Report - Fire Brigades Union

SECTION B — FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE POLICY
Circular 2010HOC0212AD 1 April 2010
To: ALL MEMBERS
Dear Brother/Sister
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SELECT
COMMITTEE REPORT – PUBLICATION
The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Select
Committee have today published their report on FiReControl,
which can be seen on the following link:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/
cmcomloc/352/352.pdf
The report is a damning indictment of the project.
Select Committee condemns CLG for not cooperating with
its work.
The Select Committee (SC) states: “our inquiry has been
hampered by the Government decision not to provide us
with sight of various reviews of the FiReControl project
carried out for CLG.” 1 Those external reviews were seen by
the National Audit Office (NAO) which reported in February
2010. In what the FBU considers to be a significant criticism of
the Department, the SC Report says that “CLG’s written
evidence refers to the review implying that their
conclusions were positive” 2 and then goes on to say
“However, repeated references in the NAO’s
memorandum to the same reviews suggested that may
not be the full story.” 3
It is clear that the public safety fiasco known as FiReControl is
now more than simply a matter of mis-management of a key
component of the delivery of fire and rescue services. CLG’s
refusal to hand over the external reviews on the matter, has
developed into one that seems to point to obstruction of
independent parliamentary scrutiny of a project which has cost
millions of pounds, which has been subject to delay after delay,
and is still nowhere being created, let alone functioning!
The Select Committee Report on first reading seems
disappointing. The Select Committee highlights that CLG had
had essentially cited its record on FiReControl as an indication
that it had learnt its lessons from the criticism meted out by
the Public Accounts Committee regarding the New
Dimensions project. 4 Despite the fact that CLG has learned no
lessons whatsoever, the Select Committee does not
recommend the abandonment of the Project.
Select Committee slams CLG and challenges the
Department to live up to its hollow promises.
However, there are some real clues as to what the Select
Committee feels about the viability of FiReControl. The
Committee reflect that “the history of the project is a
catalogue of poor judgement and mismanagement” 5 and
goes on to say “There are now considerable doubts about
whether the project can be delivered.” 6
It is against this backdrop that the lack of a clear call for the
Project to be axed now must be considered. On the one hand,
the Committee says “On balance, given the investment of
public funds already committed, and the benefits that will
accrue, we conclude that CLG should press ahead with the
FiReControl Project.” 7 This highly disappointing comment
must be considered in the context of the qualification made by
the Select Committee which reads “In particular it is
conditional on the urgent agreement of a viable project
plan… which will ensure that the target ‘go-live’ date of
mid-2011 will be met.” 8
Select Committee not confident in the Project.
The Select Committee doesn’t appear to be too reticent in
expressing its doubts about the likelihood of the Project ever
getting off the ground. It mentions or alludes to alternative
strategies three times in its seven “Conclusions and
recommendations”! In paragraph 1010, the Committee
recommends that CLG should “review its options and make
an informed clear, open decision about the future of
FiReControl.” This sits alongside these two comments:
“This project plan must include interim milestones which
will allow progress to be assessed on a regular basis and
decisions to betaken about whether alternatives need to
be considered” 9 and “CLG should urgently draw up and
consult on contingency plans for any further failures.” 10
Select Committee suggests safeguards for the Fire and
Rescue Service when the Project almost inevitably fails.
Holding CLG to deliver on its assurances or to foot the bill for
its failure to do so and thereby maintain sound emergency fire
service mobilisation for the public via the existing control
rooms, the Select Committee said that the contingency plans
which should be put in place “should include provision for
the maintenance and, where necessary, upgrading of
existing control room technology, and CLG should meet
the full costs of that to FRAs where it has become
necessary as a result in the FiReControl project.” 11
Select Committee report seems to be predicting an
absence of ‘buy-in’ by fire and rescue authorities.
Recognising perhaps the scepticism of many fire and rescue
authorities reflected in the written submissions (known as
‘memoranda’) that were sent in, coupled with the LGA’s
position (though probably confused by the muddled messages
which it has received from CFOA as it struggles under the
1 Paragraph 5 on Page 8 of the SC Report.
2 Paragraph 6 on Page 8 of the SC Report.
3 Paragraph 7 on Page 9 of the SC Report.
4 Paragraph 98 on Page 41 of the SC Report.
5 Paragraph 99 on Page 41 of the SC Report.
6 Paragraph 100 on Page 41 of the SC Report.
7 Paragraph 101 on Page 41 of the SC Report.
8 Paragraph 101 on Page 41 of the SC Report.
9 Paragraph 101 on Page 41 of the SC Report.
10 Paragraph 103 on Page 41 of the SC Report.
11 Paragraph 103 on Page 41 of the SC Report.
78 FBU Annual Report 2011