Future of the 2008 Fire and Rescue Service National Framework

The following comments represent the views and opinions of West Midlands Regional Management Board (WMRMB) (as agreed by the WMRMB Programme Board on 29 March 2007) regarding proposals for the next FRS National Framework:

•Is the Framework effective in conveying Government’s expectations of the fire and rescue service? How might we improve it?

The Framework acts, in part, as an effective means of capturing Government’s expectations for the FRS in one single document. The Framework could however be further improved by:
(i)Separating more clearly the responsibilities of RMBs from those of FRAs/FRSs.
(ii)Providing more specific outcomes through the use of ‘SMART’ objectives/targets.
(iii)Aligning expected outcomes to BVPIs.
(iv)Being more specific about ‘Must’ and ‘Should’ do statements. The current Framework is ambiguous in areas. As an example, the Firelink project (see paragraphs 4.28 – 4.33), which is clearly critical to the success of the FiReControl project, is neither a ‘Must’ or ‘Should’ do requirement for FRAs or RMBs.
(v)Government’s aims and objectives for RMBs and FRAs/FRSs should be balanced more carefully against the capacity available to effectively deliver the change required.

•Is the length of the document right? Do you think the document could be improved by including more or less detail?

The length of the current document, at 91 pages, is considered excessive. The Framework’s 22 pages of annexes and appendices, some have which have little working relevance to the Framework, are unnecessary. The equivalent framework document for Scottish FRSs is 49 pages and for Welsh FRAs the document is 69 pages, and as stated by another forum respondent its counterpart for the Police is a mere 36 pages. The Framework could be further improved by:
(vi)Removal of unnecessary reference material and substituting subject matter with appropriate and perhaps more up to date web-links.
(vii)In reality, RMBs and FRAs are primarily interested in the ‘Must’ and ‘Should’ do paragraphs. The remaining supplementary text of is minor relevance and could be reduced and in some instances removed.

•Are the chapter headings useful and covering the areas of most importance for the service? What are your views on how the content is structured overall?

The existing chapter headings are well set out. The Framework could however be further improved by:
(i)Each chapter would be better served by the inclusion of an introductory Executive Summary.
(ii)Including a chapter on ‘Working together: the local approach.’ The aim of such a chapter would be to address developments emerging through local area agreement arrangements, with a clear direction for FRAs/FRSs to become involved in partnership working to address locally defined community priorities.
(v)The Framework review should be mindful of the proposals contained within the Government White Paper ‘Safer Stronger Communities’ and the potential impact of increased involvement with partners within the community and the potential impact on the ability to maintain frontline services whilst developing and maintaining complex service delivery partnerships.
(vi)Details appertaining to the FiReControl (Paragraphs 2.8 – 2.14) and Firelink (Chapters 4.28 – 4.33) projects are discussed within two separate chapters. These two areas should be brought together within one chapter.
(vii)The inclusion of the FRSD Milestone Map within the Framework would be useful.

•Is the Framework’s two-year lifespan appropriate?

In brief, yes. It could even be increased to three years.

•Other comments from WMRMB:
WMRMB is supportive of the National Framework but believe that it could be further improved by:
(i)Establishing a ‘Framework Practitioner User Group’ to assist in the development of future Frameworks.
(ii)Appointing a ‘Framework Champion’ within CLG to offer clear focus and leadership.
(iii)The provision of more constructive links between government’s targets and priorities (Annex B of Framework) and the stated paragraphs that place Should and/or Must do requirements upon RMBs and FRAs.
(iv)Providing greater clarity regarding the relative order of priorities within the Framework, owing to the finite capacity of both RMBs and FRAs/FRSs. This essential to ensure major national projects (such as Firelink, FiReControl, New Dimensions, and IRS) are addressed within the limited capacity constraints that exist within the FRS. The inclusion within each chapter of a section on ‘Capacity Management’ might assist.
(v)The existing Framework includes no reference to measures/initiatives to reduce the impact of FRSs upon the environment. The Government has stated that public sector organisations must become more energy efficient to help avoid dangerous climate change and has recently launched a consultation on the most cost-effective measures to achieve major emissions reductions. (The consultation paper can be found at the following website address: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/carbon-emissions/consultation.pdf ). It would perhaps be prudent to include environmental objectives within the next Framework.
(vi)The Framework review should also be linked to the national review of IRMP.

Submitted by Steve Worrall, Programme Manager, on behalf of WMRMB
29 March 2007