Agenda item

Charles Loft, Senior Advisor, introduced the paper which summarises the Home Office’s proposals for re-introducing an inspectorate for Fire and Rescue Authorities, and the proposed LGA response.

The Home Secretary has been critical of Peer Challenge and has introduced amendments to the Policing and Crime bill to introduce an inspection regime on similar lines to the police inspectorate. However, the Home Office has recognised that Peer Challenge does have a role for self-improvement.

Gary Hughes, Principal Advisor, emphasised that Fire Peer Challenge is not an inspection tool; instead it is about constantly driving improvements to the service. The demand for Peer Challenge is great and they are booked until June 2017. The LGA sees it as a very successful sector-led improvement model.

The LGA is keen to engage with the Home Office with the aim of ensuring there is an effective and efficient inspection regime and for FSMC members to provide views on how the Peer Challenge offer could be adapted to secure a future for Peer Challenge alongside the new inspection regime.

There was a discussion during which members made a number of comments:

·         The LGA and CFOA had already revised the Peer Challenge to make it more forward looking, and it was possible for there to be both inspection and peer review.

·         There were concerns about additional bureaucracy around an inspection regime and it should be proportionate to the budget and capacity of the FRS.

·         The Committee invited the Director to attend a Peer Review to gain a better understanding of their role.

·         The Committee reiterated its support for the idea of an inspection framework.

·         Inspection would need to take account of collaboration, partnership working and co-responding.

·         Inspection could be used to check if the recommendations of a Peer Review have been carried out.

·         When the government removed the previous inspection regime it retained the financial savings and therefore any new inspection regime should not place the financial burden onto local government.

The Director responded on behalf of the Home Office:

·         The Home Secretary’s rationale for inspection is to increase efficiency and to drive up standards.

·         It needs to be proportionate and not to become a burden and the Home Office was keen to work with the sector on that.

·         There was then a question about how the Peer Review could be refreshed to sit alongside inspection.

·         There will be a consultation in the autumn on an inspection framework.

·         A number of Home Office colleagues had already participated in the Peer Challenge process and been complimentary about it.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to remove recommendation 21.2 and to deal with this issue as part of its wider work with the Home Office on inspection. The committee agreed that there should be an equivalence of inspection regimes across all types of fire authorities.

The Committee agreed to engage with the Home Office to shape and influence the design and creation of fire inspectorate and continue its commitment to the principal of sector-led improvement, with further reports brought back to the Committee.

The following members indicated they would be willing to inform the ongoing development of the Operational Assessment and Fire Peer Challenge: Cllrs Hammond, Acton, Hilton & TBC.