Agenda item

Report of the Chief Fire Officer

The Nottinghamshire Fire Brigades Union submitted a question on alternative crewing as follows:

‘Whilst the FBU recognises that government imposed financial pressures on the Authority are continuing, it is a growing concern of the FBU that proposals like alternative crewing conflicts with the fundamental principles to successfully resolve incidents and ability to maintain the safety of firefighters is likely to be compromised and goes against the position of the FBU nationally.

With proposed changes to crewing arrangements, what assurances are the Authority able to provide the FBU that firefighter safety will not be compromised, where the FBU believe insufficient crew are available to resolve a dynamic and escalating incident?’

The Chair responded as follows:

‘The Service already has well established procedures to deploy additional resources should they believe the incident being responded to is dynamic or escalating. In all circumstance where there is a risk to life or property, appliances with less than 4 crew members will be deployed in addition to the normal level of attendance.

The Service has well trained operational commanders able to deal with complex situations whilst additional resources are en route, and this will be under pinned through the development of robust risk assessments, procedures and tactics, and I would encourage the FBU to engage with Management in this work.’

The Nottinghamshire Fire Brigades Union submitted a question on mixed crewing as follows:

‘The FBU is significantly concerned regarding the continued recommendation of crewing arrangements that reduce public services, or encourage a move away from nationally recognised terms and conditions of the NJC grey book. The Chief Fire Officer’s recommendation to implement mixed crewing at Ashfield and Retford fire stations is in our view another example that compounds national concerns over recruitment and retention of sufficient RDS personnel. The stations are currently very low on staffing numbers and will struggle to deliver the proposed crewing model, without the continued help and co-operation of FBU members.

What assurances can the Authority provide that any implementation strategy for crewing arrangements, including mixed crewing, addresses our concerns over recruitment, training and sustainability of the proposal, that maintains appliance availability to communities, while maintaining NJC grey book terms and conditions of service to our members?’

The Chair responded as follows:

‘The Authority recognises the very real pressures on the traditional working arrangements of retained duty personnel and difficulty in recruiting staff to provide day-time cover. 

The Chief fire Officer believes that recruiting retained staff to provide night-time cover will be more successful. Furthermore, the increased numbers of calls being responded to by the retained sections is likely to offer a more attractive package and assist with competency and retention.

To support this work the proposals within the report identify £200,000 investment across all retained sections to increase their day-time capacity and resilience. This will require innovative ways of working that will be beneficial to all parties and I would again encourage the FBU to engage with managers in this work.’

The Authority received a presentation from Dale Hall and Kelly Lock of Opinion Research Services Ltd on the Shaping Our Future public consultation exercise on alternative crewing and mixed crewing, highlighting the following points:

(a)  the consultation exercise was very wide-ranging, but was not meant to be a local referendum. Rather, it was a means of informing judgements on what was in the interests of ‘the public good’;

(b)   there were 2,665 open questionnaires returned during the consultation period, 8 public focus groups were held across Nottinghamshire (89 attendees), as well as 2 staff focus groups (11 attendees). In addition, 11 written submissions were received, along with a ‘Save Ashfield’s Firefighters online petition (2,375 signatures) and a joint standardised submission from John Mann MP and the Fire Brigades Union (4,256 responses);

(c)   over half of respondents to the open questionnaire disagreed with the alternative crewing proposals, and over 70% of respondents disagreed with mixed crewing proposals. Proposals were almost unanimously endorsed at Public Focus Group meetings.  7 of the 11 written submissions objected to mixed crewing, while there was a more even response on alternative crewing proposals;

(d)  while it was clear that there was public anxiety about the proposals, interpreting the outcomes of local protesting campaigns was difficult in view of the lack of partiality in framing information on the proposals.

John Buckley, Chief Fire Officer, presented the report on mixed and alternative crewing and proposing changes to the operational service delivery. The following points were highlighted:

(e)  savings had to be made, and the alternative to the proposals would involve the removal of appliances and/or the closure of stations. Two East Midlands Fire and Rescue Services have already introduced similar service delivery models;

(f)  it was recognised that recruitment of retained staff was a national issue;

(g)  there has been a 40% reduction in incidents, and the majority occur between 12 noon and 8.30pm. This means that there is a lack of availability in the day but lots of availability at night. Greater flexibility in overall capacity was needed to address demand and secure savings;

(h)  the proposals were estimated to increase response times by 5 minutes. However, the proposals also ensured that there will be no redundancies and will create a more flexible, skilled service.

The following comments were made:

(i)  it was confirmed that the changes will not be fully implemented until a full staffing complement is in place;

(j)  the proposals disproportionately affected Ashfield district, leaving just 2 appliances to cover up to 100,000 homes in Mansfield and Ashfield;

(k)  public submissions and petitions demonstrated a significant majority of affected citizens not in favour of the proposals, and these concerns were not being given adequate consideration;

(l)  it will not prove possible to get to Ashfield Station within 5 minutes, and it is not possible to confirm that the proposals will not cost lives;

(m)  the proposals have not been drawn up lightly, and both the Chief Fire Officer and the Authority cannot avoid operating within the financial envelope as set by central government;

(o)  there was a collective responsibility to deliver the most effective Service within the financial constraints that were outside the control of the Authority and the Fire and Rescue Service senior leadership.

RESOLVED to

(1)  approve the implementation of alternative crewing at all retained sections within the Service;

(2)  approve the implementation of the mixed crewing model at both Ashfield and Retford fire stations;

(3)  request that the Chief Fire Officer provide a future report on the amendments required to the permanent establishment of both retained and wholetime firefighter posts; and

(4)  periodic reviews are undertaken on the impact of alternative and mixed crewing, and that outcome reports are subsequently presented to the Fire Authority for consideration.

Councillor Jason Zadrozny voted against resolutions (1) to (4) above, and asked that his vote be recorded.

Councillor Mike Quigley and Councillor Phil Rostance abstained in respect of resolutions (1) to (4) above, and asked that their abstentions be recorded.