Agenda item

To consider item 11

The Corporate Planning Manager advised Members that the report reflected any changes and updates made to the Corporate Risk Register since the last meeting. The risk register had been regularly reviewed by officers and also by Lead Members where individual risks fell within their areas of reference. Following feedback from Lead Members, a risk trend indicator had been added to Appendix 1, and although the risk scores and RAG statuses had not changed, there was upward pressure on two of the risks.

With regard to the staff availability risk, there were some positive developments, particularly regarding the current recruitment campaign to increase the number of firefighters. There were 31 candidates approaching the final stages of the recruitment process for wholetime firefighters, and 58 transferee applications in response to an advertisement for competent wholetime and on call firefighters. However, the risk remained at red rag status due to continuing risk of loss of existing operational staff to other fire and rescue services, in particular, London Fire Brigade, who were still actively recruiting. The Service was also experiencing difficulties in filling some specialist support roles, such as vehicle technicians for workshops. Also, due to the current position in relation to the national firefighter pay negotiations. On the 18 July, the Fire Brigade Union’s (FBU) Executive Council voted unanimously to reject the employers’ 2% pay offer following consultation with its members. In doing so, they signalled their intention to develop their case for a higher settlement, including preparations for strike action.

The Chief Fire Officer advised Members that a 2% offer was tabled by the employers to the Fire Brigade Union (FBU) but was rejected unanimously. In the last thirteen years, firefighters have had an increase of 13.5%, an average of 1% per year. The issue with firefighter pay had been building for a number of years. Firefighters, back office, and control staff were falling behind other public sector workers. Unless a renewed offer, of a substantial nature was tabled, the Chief Fire Officer expected there would be industrial action from the FBU this year. The root cause of the firefighter strike was lack of investment and the ability of Fire Authorities to pay. This Authority would be capped at 2% in terms of precept rises, and the ability to pay anything above that would mean a reduction in service. The Chief Fire Officer felt that firefighter’s pay needed to be underwritten by the government now and in the future. There was the same issue with Control staff in terms of recruitment, and the majority of the underspend within the budget was mainly attributed to not being able to recruit back office staff, mainly due to pay.

The Chief Fire Officer advised Members that this Service had reduced its workforce by 35% in the decade of austerity but had not reduced the number of fire engines, and this workforce had stepped up every time to cover those shortfalls. The Service’s response to multiple simultaneous incidents the previous day, was a prime example of this. Staff turning in for duty, cancelling arrangements, getting alternative childcare to respond to the issues, demonstrated their commitment to their communities.

It was agreed that the Chief Fire Officer should draft a cross party letter to the government regarding the need to fund a proper pay rise for fire staff (firefighters, control and back office staff).

The Corporate Planning Manager advised Members that the financial risk score and RAG status could potentially be raised due to the significant inflationary pressures in relation to fuel and energy costs and the potential for a higher than budgeted outcome to the annual staff pay settlement. The budget set in February 2022 included provision for a 2% settlement. The incremental cost of every additional 1% was around £200k per annum. There was also continuing uncertainty over the future of some central government grant funding.

The Director of Finance and Assets advised Members that as already discussed, the Service has had massive workforce cuts over the last numbers of years, but last year, the Authority started to reverse that trend. Members approved the £5 increase in council tax, and that allowed twenty wholetime staff to be added to the establishment. The inflation pressures were now threatening that. Even if the Authority was to get the option of a £5 increase again, £5 was around 7% so would still be under the inflationary increase.

The Director of Finance and Assets advised Members that as part of his national role, he was surveying all fire and rescue services to ask what their inflationary pressures were, and this would be put to the government.

It was agreed that the outcomes from this survey would be shared with the Committee Members once it was completed.

In answer to a question, the Director of Finance and Assets, advised Members that, inflation, energy prices peaks and troughs should become clearer over the next few months. When there was a fuel crisis, the government prioritised emergency services and he would ask the same question regarding gas and electric supplies.

A Member asked whether, given that the Authority has one of the lowest precepts in the country, this was an advantage or disadvantage.

The Director of Finance and Assets advised that it was a different playing field across different services. Not only were there different precepts, but different council tax bases. It worked in the Authority’s favour last year as the £5 increase was only offered to those authorities in the lowest quartile.

The Corporate Planning Manager advised Members that regarding the information and security risk, officers remained particularly vigilant and the Service’s email security ranking against the Southeast Government Warning Advisory and Reporting Point (SEGWARP) criteria had improved due to additional measures applied by the ICT team. This was important as it was one of the major routes hackers used to gain access to systems using methods such as phishing.

Regarding other risks, the position was more stable. The Covid-19 resurgence risk had been rising up the news agenda, with increases in infection rates nationally, but this does not appear to be presenting quite the same level of risk to life as with the earlier strains of the virus. There was nothing to add regarding the McCloud Sargeant pensions risk, but it continued to be monitored.

A Member asked whether, that although the Authority had a Climate Change Strategy, the impact of climate change was properly reflected on the Corporate Risk Register.

The Corporate Planning Manager advised Members that what they saw on the Corporate Risk Register, was the very top of the risk pyramid, and below that, the Directorate level registers covered a number of different risks, and climate change was on the Prevention, Response and Resilience Register focussing on the potential for service failure and the failure to protect people from risks associated with climate change; however it was agreed that the issue would be revisited in the next iteration of the Corporate Risk Register.

RESOLVED –

1.                  That the status on identified corporate risks at Annex C be reviewed and approved.

2.                  That comments be provided to officers for consideration and attention in future updates / reports.