105

Agenda Item No.

Governance, Audit and Scrutiny Committee 28 November 2012

Report by Secretary/Director of People

CONSULTATION: VISION FOR 2020 & INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012–2015

REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting on 17 April 2012, Humberside Fire Authority (HFA) agreed to

undertake a formal consultation (three months) on the draft Vision for 2020 and Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) 2012-2015.

This paper sets out the broad outcomes of the consultation process which have been conducted by Humberside Fire and Rescue Service’s (HFRS’s) Corporate Management Team (CMT) as part of the process to recommend to the HFA the adoption of a Vision for 2020 and an IRMP 2012-2015.

The purpose of consultation is to gather the views of members of the public and staff of HFRS, statutory organisations, local community groups and other representative bodies, to assist the Authority in determining its Vision and IRMP.

43 responses were received, of which eight were from employees of HRFS. Five responses were received via email. A full breakdown of responses can be found in Appendix 1.

11.1

106

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Committee is asked to consider this report and make any recommendations it

considers appropriate to the Authority. VISION : IRMP BACKGROUND 2. In July 2011 CMT began developing a Vision for Humberside Fire and Rescue Service.

The purpose of this approach is to extend the planning horizon beyond the traditional three years so that longer term structural and cultural change can be introduced and sustained.

3. The draft Vision, developed by CMT, was debated by Members before being considered

by the internal Sounding Board of the Service in January 2012. In February 2012 Members discussed the Vision that had emerged from this process. The Vision was then circulated to staff and stakeholders for consultation.

4. In April 2012 Members approved the Vision for consultation with a view to this being

brought before Members for approval at the Fire Authority meeting on 14 December 2012.

5. An IRMP sets out how a Fire Authority uses its resources to mitigate the impact of risk on

communities by using an appropriate balance of prevention, protection and response in the most cost effective way.

6. The draft IRMP 2012-15 takes into account the existing Fire and Rescue National

Framework, the Draft Revised National Framework published by the Government and considered by Members on 13 February 2012 and also the Strategic Planning principles endorsed by Members at the same meeting.

7. The consultation document was distributed to over 200 community and statutory groups

across the Humberside area; hard copies were also delivered to those groups who had limited internet access.

8. Copies were sent to the Chief Executives and key stakeholders, including leaders of the

four Unitary Authorities, Humberside Police Authority and neighbouring FRSs. 9. A press release was issued to local and regional media with details of the consultation.

Media coverage included Hull Daily Mail and South Yorkshire Times. Partner organisations also publicised the consultation on their websites and in their newsletters, such as Shoreline Housing and the Hull City Council Partnership Newsletter. Social media (Facebook and Twitter) was used to raise awareness. In addition, further updates were communicated in October via social media and the HFRS external website to encourage people to participate.

10. As of 1 November 2012 a total of 43 returns had been received, 14 via the web site and

29 via the post.

VISION FOR 2020 – OVERVIEW OF THE CONSULTATION 11. Four questions were posed concerning the content, and peoples understanding of, the

Vision for 2020. Q1. Do you understand the Vision? Responses: Yes 38 (88%), Don’t Know 0 (0%), No 5 (12%) Q2. Do you think the balance is right between preparedness and recovery? Responses: Yes 26 (60%), don’t know 11 (26%), No 6 (14%)

107

Q3. Do you agree with the ideas we have for doing things differently? Responses: Yes 28 (65%), don’t know 6 (14%), No 8 (19%), left blank 1 (2%) Q4. Are there other things you think we should be doing now or in the future? Responses: Yes 23 (53%), don’t know 9 (21%), No 11 (26%)

IRMP 2012-2015 – OVERVIEW OF THE CONSULTATION 12. Five questions were posed concerning the content, and peoples understanding of, the

IRMP 2012 -2015. Q1. Do you understand the IRMP? Responses: Yes 28 (65%), don’t know 1 (2%), No 8 (19%), left blank 6 (14%) Q2. Do you agree with the risks we have identified? Responses: Yes 27 (63%), don’t know 3 (7%), No 3 (7%), left blank 10 (23%)

Q3. Do you think there are other risks facing our communities that we, as a Fire and Rescue Service should include in this plan?

Responses: Yes 3 (7%), don’t know 13 (30%), No 14 (33%), left blank 13 (30%) Q4. Do you support the plans we have to manage the risks identified? Responses: Yes 22 (51%), don’t know 7 (16%), No 2 (5%), left blank 12 (28%) Q5. Do you think there is anything else we could do to manage these risks? Responses: Yes 9 (21%), don’t know 13 (30%), No 9 (21%), left blank 12 (28%) 13. The consultation closed on 31 October 2012 14. Appendix 1 sets out the results of the Vision for 2020 and the IRMP 2012-15 at a total

Service level and also split out by Unitary Authority area. 15. Appendix 2 sets out the equality monitoring information gathered from respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

16. The majority of respondents claim to understand the Vision and IRMP. 17. When considering the Vision, although over 60% of respondents agree with the ideas put

forward for doing things differently, over 50% of respondents thought that there are other things HFRS should be doing now or in the future. These ranged from focusing on educating children about fire risks to charging for different services HFRS provide.

18. When considering the IRMP, the majority of respondents agree with the risks identified

with only three respondents stating that they thought there were other risks facing the community that HFRS should have included in the IRMP. Over 50% of respondents also supported the plans proposed in the IRMP for managing the risks identified with only two respondents not supporting them.

STRATEGIC PLAN COMPATIBILITY

19. This report directly supports the establishment of the Vision 2020 and Draft IMRP 2012-

15. The Vision will lay the foundation for the next Strategic Plan and the strategies in support of that plan.

FINANCIAL/RESOURCES/VALUE FOR MONEY IMPLICATIONS 20. Value for money is a key element of the Vision 2020.

108

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 21. The IRMP details how the Authority utilises its resources to carry out its statutory

functions. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT/HR IMPLICATIONS 22. No equality impact assessment has been undertaken. CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 23. The Vision will inform Strategic Planning for the future shape of the Service. Strategic

Risk 250. HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS 24. None arising directly. COMMUNICATION ACTIONS ARISING 25. As outlined in the report. DETAILS OF CONSULTATION 26. As outlined in the report. BACKGROUND PAPERS AVAILABLE FOR ACCESS 27. Vision for 2020 and Draft IMRP 2012-15. RECOMMENDATIONS RESTATED 28. The Committee is asked to consider this report and make any recommendations

it considers appropriate to the Authority.

R GRAHAM

Officer Contact: Robin Graham 01482 567443 Secretary and Director of People Humberside Fire & Rescue Service Summergroves Way Kingston upon Hull RG/PD 19 November 2012

109

Appendix 1 – Results of the Vision for 2020 and IRMP 2012-15 consultation THE VISION - WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW Q1. Do you understand the vision? Yes 38 88% Don’t know 0 0% No* 5 12% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘No’ – answers are detailed below KEY: CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If 'No' please explain: No, the document contradicts itself; how can the safety of the community remain a 'top priority' when you seek to reduce front line services? It doesn’t make sense. Would this be something made more widely available to the general public, at the moment only groups are informed of changes. A vision without a plan is just a dream. Although the vision is projected there seems to be no direct path on how to get there. Cannot cut down on staff and have the same level of cover.

110

Q2. Do you think the balance is right between preparedness and recovery? Yes 26 60% Don't know 11 26% No* 6 14% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘No’ – answers are detailed below KEY: CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If 'No' please explain: The Fire Service already do enough community safety teaching, if it slips into a 'social care service' it will lose sight of what the public want; this is a Fire Service that is there as quickly as possible, when needed. There is more detail of preparedness than recovery e.g. how we are to help businesses recovery It is very hard to be adequately prepared when ER has only 2 full time fire stations at opposite ends of a very large agricultural county. With not one major motorway and lots of B to make scattered places and with fewer staff overall in the future. In theory yes but, how it will work in practice only time will tell in such a large geographical area. Very difficult to know if the balance is right - what is the difference between them - presumably the greater the level of preparedness the less is the need for recovery. But that may need more money - not less. How can you prepare for the unexpected unless you have a back up

111

Q3. Do you agree with the ideas we have for doing things differently? Yes 28 65% Don't know 6 14% No* 8 19% Question left blank 1 2% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘No’ – answers are detailed below KEY:

CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If 'No' please explain: But I would like to know more about the how? How are you going to engage the communities? Not enough detail given to allow evaluation You are losing sight of what the public really want from THEIR Fire Service and you are too concerned with cutting services and saving money. It is not cost effective. It is our (the public's) money, not yours. Reducing the workforce too far, we will lose the ability to function. I like the idea of calling on prepared / friend / suitable non-operational staff for front line active service at times of need. Good for morale as well. Again ideas are fine but the practice has yet to be defined and personally cannot see how reducing a service and putting extra strain on others is a better service. Are you going to use private companies to do backroom work? E.g. group 4 Yes, it is good to vary roles and responsibility - on the other hand this may reduce the level of particular skills. Again words mean nothing without the substance behind them to back up the ideas. With less staff - will you be making the existing staff more stressed and less healthy - spending more money on agency work in the end. Note: There is no reference to what the HFRS’ partners already do to support them – e.g. The East Riding of Yorkshire Council secure empty properties, remove litter / fly-tipped goods and provide an Emergency Planning service. Suggest some reference is made to this.

112

Q4. Are there other things you think we should be doing now or in the future? Yes* 23 53% Don't know 9 21% No 11 26% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘Yes’ – answers are detailed below KEY: CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If 'Yes' please explain: Use the most appropriate staff member(s) for a HFSV rather than the one(s) who is geographically closest. Our staff members have a huge variety of professional experience and come from a wide range of backgrounds; this expertise should be used when out in the community with wherever possible, the staff with the most appropriate background knowledge being sent to a particular case. Some staff are highly qualified to work with, for example, children or the elderly or those with mental illnesses, yet aren't necessarily assigned to cases dealing with these sections of the community, even within their CPU's If we to provide the best and most efficient service to our community, sure it makes sense to use the specialisms we already have even if......it means a staff member crossing CPU boundaries to work with a specific individual. We wouldn't expect an obstetrician to be an expert geriatrician or a university lecturer to be an expert reception class teacher, and would feel somewhat unsafe if medics or teachers were generalists rather than specialists, surely this should be the same with the fire service? Not 'other' just that the emphasis of getting the HFRS agenda onto that of partners cannot be overemphasised. Focusing on the FACT that reducing Fire Fighter posts and cutting the service, increasing attendance times WILL have a detrimental effect on the safety of the community. You are lying to yourselves if you think otherwise. Contact needs to be improved. This website is too slow & the pattern starts leaving you waiting for the rest to appear. Too much colour & fancy-ness. I would like everything to be easier and clearer to access with buttons to access things quickly. I want a review of a community centre. Where do I go. I've looked at the website and can't find out. Change the word 'victims' to 'survivors'. Assisting in the recovery of survivors of emergency incidents could include physical rehabilitation.

113

Look again at the workforce and the reasons we are here. Be prepared to consider all suggestions / share good practices The work of the service is closely allied to some of the work of ERYC. I'm sure you are all having lots of liaison meetings that lead to planned expectations - that can be mentioned? THIS BIT IS HARD TO DO (see NHS / SSD) Consider charging for accidental call outs, i.e. RTAs, as charges already made by ambulance services. Encourage people to fill this out online Careful monitoring of how the service is working (or not) by having regular contact with local communities. Can more time be given to educating school children about the risks at a very early age. Co working with other services and councils. Advertisements on machines. Nominal charges for services. (Smoke detectors) Charge for more services most of the public are not aware of all the things you cover. I’m sure there are but these will only emerge as the work proceeds. Shift patterns according to latest research are very important. Night shift watches must have at least 2 days free in between their shifts. Please be more open with the stakeholders on how you are going to achieve your goals. Send out smaller vehicles to assess problems. Maybe claim on peoples home insurance for house fires Better training - better equipment and more prevention training Stop rescuing cats etc. or at least make a charge Promotion of HFRS activities and projects could be achieved by making better use of Neighbourhood Watch groups at no extra cost. Regular fire prevention messages could be passed out to thousands of residents which may also assist in protecting elderly, more vulnerable residents.

114

THE INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN (IRMP) 2012-15 Q1. Do you understand the IRMP? Yes 28 65% Don’t know 1 2% No* 8 19% Question left blank 6 14% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘No’ – answers are detailed below KEY:

CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If 'No' please explain: It is a blurred vision with no detail of what it actually is. To convoluted for the average person to understand. The only people who know the rights and wrongs of this (IRMP) are the people giving the service. Too long and too complicated to technical for the general public to understand Too complicated and long and technical Too much detail, very complicated Too complicated Too many facts and figures not enough plain English

115

Q2. Do you agree with the risks we have identified? Agree 27 63% Don’t know 3 7% Disagree* 3 7% Question left blank 10 23% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘Disagree’ – answers are detailed below KEY:

CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If 'Disagree' please explain: You say that we have a well-established programme of school visits, ensuring that every child in our area receives safety critical information at the right stage in their development. From what I have heard (often from schools who have asked for a safety visit) is that visits are only be made on a risk basis (i.e. if the school is in an area considered to be at high risk i.e. returning to a reactive policy). Does this mean that some children are in danger of not receiving (and taking home and passing on) critical information that will help keep them safe in the event of fire, e.g. stop, drop, roll, escape plans, what number to ring and what info to give in case of fire etc? Surely this is something that all children should have the opportunity to learn at the age of personal responsibility for these things? The system would not have to be run in the way we used to do school visits which was very labour intensive, but there are other ways that maybe should be considered? You have not identified the risk to the Community by the cuts to the Fire Service. The statistics used are carefully chosen to show a very rosy picture.

116

Q3. Do you think there are other risks facing our communities that we, as a Fire and Rescue Service, should include in this plan? Yes* 3 7% Don't know 13 30% No 14 33% Question left blank 13 30% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘Yes’ – answers are detailed below KEY: CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If 'Yes' please explain: Please see above. The Police Service has already stated that cuts to their force will have an impact on performance. Is the Fire Service so delusional that they think lives will not be at greater risk? Listen and learn

117

Q4. Do you support the plans we have to manage the risks identified? Support 22 51% Not sure 7 16% Do not support* 2 5% Blank 12 28% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘Do not support’ – answers are detailed below KEY: CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If 'Do not support' please explain: Not enough detail given More can be done. Better liaison between all staff will help to move the Fire Service forward. Not enough detail to understand the plans The IRMP is not focused on risk management, but on how best to deal with a funding deficit. Noting there is no indication in the Plan to explain if response times have lengthened over time due to reduced resources or higher traffic levels, for example to judge whether or not the response times for low and medium risk areas are acceptable to the East Riding as 90% attendance within 20 minutes response time could appear to be a cause for concern, given the average response time for predominantly rural areas nationally in 2011-12 was 10.1 minutes, source CLG 4 July 2012 Fire Incidents Response Times England 2011-12

118

Q5. Do you think there is anything else we could do to manage these risks? No 9 21% Not sure 13 30% Yes* 9 21% Question left blank 12 28% TOTAL 43 100%

*Individuals were asked to explain why they answered ‘Yes’ – answers are detailed below KEY:

CPU Area Colour Hull East Riding North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire Questionnaire from unspecified Service area

If ‘Yes’, please provide suggestions as to what else we could do to manage these risks I think that sometimes we concentrate so much on everything being done in CPU's that we are in danger of getting a skewed service with each CPU acting in isolation and sometimes not realising the need to share knowledge/specialisms/staff to the benefit of the whole community of Humberside rather than just their area. We often appear to duplicate work, or sometimes even to contradict each other. Also the constantly changing senior staff structure in Community Safety becomes difficult for partner agencies to work with and doesn't allow senior community safety staff to develop their expertise and skills before they are moved on again, often into a field that has no connection with CS thus losing to the community in general some hard earned and very valuable skills. As per the earlier comment on how? I can't answer 'yes' simply because it is too unconditional a statement! If the word 'reasonably' had been inserted it would have offered a more realistic option. See above. Increase physical accessibility. if you go to a fire station it's a bit like going to Fort Knox Educating children to live healthier, safer life styles to try and prevent them growing up to become part of a high risk group Ensure no reduction in staff numbers The East Riding of Yorkshire Council feels that responses should be delivered in conjunction with other services as the type of risks identified in the Plan could perhaps be better dealt in partnership with others. The East Riding of Yorkshire Council note that there is already a considerable amount of joint working taking place with officers from HFRS participating in joint patrols (e.g. Licensing) to inspect premises.

119

Additional feedback received via email rather than through the questionnaire: From: Matt Cridge, Strategic Lead, Partnerships and Communities, NE Lincolnshire Council 23 August 2012 If this is a document for the public it may be better to have the resources and public help information at the front and the technical/statistical details at the back as many people will skip read more as they get to the back. In the introduction it may be useful to mention some of the main partnerships you are involved in in each area. (Strategic, Partnerships, Safer Stronger etc.) Severe weather and Flooding - links to the community planning resources and guides etc. to go here as well as at the back (currently) to link the info and the resources. Also here in NEL could link to VANEL winter planning etc. and ward level websites (in and around). Deliberate Fires - Vacant commercial properties put link to business continuity here too. Otherwise I think this is a useful document and resource that we share across partners here in NEL and inform strategic planning. From: Tony Hunter, Chief Executive of North East Lincolnshire Council This is a good initiative, and thank you for the opportunity to participate. I'm not really able to go through the document, but what I would offer is appreciation of the partnership approaches Richard has very much visibly led to date, at both strategic and operational levels. Especially in this era of exceptionally tight finances, this is how we make our combined resources go further and how we best generate the confidence we need from people, communities and businesses in our area. Long may this approach continue! From: Fumiko Czarnecki, Japanese Community Leader NE Lincolnshire This is wonderful and more accessible to members in the community. Thank you. From: Dave Pinder, Health Diversity and Information Manager, East Riding Council I have had a very brief read through the IRMP. My main comment is on detail, as of 16th July there is far more accurate Census data release available re numbers, households and age splits - I would consider adding this as there are some quire significant changes and differences with your document and it will make it more pertinent to the Humber sub-region 2012-2015. If you access the Humber Data Observatory and the East Riding Data Observatory you can access these new figures. From: Lockington Parish Council Whilst we try to represent the community in matters relating to the Parish it is not easy as a group of 9 volunteers to be all things to all people and in respect of important decisions within the Fire and Rescue Service we feel that the expertise to ensure the best service is delivered rests with the Fire and Rescue Service. We cannot comment as to where to make cuts etc. or to be held to account for such decisions.

120

From: Humberside Fire Brigade Union The first thing to comment on is the difficulty in finding the consultation documents, which are hidden away on the Service website under ‘News’ and ‘Consultation’. These are not easily accessible especially to members of the public. It is expected that public response to this IRMP will be extremely low. IRMP 2012 – 2015: In the foreword to the IRMP it states; ‘the plan is interactive’ and ‘you will find links to more detailed information’. Whilst it is true that most of the links do operate as intended there are some notable exceptions, including; Community Risk Reduction Strategy. HFR Solutions, and most noticeably. Operational Response Strategy. It is the opinion of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) that any IRMP which is put out for public consultation should be a complete document. How can the public or anyone else be expected to comment on a work which has some of the most important aspects missing? At the end of Part 4 of the IRMP (page 11) it explains that ‘During the life of this plan we expect there to be a number of Efficiency Programmes, but we will ensure that we can continue to meet our intervention standards’. It is not sufficient to say we will meet our intervention standards – especially as these standards are set locally, rather than by national guidance, and are subject to change. The public will want to know exactly what these efficiency programmes will entail. Who knows but public opinion may shift once it becomes clear that the missing aspects of the IRMP involves the closure of a local fire station? The FBU are well aware that final decisions regarding efficiencies or ‘cuts’ are yet to be taken and as such and for the reasons given above, believe that full public consultation on the IRMP should follow these proposals not precede them and not before the complete IRMP is available. VISION for 2020: Clearly finances will be tight for the foreseeable future and this will have an effect on staff numbers, however the assertion in the Vision that ‘we will have fewer people working for us but this will not have reduced our level of service as we will work more efficiently and effectively than we did before’ is not one that stands up to scrutiny. Statements such as this only serve to play in to the hands of those who would wish to reduce funding even further by implying that we work inefficiently and ineffectively now. This is not a view shared by the FBU who believe that reductions in workforce can only lead to a reduction in service. The notion that we can do more with less is faintly ridiculous, the only thing you get for less is less! In the final section, with regard to changing shift patterns, we see the astonishing boast that ‘All our staff will be fitter, healthier and happier and as a result, our sickness levels will be lower, with fewer work related injuries’. The FBU would be interested to know upon what data this statement is based? It is not our experience that this is the case. Feedback from our members shows that most staff are happy with the current shifts and work life balance that these shifts allow. Changing them would certainly not create a happier or healthier workforce. With regards to both the IRMP 2012 – 2015 and the Service Vision 2020 the FBU would like to see the Corporate Management Team and the Fire Authority acknowledge that budget reductions will lead to a reduction in the service provided. Something which the FBU believe should be made clear to the public as part of this consultation process.

121

Appendix 2 - MONITORING INFORMATION

Employed by HFRS? Not employed by HFRS 30 70% Employed by HFRS 8 18% Prefer not to say 3 7% Blank 2 5% TOTAL 43 100%

Gender Male 10 23% Female 20 47% Prefer not to say 4 9% Blank 9 21% TOTAL 43 100%

Age group 18 - 24 3 7% 25 - 35 1 2% 36 - 45 4 9% 46 - 55 6 14% 56 - 65 6 14% Over 65 16 37% Prefer not to say 5 12% Blank 2 5% TOTAL 43 100%

Disabled Yes 4 9% No 31 73% Prefer not to say 4 9% Blank 4 9% TOTAL 43 100%

Ethnicity White: British 36 83% Asian / British: Indian 1 2% Other ethnic group 2 5% Prefer not to say 2 5% Blank 2 5% TOTAL 43 100%

122