiency and effectiveness. He provided no examples.

Cllr Keith Aspden, speaking for the LGA during this session, picked up on this point during his address to the conference. “There is no evidence that supports the suggestion that CFOs should have operational independence”. He went on to question what Sir Tom meant by “operational”. In a bluntly-worded address to the conference, he asserted: “HMICFRS has come to the wrong conclusions, didn’t ask the right questions and is straying into politics.”

But what does all this mean in practice? Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service CFO Becci Bryant spoke from a local perspective and provided a well-articulated argument about operational independence by making the distinction between accountability and responsibility.

“The chief is delegated the responsibility for delivering the work of the authority. However, if there is a legal challenge to that work, the authority is legally accountable in the current arrangements. I do see an opportunity for placing responsibility and accountability in the same place.”

Considering whether this arrangement should change, Becci says: “I absolutely appreciate the challenges that this would bring in terms of, for example, legal liability, accountability for employment law, pensions and so on.

The buck would stop with the CFO.” The Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner is responsible for Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service; PFCC Matthew Ellis is the Fire and Rescue Authority (see pg 22 for Mr Ellis’ perspective). Becci’s argument applies equally for the PFCC governance model as well as the more traditional models like the combined authority or the county council.

an dM ed

Pa

vil io

nP ub

lis

hin g

HMI Zoë Billingham

fire and rescue services have neglected protection. The policy shift that saw the emphasis for identifying risk in non-domestic buildings move away from the Fire and Rescue Service and on to the building managers has not worked.

The impending spending review offers an opportunity for the employers’ and employees’ representatives to set out what services they will provide and the funding they want from the government to deliver them.

The government has finite funds and competing demands and that sets the scene for the negotiation. Getting a balanced and acceptable set of funded expectations requires nuance and a mature approach.

HMICFRS thinks that some of the machinery for negotiation is not working and says so in its second recommendation. During the panel session, HMI Zoë Billingham said: “Our recommendations are not an out and out attack on the NJC. We wanted to generate debate about improvement in the NJC arrangements”. She sat through the two HMICFRS focused panel discussions and at times it must have been uncomfortable to hear what both officers and members were saying about inspection.

Matt Wrack expressed his disappointment at the approach taken by HMICFRS saying: “The NJC was not consulted during inspection or during the drafting of the State of Fire”. He, like others during this conference, questioned the evidence for the conclusions made

by HMICFRS. He went on to defend the voluntary arrangements between the employers and employees, noting that streamlining the NJC was an FBU suggestion but that it had been rejected by the employers. Cllr Chard said the LGA was open to changing the way the NJC works but was keen to emphasise that a lot of its work was not visible because it was confidential. Perhaps that accounts for the opaqueness that PFCC Roger Hirst complained about.

There was some semblance of agreement between the FBU and the LGA about the NJC, but when the discussion turned to reforming the Grey Book (for operational staff), Cllr Chard described it as “outdated and wordy” while Matt Wrack said it was “logical and clear”. Based on the discussion at this conference, it does not look like the NJC and Grey Book related recommendation is going to result in agreement any time soon and certainly not by the deadline given in the State of Fire.

“Our recommendations are not an out and out attack on the NJC. We wanted to generate debate about improvement in the NJC arrangements” HMI Zoë Billingham

20 | April 2020 | www.fire–magazine.com

Government & Politics

“I’m a big fan of operational independence… I will never interfere in operational deployment” PFCC for Essex, Roger Hirst

Lt d

ia

an dM ed

Pa

vil io

nP ub

lis

Code of Ethics The recommendation for the NFCC working with the LGA to produce a code of ethics for fire and rescue services by December 2020 was much less contentious. Sir Tom writes in the State of Fire: ‘The fire and rescue service would benefit from a national code of ethics which specifies and establishes the exemplary standards of behaviour for all staff. This code should be at the heart of everything services do and make it clear to staff what behaviour is acceptable in their everyday work’.

This recommendation makes sense when seen in the light of the values and culture element of the people pillar: 20 services required improvement; three were inadequate and only four graded as outstanding.

This puts it on a par with the equally poor fire protection findings.

CFO Chris Strickland said that the NFCC was happy to work on a code of ethics and emphasised the need for a partnership approach in line with the wording of the recommendation. While the effort to create the code of ethics does not rest with the FBU, Matt said he was unconvinced by the need for it and that it was more like a job creation scheme for someone to do the work. He said that the Nolan principles of public life should apply.

These are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. This is certainly a good place to start.

It was absolutely right that the HMICFRS recommendations got as much airtime as they did; providing a platform for the employers and employee representatives to share their views was the most valuable part of this year’s conference. Unfortunately, any work being done to address the recommendations will now slow down if not cease altogether as the fire sector deals with the Coronavirus pandemic.

A shift in the timetable is inevitable and understandable but the facts remain the same: change requires joined-up thinking and joined-up working. The panellists at this year’s conference may not have been in agreement in many areas but they all agree that change is necessary; HMICFRS has just provided a steer as to where to start.

hin g

Where responsibility and accountability rest with the CFO, Becci argues: “The authority could remain completely independent and hold the CFO to account for the delivery of an effective and efficient service against the requirements of the Fire and Rescue Services Act. This would go some way to mitigate the conflicts of interest that exist in the current arrangements. The shift could enhance transparency and scrutiny; ensuring accountability and responsibility associated with decision making and liabilities sit in the same place.”

Roger Hirst, PFCC for Essex, followed on from Becci during this session. He said: “I’m a big fan of operational independence.” He went on to talk about the need for trust between the PFCC or the fire authority and the need for delegation. “I will never interfere in operational deployment.”

There was some confusion at the conference about who is leading on the work to respond to this recommendation but clearly there is something afoot and it will be interesting to see what approach the NFCC and LGA will take with this one.

www.fire–magazine.com | April 2020 | 21