Draft London Safety Plan 2010/2013 - Fire Brigades Union London

More documents

Recommendations

Info

context (ranked 8th highest), but below average when compared to metropolitan FRAs (ranging from 0.65 to 1.25). London’s actual ADF incident rate is lower than all three predicted rates as modelled by government. The table in Annex 5 summarises the percentage of households owning a working smoke alarm by the Government Office region in England. Smoke alarm ownership in London increased by 4.5 per cent to almost 70 per cent between 2002/03 and 2004/05; this increase is in line with other government office regions. However, the percentage of London households owning a working smoke alarm still stands around ten percentage points lower than other region. The graphs in Annex 6 show the cost per head of population and cost per incident by FRA in 2007/08. Cost per head of population ranges from around £30 in Suffolk to just under £60 in Cleveland. Metropolitan FRAs are shown to be more expensive and this is mostly due to the fact that less urban FRAs are more dependent on retained duty system staff to provide operational cover. London is ranked second highest in terms of cost per head across the country, which is likely to be due to the dependence on wholetime appliances plus market force factors, e.g. London Weighting, that influence staff wage costs. Annex 7 shows how cost per head has changed between 2006/07 and 2007/08. The cost of the fire service in England has increased by 1.8 per cent, and in comparison, our costs have only increased by 1.2 per cent. Cost per incident ranges from just over £4,000 in Merseyside to around £14,000 in the Isle of Wight. London is ranked second highest nationally in terms of cost per incident (£13,332). WHY WE NEED SO MANY FIRE ENGINES We have been concerned that the Audit Commission has suggested that we may have too many fire engines (and therefore firefighters). But we were also concerned that the Audit Commission has painted an excessively simplistic picture of the resourcing model that should apply in the fire service. In particular, they have questioned the fact that reduced demand for attendance at incidents has not produced an equivalent reduction in the number of crews maintained to respond to incidents: The Audit Commission say “… the current capacity does not represent good value for money”. For the most part, that has not happened (in London nor elsewhere) because the number and disposition of crews affects attendance times. Some places produce little demand for attendance. But when that attendance is required, it can only be serviced in a way that maximises (but does not guarantee) rescue and the minimisation of damage and casualties, by having crews that can attend quickly. A specific concern in London has been that the Audit Commission has done no work to demonstrate the particular demands which can arise if there are very large and lengthy incidents. Such incidents may be the product of terrorism or some other catastrophic event, such as a train crash, but they may also include ’normal business’. In the light of the Audit Commission’s recent study, we decided to look closer at the resources that were consumed by some specific large incidents and their impact on the remainder of the service to London. The section on ‘Understanding and managing risks’, earlier in our plan, includes details of the arrangements we put in place to support large incidents. Our conclusion from this work is that there are regular enough large incidents in London to justify the level of emergency response capacity which we hold ready each day. WOULD WE BE MORE EFFICIENT IF WE WORKED MORE WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING FIRE BRIGADES We also looked at whether our six neighbouring brigades (in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey) could support us more when, perhaps, the number of fire engines available in London was significantly reduced. However, we found that average travel times to our nearest stations ranged between seven and a half minutes to over 88 minutes with the median averages being at the higher end of these times. We do not consider that the attendance times involved in relying on our neighbours is acceptable. However we will continue to work with them to ensure that we support each other in times of peak or excess demand, but the potential for cross border attendances as part of normal service are limited. WHAT OTHER EFFICIENCIES HAVE WE ACHIEVED We have exceeded our efficiency targets to date – achieving cashable savings totalling £33.457 million in the period 2004/05 to 2007/08, which is 71 per cent above London’s share of the overall efficiency target for the fire and rescue service. The national efficiency target for the fire and rescue service is to achieve cash-releasing net 40
annual efficiency savings of £110m by the end of 2010/2011. This equates to £20m for LFEPA over three years. Our focus on efficiency has been enhanced over the past year through the introduction of a more strategic approach to budget review. We have conducted efficiency reviews of all departments in the organisation, and also conducted some thematic reviews of areas in which we considered further efficiencies could be identified. We intend to build on this approach for future years by fully integrating efficiency into our performance management framework and to ensure that delivery of value for money services is our key objective. This will require full evaluation of the effectiveness of our activities, including integrating customer, user and stakeholder engagement and feedback into our planning. It is important to remember that as the capital city and as a leading world financial and business centre, London faces distinctive challenges, including a higher risk of terrorist attack than any other city in the UK. To meet this challenge, the Brigade spends in the region of £34m on specific resilience work each year with only a very small proportion (£4m) funded by central government. Our work to keep London safe helps to keep the UK safe. We believe that the grant funding regime for London should be changed in a way that recognises that the resilience and security costs associated with the capital city are met by central government rather than the London tax payer. Our co-ordination role in responding during emergencies has grown considerably over recent years. One of our key priorities is reducing the number of fires that occur and preventing the tragic consequences that fires can bring. We have calculated that since 2004-05 the reduction in the number of fires in London each year has delivered savings in economic cost to London of over £92m – this figure is calculated in terms of the damage, human suffering and criminal justice system costs that each fire causes. service. The funding formula that decides the distribution of that overall funding between fire and rescue authorities is also being reviewed. We believe that the funding formula should be changed in a way that recognises that the resilience and security costs associated with the capital city are met by central government rather than the London tax payer. BETTER VALUE We expect the next few years to be challenging financially with reductions in future government spending and the ongoing economic uncertainty which is likely to affect both interest and inflation rates. Our strategic budget review process has been designed to improve our ability to plan for this uncertain future and ensure that budgeting is focussed on the longer term strategy as well as the immediate need for savings. A key part of the uncertainty for the future concerns the grant settlement beyond the current funding period which ends next year. We expect at best a cash freeze and probably a reduction in overall funding for the fire 41
Page 1 and 2: Draft London Safety Plan 2010/2013
Page 3 and 4: Operational improvements ..........
Page 5 and 6: FOREWORD Ron Dobson, Commissioner f
Page 7 and 8: SECTION 1 - ABOUT US AND THIS PLAN
Page 9 and 10: through the GLA Group responsible p
Page 11 and 12: SECTION 2 - UNDERSTANDING AND MANAG
Page 13 and 14: this incident was taking place. We
Page 15 and 16: MAPPING OUR PREVENTION PRIORITIES T
Page 17 and 18: FIRES IN DWELLINGS We attend around
Page 19 and 20: Around 20 percent of our calls to f
Page 21 and 22: We will however need to set our tar
Page 23 and 24: other enforcement actions (both for
Page 25 and 26: SECTION 3 - WHAT WE PLAN TO DO PREV
Page 27 and 28: This and other incidents in London
Page 29 and 30: OUR HEADLINE TARGETS The five-year
Page 31 and 32: AIM 2 - PROTECTION Influencing and
Page 33 and 34: RESOURCES, PEOPLE AND PRINCIPLES De
Page 35 and 36: the increased use of computer-based
Page 37 and 38: AIM 5 - PEOPLE Working together to
Page 39: SECTION 4 - HOW EFFICIENT WE ARE On
Page 43 and 44: we have a borough structure and are
Page 45 and 46: Annex two NotLondon Fire Brigade Be
Page 47 and 48: Annex four Isle of Wight Cumbr ia H
Page 49 and 50: 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BV 150 - Cos
Page 52 and 53: APPENDIX OUR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Page 54 and 55: arrangements, equipment maintenance
Page 56 and 57: OUR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWOR
Page 58 and 59: What we said we would do during 200
Page 72: www.london-fire.gov.uk

Draft London Safety Plan 2010/2013 - Fire Brigades Union London

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?