Agenda item

Dan Tasker from the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Services will update members on this item.

Dan Tasker, Area Manager at Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority, attended the meeting to give members an update on the work he is doing on the Professional Standards Body Project.

Dan explained that part of the fire reform agenda was the need to create a suite of standards for the fire and rescue service. The Professional Standards Body (PSB) Project team has been commissioned to create a consistent, accountable and transparent set of standards which the service can strive to achieve and also be measure against. This is an ongoing process and the project team are working closely with HMICFRS, as well as looking at how existing standards bodies work for other public services. Research undertaken as part of the project had been narrowed down to two primary means of delivering standards – physical standard setting and a standardised approach to delivery. The PSB would provide a clear, standardised approach on how to achieve a benchmark level of standards but the model by which this is delivered was still up for discussion. Dan outlined four possible delivery models – the fully absorbed model within the College of Policing, the mirror model where the PSB was part of the College of Policing but produced separate fire standards, an affiliated or collaborative model with the College of Policing, and a FRS-led model. It was suggested that the second and third options look most useful and that the affiliated model seemed to be a popular choice with stakeholders.

The affiliation model of delivering standards would allow for two separate colleges – one for fire standing alongside the College of Policing – with collaboration at its heart. This would involve joint standards, codes of ethics and scene investigation, with the fire and rescue service already works with the police on. The PSB was looking at how best to bring joint strategic leadership programmes, as well as joint research and development hubs together to benefit both services.

In terms of funding, members were told that there had to be an idea of the scope and nature of the standards agreed, as well as the size of the organisation needed to deliver such standards before an accurate suggestion of costs could be made. The project team had started to look at where potential funding could come from and it was noted that a lot of what is needed already exists so it could be a matter of utilising existing capacity to deliver a standards body. Consideration was also being given to a transition grant fund and whether fire authorities would need funding support to achieve new standards.

Dan concluded by saying that developing standards involves a six-stage process which can take up to 18 months but as a number of standards already exist, it may not take this long.

Following the presentation, members made the following comments:

·         Members wanted clarity about the number of bodies looking at standards for the fire service and where responsibility for setting standards would ultimately sit. Dan said that there was still a lot of debate to be had on this point and that the governance structure was still being considered.

·         A question was asked about how the Professional Standards Body fits in with the National Occupational Committee which is also setting standards. Dan agreed that this was confusing as there were a number of organisations claiming to be setting national standards, including: the Institute of Fire Engineers, the National Occupational Committee, the National Occupational Standards, the National Operation Guidance Programme. It was noted that pulling all of these strands together to ensure a single set of clear standards was the purpose of the Professional Standards Body.

·         Concerns were raised about how this project and the delivery of standards would be paid for. It was noted that the College of Policing receives funding from the Home Office but it wasn’t clear whether additional money would be available for the fire service. Chloe Dunnett from the Home Office noted that this project was not seeking to replicate the College of Policing but that efforts to work jointly with the sector were being made to create something different which was fit for purpose. The Home Office position is that consideration needs to be given to creating something which is value for money and identifying the funding streams was critical in deciding what would be the best way forward.  Members felt that the Home Office should assign as much money to the fire service as it does to the police service and that cut backs or efficiency savings already being made in the fire service could only go so far.

·         Members suggested that research and development across the sector ought to be brought together to avoid carrying out the same work many times over. There is a need to be more efficient in deciding who does what and where the money comes from for research.

·         A point was made that establishing one set of standards was a good way to be efficient in terms of working with other regions so that national policy can be agreed to and delivered at a local level. Members said that it was one thing to talk about a national strategy but another to deliver it on the ground. Concerns were raised about underestimating the cost of individual and collaborative standards departments to ensure checks and balances are maintained through this process.

Decision:

Members noted the report and suggested that the report’s recommendations should feature concerns about funding.