Agenda item

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue, Zoe Billingham, will attend to speak on this item.

The Chair introduced HMI Zoe Billingham, who gave members an update on the future inspection of fire and rescue services following the appointment of HMICFRS as the inspectorate. Zoe wanted to reinforce the idea that the new inspectorate would be working closely with FRAs and that an inspection would not work in isolation. Members were told that the inspection system would be developed with the service to promote improvement and identify existing excellence across the fire and rescue service. FRAs would be given advance notice of inspections and the inspectorate will use experts from across the service in the delivery of inspections and to issue guidance to FRAs on how to do well.

Members were told that inspections would focus on three key areas: operational service delivery, organisational effectiveness and efficiency. The inspections would entail one week of fieldwork, during which time staff would be asked for data as well as a self-assessment of strengths. As the inspection methodology develops, HMICFRS will carry out two or possibly three pilot inspections. 45 FRAs had so far volunteered to take part in these pilots. The actual inspections would be conducted in three tranches over 18 months starting in April 2018. The inspection plan HMICFRS would be working to would be published in March 2018. Once the first round had been completed inspections would then be carried out on a risk based approach. 

Zoe concluded her presentation by assuring members that the inspectorate would continue to work closely with the service and that there would be a wide ranging consultation of the inspection programme as it progresses.

Following the presentation, members made the following comments:

·         It is important to talk with stakeholders as well as those directly involved in the service. Members were advised that the inspectorate was seeking public opinion through surveys, opinion polls and focus groups, and that they were considering which other public service bodies ought to be involved in the process.

·         Concerns were raised about funding pressures but members were assured that the inspectorate was being funded to carry out this work and that there would be no additional charge to services taking part in the initial pilots or inspections going forward.

·         Members questioned whether the goalposts for inspections were likely to change as the inspectorate goes through different batches of the pilot. Members were keen to ensure there would be no advantage to services that were inspected at a later stage. Zoe agreed that while lessons would be learnt as the process goes on, the goalposts would not be moved.

·         The use of language during these inspections was discussed, with members concerned that some of the language used in inspections in other sectors had the potential to humiliate authorities – ‘excellent, good, poor’ etc. Members suggested that the language used needs to be careful while provided a useful description of the quality of the service. Zoe said that reports of inspections would be given in the clearest terms and that there would be a single graded judgement of each FRA, as well as scores of each of the three strands of inspection.

·         Members were keen to see peer involvement included in the inspection system and they suggested that both officer and member peer involvement would make the inspections more credible. Members questioned whether the inspections would look at the governance of the service. Members were told that while there is value in including peer inspectors, there are complications relating to legislation and that as judgements will be of operational service delivery, the HMICFRS does not necessarily see a role for member peers. That said, Zoe suggested that there was room for conversation about this and that over time, a corporate governance type of inspection, only to be used rarely, would be developed and that there could be a role for member peers there.

·         Members were keen to see clarity in the terms of inspections and made the point that the terms need to be clear and in language that the public can understand. Zoe agreed that judgement grades need to be clear and that there needs to be a balance between being frank about the quality of a service being provided and not alarming the public unduly in cases where the service is not performing as it should.

Decision:

Members noted the recommendations set out in the paper.

Action:

Officers to proceed as necessary.