Agenda item

The Chair introduced Steve Polly from the Fire Strategy and Reform Unit of the Home Office, who gave members an overview of the revised national framework and noted that the consultation on this would run until 14 February.

Steve gave members an overview of the revised framework and said that the framework sets out priorities and objectives rather than providing an exhaustive list of what fire and rescue services should and should not do, while also allowing for a certain degree of localism. It was noted that the last consultation on the framework was carried out in 2012 so it was decided that it was now time to bring it in line with the introduction of HMICFRS inspections. The team hoped to bring the framework into effect in May but members were advised that delivery of the new framework was dependent on time being given to the issue in parliament as secondary legislation would be needed.

In terms of the changes made to the framework, Steve noted that they were not radical and that the majority of the framework, while looking different, remains the same. He said that the Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) remained fundamental to how FRSs operate, regardless of their governance model, and that priorities and core functions remained broadly the same. Members were told that the framework now incorporates the NFCC and HMICFRS, outlines how Police and Fire Crime Commissioner’s act in accordance with the Policing and Crime Act 2017, includes the statutory duty to collaborate, lists existing legislation requirements for how FRAs should support trading companies, requirements for FRAs not to appoint ‘boomerang bosses’, requires FRAs to publish a medium term financial strategy, efficiency plan and reserves strategy as well as a people strategy, which would cover diversity, culture, recruitment, progression and health and wellbeing.

Steve was keen to hear member’s views on the consultation document and the following comments were made:

·         There was a lot of focus on PCC structures in the framework but not as much around mayoral structures. The document needs to make sure combined authorities also know what they need to achieve and whether they should follow this framework as well. Steve noted that there was a table in his presentation which outlined what each sort of governance model should look like. The presentation was circulated to members following the meeting.

·         Some concerns were raised about scrutiny arrangements for Police and Fire Crime Commissioners (PFCCs) and a number of members felt they should be strengthened, while another comment was made suggesting that it was up to authorities and council leaders to ensure that members on scrutiny panels were effective.

·         Members were pleased that IRMP guidelines remained, noting that it generally does its job and gives Chief Fire Officers the authority and credibility to deliver the public’s expectations. Members also felt that the duty to collaborate needed to be taken seriously but that some services would benefit from a better understanding of the legislation.

·         It was suggested that the wording of paragraph 7.13 on Page 23 of the document was unclear and ambiguous, and that it needed to be clearer about the fact that the position was ‘agreed’ by the Government and NFCC but not employees representatives such as the Fire Brigades Union. The Home Office said they would look at the working on this point.

Decision

Members noted the report.

Action

Officers to consider members’ comments and send a draft response to lead members for approval before submitting it to the consultation formally.