Meeting documents

To consider Item 10

The Vice Chairman advised Members that in front of them were replacement pages 30 and 31 of the Draft Public Safety Plan, this was to reflect a funding update based on an announcement made by the government in the 2019 spending round.

The Chief Fire Officer advised Members that the Public Safety Plan was a statutory duty for all fire authorities which set out its plan going forward to manage the risk within the community. This draft public safety plan focused on continuing the direction of travel the Authority had adopted over the last number of years. It was worth noting that the finances of the Authority were stretched and although the Authority provided an excellent service, it was not sustainable without additional funding moving forward.

The Head of Service Development advised Members that the Public Safety Plan (PSP), which was what the Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) was called, set out the Authority’s strategic approach to the management of risk in the communities it served. There was a statutory requirement for all fire and rescue authorities in England to produce an IRMP that conformed to National Framework requirements. The requirement was for IRMPs to include identification, analysis and mitigation of risks, cover at least a three year period and be subject to public consultation with the community, the fire and rescue services’ workforce, representative bodies and partner organisations.

The Head of Service Development advised Members that the design philosophy behind the draft 2020-25 PSP was very similar to that underlying the current 2015-20 PSP. As Members would have seen, it identified and defined the main strategic challenges that the Authority faced over the life of the plan, and how it intended to approach them. The aim was to provide the Authority with strategic room for manoeuvre against a very uncertain financial and political context over the medium term. In particular, it gave the flexibility to respond to differing funding contexts under which the Authority could have more or less money than currently envisaged by the medium term financial plan.

The Head of Service Development advised Members that from the draft PSP, they would have seen that it also considered factors that could potentially affect its ability to maintain and deliver services. In particular, workforce and funding pressures as well as factors that would affect the scale and nature of the demand and range of risks and potential contingencies that it would likely to experience or need to plan for.

The Director of Finance and Assets advised Members that with regard to the updated pages 30 and 31, on 4 September 2019 the government spending round for 2019 was announced, this was around the time this report was written. The Director of Finance and Assets had now produced this addendum, with the latest financial position, to give Members, the public and the Authority’s staff the best information available. Prior to spending round 2019 the Authority was forecasting a 5% reduction in settlement funding assessment (business rates and revenue support grant) on a cash basis each year, on trends seen before. The report was showing the pre 2019 forecast and update forecast having now seen the announcements in spending round 2019. There was also an unofficial announcement afterwards that the pension grant funding received this year worth approximately £1.2M would continue into next year.

The Director of Finance and Assets advised Members, that whilst this picture looked more positive, he would urge caution as this was only a one year spending round. There was no certainty beyond one year and it may all change if there was a general election.

The Head of Service Development advised Members that the Authority had scheduled an eight week consultation which it was aiming to initiate from Monday 23 September 2019. At the heart of the consultation was the qualitative engagement with a representative sample of the public, via the focus groups, which enabled participants to offer an informed perspective on the Authority’s plans by giving them the opportunity to ask questions, debate and deliberate over the proposals.

In addition, Members would have seen that the Authority proposed to distribute the draft plan to a wide range of other stakeholders including its own staff, the representative bodies, neighbouring fire and rescue services, other blue light services, all layers of local government, MPs, voluntary sector organisations and business organisations. An online consultation channel would also be open throughout the eight week period to facilitate stakeholder feedback via completion of a structured questionnaire.

The Head of Service Development would also circulate links for the online consultation to Members for them to distribute to any other parties that might have an interest in participating in the consultation. Obviously, the plan was in draft form at this stage and, irrespective of any comments Members may have today, officers would welcome further input from Members during the consultation process alongside that received from other stakeholders. Feedback from the consultation would be reported to the February Authority meeting along with any recommended changes to the PSP for Members to approve as a result of the consultation outcomes and/or the findings of the Authority’s HMICFRS report which would be published in December.

A Member asked if the response times which had increased by 15 seconds in the current plan were being addressed and asked if comments on what the Authority was doing to redress that negative move could be included and was advised that there was a national trend around attendance times increasing and there was a number of factors which affected this. The Authority was looking at it more scientifically through data analysis, including where appliances needed to be based at different time of the day. The good news story was that because incidents were reducing and these were average attendance times, there were less incidents in urban areas where attendance times were generally quicker and disproportionally increasing in rural areas where travel times were longer and slower.

A Member asked a question regarding the challenges ahead summary and workforce pressures and felt it would be helpful to add some of the ways this was being addressed and was advised that this was agreed and more narrative would be added.

A Member asked a question regarding the financial pressures summary and was advised that although the picture looked more positive, the Authority was still going to be stretched, but if the Authority could increase local council tax, it would be a much more secure source of funding. As part of the consultation going out to the public, a question would be asked regarding if the Authority could increase council tax would people be prepared to spend £10, £5 or a few per cent to get a better service. It was really important that the Authority got that feedback from the public and it would continue to push government for that flexibility.

A Member asked if the word ‘adequately’ resource our front-line services (page 29) under ‘What does Success look like?’ could be changed to ‘appropriately’ and this was agreed.

A Member asked why there was no reference in the plan to the Safer MK Partnership Board and was advised that one of the Authority’s Group Commanders sat on the board of this partnership, and they would be included in the consultation.

A Member asked a question regarding the challenges ahead, the number of automatic fire alarms (AFA) and were alarms getting more sophisticated, and was advised that the Authority still saw the benefit in attending these for the crews to give assurance of a presence and also getting information on the site and to help educate.

A Member asked a question regarding the map in the consultation and asked why it did not show Bletchley and Great Holm Fire Stations and was advised that although these were historical incidents, it was a future look at where the Authority’s resources were going to be based.

A Member asked a question regarding road traffic collisions and electric vehicles as a new risk and was advised that the Authority kept abreast of all new technologies and the trainers and crews were well trained on electric vehicles. The mobile data terminals on appliances carried this information by putting in vehicle registrations/vehicle types and giving this information back to the crews.

The Chief Fire Officer advised that finances had improved compared to what the Authority was looking at before the spending review two months ago, but that was the issue, everything had changed in two months and it could change again. The Service itself had modernised and changed to adapt to the financial challenge and staff had met the challenge and certainly that should be reflected in the inspection report when it’s published. There was still uncertainly looking forward, the Authority had the lowest council tax of any combined fire authority in the country and the Authority had been lobbying government for a number of years. Until the increase in council tax was capped in percentage terms, the gap between the highest council tax and the lowest council tax continued to widen. The only certainty the Authority could get within the budget was through the council tax precept moving forward and that would give the Authority an opportunity to invest in the Service with the modernised approach it had taken over the last few years.

The Director of Finance and Assets advised Members that as well as the updated financials on pages 30 and 31, the consultation questions had also been rewritten to reflect the updated position.

A Member asked that the consultation report should show that the spending review was not definite and that there could be more uncertainty and was advised the reason there were pre and post figures, was to try and demonstrate that uncertainly and how quickly things could move in a couple of months and could potentially move again.

RESOLVED –

(Recommendation 1 having been proposed and seconded to be amended to include the text ‘subject to the requested amendments’):

1. That the draft 2020-2025 Public Safety Plan at Annex A be approved, subject to the requested amendments, for public consultation;

2. That the consultation plan at Annex B be approved;

3. That the Chief Fire Officer be granted discretion to finalise the presentation of the 2020-2025 Public Safety Plan in readiness for the consultation and to determine the consultation questions.