Themes in Emergency Planning, Response and Recovery (EM12) The new National Framework for Fire and Rescue Services Nottingham Trent University November 2012 Pete Murphy and Kirsten Greenhalgh Nottingham Business School Nottingham 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 Recommendations for a new intervention, recovery and support regime anticipated and/or assumed by the new 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 -The research stage of the Intervention and Recovery project is on-going but should result in recommendations for the design and implementation of a new support and intervention regime under the new regime.

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 were 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 proposals for “Commissioned Services” in the Open Public Services White Paper of 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”

Introduction and Priorities The priorities for authorities are to:- Identify and assess the full range of foreseeable fire and rescue related risks their areas face, 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 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 1: Safer Communities Identify and Assess all foreseeable FR risks to communities reflected in Integrated Risk Management Plans Each FRA much produce an IRMP that identifies and assesses all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks that could affect its community, including those of a cross-border, multi-authority and/or national nature. The plans must have regard to the National Risk Register, Community Risk Registers produced by Local Resilience Forums under the Civil Contingencies Act and any other local risk analysis as appropriate.

Chapter 1: Safer Communities FRA’s must work with communities to identify and protect them from risk and to prevent incidents from occurring. The IRMP must.. Demonstrate how prevention, protection and response activities will best be used to mitigate the impact of risk on communities, through authorities working either individually or collectively, in a cost effective way. Set out its management strategy and risk based programme for enforcing the provisions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Chapter 1: Safer Communities Emergency Response FRAs must make provision to respond to incidents such as fires, road traffic accidents and emergencies within their area and in other areas in line with their mutual aid agreements, and reflect this in their IRMPs. FRAs must have effective …business continuity arrangements.. to meet all service delivery risks. FRAs must collaborate with other FRA to deliver intraoperability, and with resilience forums to ensure interoperability.

Chapter 1: Safer Communities Local, Cross Border, (not to say regional) and National Resilience FRAs need..the necessary capacity in place to manage the majority of risks that may face their areas, either individually or collectively… The remainder deals with national resilience collective engagement, gaps in capacity and working in partnership

Chapter 2: Accountable to communities Each 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 necessary to ensure that fire and rescue authorities are able to deliver the requirements set out in this Framework reflect up to date risk analyses and the evaluation of service delivery outcomes

Chapter 2: Accountable to communities Advice on Scrutiny Arrangements Must hold Chief Fire Officer or Chief Executive Officer to account for delivery Make arrangements for challenge and scrutiny Make their communities aware of how they can access data and information on their 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 – biennial report to parliament.

Interpretation of the new Framework The new framework is consistent with the Open Public Services White Paper (2011), the DCLG position at the Select Committee (2011) and previous government statements on local government reform It articulates and differentiates the FRAs responsibilities for responding to both national F&R and resilience issues, and suggests proposals for “closing the gaps”. It proposes a hands off, light touch and self governing model for local FRAs when addressing both fire and rescue and resilience issues at local or cross boundary scales. 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 – but does it help answer any of them?

Questions and Answers? In the remainder of this presentation we are going to identify the key questions and examine them in the light of :- Project 1: The research and commentary that we have previously published in relation to the National Framework, Project 2: The research and evaluations of the IRMP in the Nottinghamshire Fire Cover Review and some comparisons we undertook with other services as part of that evaluation; and Project 3: Early work on the previous “Support and Intervention” arrangements for Fire and Rescue Services and its likely adequacy for the future. With the focus on Project 2.

Key Questions - Safer Communities What would the Audit Commissions Key Lines of Enquiry be 1. Has the FRA identified all foreseeable fire and rescue related risks including those of a cross-border, multi-authority and/or national nature that could affect its community and reflected these in the IRMP? 2. Has the FRA demonstrated how prevention, protection and response activities will best be used to mitigate the impact of risk on their communities 3. Has the FRA demonstrated that they have robust business continuity arrangements in place and that they can deliver intraoperability and interoperability. 4. Does the FRA have the necessary capacity in place to manage the majority of risks that may face their areas, either individually or collectively and are they contributing appropriately to collective arrangements for national resilience?

Key Questions (KLOEs): Accountability 5. Is the IRMP easily accessible and publicly available? 6. Has public consultation been effective throughout its development and at all review stages? 7. Does it cover at least a three year time span and is it reviewed and revised as often as it is necessary? 8. Does it reflect up to date risk analyses and the evaluation of service delivery outcomes? 9. Are scrutiny and challenge arrangements fit for purpose? 10. Can the FRA demonstrate that their communities are aware of how to access data and information and that this is appropriate for comparing performance?

Key Questions (KLOEs): Assurance 11. Are robust mechanisms in place to provide independent assurance? 12. Do these provide assurance on financial, governance and operational matters and pay due regard to the expectations set out in their IRMP and the national framework? 13. Is this readily available to the public in an annual statement? 14. Is the FRA contributing to the identification of wider national and cross border risks, specialist capacity and meeting any capacity gaps?

The Barsetshire Peer Review Scorecard Safety 1. Yes in short term – no in medium/ long term 2. Questionable 3. Not demonstrable to public 4. Yes Accountability 5. Yes 6. Yes 7. Yes to date 8. Yes 9. No 10. Yes and No Assurance 11. No 12. No 13. No 14. Yes as far as we can tell? Total 7 ½ out of 14

Key Questions (KLOEs): Support and Intervention Arrangements Is the proposed regime fit for purpose, in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness? Does it facilitate continuous improvement and optimise risk reduction and mitigation? Are reporting and scrutiny arrangements adequate to reassure the public and the government? Are individual and collective roles and responsibilities clear, mechanisms and techniques up to date and reporting and scrutiny arrangements acknowledged best practise? This is the subject of our presentation at RE12 on Thursday

Questions?