Fire Related Research and Development 2012

An appraisal of the support and intervention arrangements within the new National

Framework for Fire and Rescue Services

Fire Services College 15th November 2012

Pete Murphy and Kirsten GreenhalghNottingham Business SchoolNottingham Trent University

The Nottingham Business School Fire and Rescue Services Research Programme.

3 Projects

• Responding to the coalition governments review of the National Framework for Fire and Rescue Services with recommendations and suggestions for the new regime

• Responding to the introduction of the Integrated Risk Management Planning process and evaluating the resultant Fire and Rescue Service Reconfigurations in the new era of financial austerity at the local or individual service level; and

• Appraisal of previous arrangements and the current proposals for the support and intervention regime anticipated by the new national framework.

The programme forms an Impact Case Study from NBS for the 2014 Research Excellence Framework

Current Position• Project 1 – National Framework - The government announced the results of the national

strategic review in July 2012 – this accepted the sector lead approach and clarified some of the national resilience issues.

• The next stage of this project will therefore focus on delivery arrangements in the new regime , the roles for the FRS sector and individual services, and how to facilitate mitigations of risk and continuous improvement in services.

• Project 2 – Implementing the IRMP across Local Services - NBS recently collaborated with Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service on the implementation of its Fire Cover Review. (This reappraised the IRMP and resulted in the short term reconfiguration of services that resulted from re-evaluations of current risks across the county.)

• The next stage involves the review of risks in the medium and longer term, their articulation in the next stage of the IRMP and the evidential base for the medium and long term review of services and strategy.

• Project 3 – Support and improvement –This project has two parts. The first workstream reviews the general proposals for support and improvement contained in the new national framework. The second workstream looks in more detail at the operation of the section 23 Intervention Protocol which is reaffirmed by the framework.

DCLG Fire and rescue national framework for England (July 2012)

• The framework covers England only. It does not apply to Northern Ireland Scotland or Wales where responsibility for FR Services is devolved.

• “The National Framework will continue to provide an overall direction to fire and rescue authorities, but will not seek to tell them how they should serve their communities” (Ministerial foreword p6).

• At the local level, for the first time, the guidance talks exclusively to Fire and Rescue Authorities and what it expects the authorities to deliver (reflecting the arrangements for “Commissioned Services” in the Open Public Services White Paper, July 2011).

• “The Framework sets out high level expectations. It does not prescribe operational matters” (Introduction p7).

• The guidance now comprises 4 Chapters entitled “Safer Communities”, “Accountability to communities”, “Assurance” and “Context, timescale, scope” - support and intervention are covered in the 4th chapter.

Introduction and Priorities

The priorities for authorities are to:-•Identify and assess the full range of foreseeable fire and rescue related risks faced by their area, make provision for prevention and protection activities and respond to incidents appropriately

•Work in partnership with their communities and a wide range of partners locally and nationally to deliver their service

•Be accountable to communities for the service they provide

•They need to plan for, and respond to, incidents of such scale or complexity beyond the capacity of local resources and mutual aid arrangements, pooling reconfiguration and/or collective action.

•The government retains strategic responsibility for national resilience, and authorities for local resilience (in collaboration with partners).

Chapter 2: Accountable to communitiesEach FRA’s Integrated Risk Management Plan must:

•be easily accessible and publicly available

•reflect effective consultation throughout its development and at all review stages with the community, its workforce and representative bodies, and partners

•cover at least a three year time span and be reviewed and revised as often as it is

•reflect up to date risk analysis and evaluation of service delivery outcomes

Make arrangements for challenge and scrutiny•Hold Chief Fire Officer or Chief Executive Officer to account for delivery

•Make communities aware of how they can access data and information on performance

– (communities need to be able to able to access data and information in a way that enables them to compare the performance of their fire and rescue authority with others).

Chapter 3: Assurance

• Robust mechanisms should be in place to provide independent assurance to communities and to the Government.

• Fire and rescue authorities must provide assurance on financial, governance and operational matters and show how they have had due regard to the expectations set out in their integrated risk management plan and the requirements included in this Framework.

• To provide assurance, fire and rescue authorities must publish an annual statement of assurance.

• Provide national resilience assurance on identification of risks, specialist capacity and how they are meeting any capacity gaps.

Chapter 4: Context, timescale, scope(including Support and Intervention)

• Context - FRS Act 2004, Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and Equalities Act 2010 all still form the legislative basis – together with directive powers for emergencies

• Support and Intervention - FRAs have proactive processes in place to provide support and lead improvement through peer led response and effective collaboration. LGA to identify risks and mitigate escalation with Intervention powers a last resort. Chief Fire and Rescue Advisor might also be called to assist.

• Timescales – open ended duration, constantly refreshed with biennial reports to parliament on FRAs progress.

Interpretation of the new Framework

• The new framework is consistent with the Open Public Services White Paper (2011), the DCLG Select Committee report (2011) and statements on local government reform

• It articulates and differentiates the FRAs responsibilities for responding to both national F&R and Resilience issues, and allocates responsibilities for “closing the gaps”.

• It proposes a hands off, light touch and self governing model for local FRAs and for the Support and Intervention regime.

• It articulates the key questions that FRAs need to ask themselves when assessing the adequacy of their services – or that an inquiry or judicial review might wish to address in the light of a serious emergency incident.

• It also suggests some questions to ask of the support and intervention arrangements!

Current Proposals Support and Intervention (4.7 – 4.8)

The expectation of Government is that

•Fire and rescue authorities, and their political and professional leadership, have proactive processes in place that provide support and lead improvement. In this context, improvement is delivered through peer led responses and effective partnership working.

•The Local Government Association, as part of their challenge and intelligence role, works collaboratively with fire and rescue authorities and other government departments to identify at an early stage where serious risks to performance are developing. It will act with them to mitigate the escalation of those risks which would have a negative impact on the reputation of the sector or could lead to serious service failure.

Current Proposals Support and Intervention (4.9 – 4.11)

The Government intends

•To use its intervention powers only as a last resort, for example, where the risk of failure is deemed so serious as to require immediate and directive action to resolve. Any use of intervention powers will be in accordance with the intervention protocol.

•Ministers may also ask the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser (CFRA), … to lead an investigation into instances of serious concern regarding operational performance. Ministers may also seek additional and separate assurance from the CFRA, or other advisers, in respect of specific issues.

•The Secretary of State (SoS) has the power, by order, to confer on a fire and rescue authority functions relating to emergencies. In the event of a particular fire or emergency, the SoS has the power to direct a fire and rescue authority to act.

Key Research Questions (or KLOEs in Audit Commission terms): for the proposed Support and Intervention Arrangements

1. Are the anticipated processes in place and is the proposed regime fit for purpose, in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness?

2. Does the regime facilitate continuous improvement and demonstrably optimise risk reduction and mitigation?

3. Are reporting and scrutiny arrangements adequate to reassure the public and the government?

4. Are individual and collective roles and responsibilities clear, mechanisms and techniques up to date, and reporting and scrutiny arrangements acknowledged as best practise?

Discuss

Key Research Questions (or KLOEs in Audit Commission terms): for the proposed Support and Intervention Arrangements

And we are investigating in greater detail

5. Is the intervention protocol as set out in section 23 adequate?

6. Is the regime an improvement on the previous regime and does it represent “good practise” when compared to similar regimes in other public services?

Comparative Intervention Regimes?

• The Monitor regime for hospitals

• Home Office – Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

• DEFRA - National Parks peer reviews

• DCLG - Local Authorities under Comprehensive Performance Assessment

• DoE - Schools Colleges and Education Services

• DoH - Social Care Services

• DWP - Benefits Administration and Fraud

• External Auditors Section 17 (audit act) Investigations

Key Research Questions (or KLOEs in Audit Commission terms): for the proposed Support and Intervention Arrangements

1. Are the anticipated processes in place and is the proposed regime fit for purpose, in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness?

2. Does the regime facilitate continuous improvement and demonstrably optimise risk reduction and mitigation?

3. Are reporting and scrutiny arrangements adequate to reassure the public and the government?

4. Are individual and collective roles and responsibilities clear, mechanisms and techniques up to date, and reporting and scrutiny arrangements acknowledged as best practise?

The process are in place, it is questionable whether they are fit for purpose

Yes but no

The public, no. The government ?

We suspect not

Key Research Questions (or KLOEs in Audit Commission terms): for the proposed Support and Intervention Arrangements

5. Is the intervention protocol as set out in section 23 adequate?

6. Is the regime an improvement on the previous regime and does it represent “good practise” when compared to similar regimes in other public services?

Not in our view

Questions ?Questions ?