Agenda item

CFO Derbyshire FRS, Gavin Tomlinson, to join

The Chair invited Mark Norris, Principal Policy Adviser, and CFO Gavin Tomlinson, Fire Safety Lead for the NFCC, to introduce the report.

Gavin delivered a presentation on the catalysts for the Government’s proposed reforms to the building safety regime and the implications of the measures contained in the Building Safety Bill for FRSs across the country. In particular, the concerns of both the NFCC and LGA were outlined that there would not be enough resources available for FRAs to fulfil both their obligations under the new Bill and also their obligations under local Integrated Risk Management Plans. This lack of resource was both financial and also tied to the supply of trained personnel required to fulfil the workload. In addition, secondary legislation would be required before services could recover their costs from the Regulator. The new Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent by the Spring/Summer of 2022 with commencement of the new Regulator following 12-18 months later.

The NFCC’s work had identified the following key issues for the sector in England:

·       240-250 additional fire engineer roles required to deliver on the Bill

·       £40m funding gap over next 3 years, with DLUHC likely only funding half of this

·       Just 1 year before Gateways 2 and 3 come in

·       Fire Safety Act 2021 – most Fire Risk Assessments will need revising to take into account external walls and common parts of residential buildings

·       Additional work needed around the large number of Medium Rise Residential Buildings

Members’ comments and questions:

·       Concern was expressed about the funding / resource gap resulting from the new burdens placed by the Bill. This should be flagged up as a significant risk for most FRAs moving forward and could have a detrimental impact on their capacity to undertake current IRMP work. What more could the LGA and NFCC do to be more proactive in getting Government to acknowledge the problem and provide adequate funding? Mark Hardingham said that all these concerns had been aired with the Home Office and DLUHC at the monthly Fire Protection Board meetings. The NFCC had been asked to provide a business case for what could be provided with less funding and this had been presented to DLUHC. DLUHC was still yet to confirm the final amount of money available and so it would be important to continue to lobby jointly to press for full reimbursement of the new burdens. Mark Norris added that there was scope for further engagement and lobbying at ministerial level but, given the confidential source of some of the data, it was not considered wise to raise the issue publicly at this stage.

·       There was considered to be a wider skills issue across the sector that needed to be addressed. This included the loss of highly experienced trained staff to the private sector, and also the capacity in the system to train the required number of staff in time for the new Regulator. Mark Hardingham acknowledged that the investment in protection services post Grenfell had made staff significantly more marketable and the workforce was now more mobile than it had ever been. This was also set against a background of reduced numbers of inspecting officers in the 10 years pre-Grenfell. However, work was being done by the NFCC to try and improve productivity and efficiency in the workforce to try and bridge some of the gap. But the expectation was that the burden would not be fully funded.

·       Were FRSs generally behind on inspection work even prior to the introduction of the new Regulator?

Decision:

FSMC noted the report and presentation, and the implications for FRAs of the situation outlined.