Report - Fire Brigades Union

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
SECTION B — FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE POLICY weight of money it receives from the government) the Select Committee drew attention to what the FBU believes will be inevitable: “Each FRA has the legal right to make the final decision on whether to accept FiReControl. Any failure to ensure that all FRAs use the new system would be a significant blow to the ultimate aims of the project.” 12 CLG spin machine kicks into action. Within hours of the Select Committee report being published, the CLG seem to have drafted in a Malcolm Tucker to write their press release; either that or they have been given a spoof copy of the report. The assertions by the Minister as to what the Report says bear no resemblance at all to what the Report actually says. The release is not worthy of detailed comment. Perhaps the most critical point which reveals the myth that the Department is trying to create, is that there isn’t even a machine on which the trainers can train on. That said, the FBU do not want to be overly critical. Seven years on, CLG officials did tell LGA and FBU representatives at a recent meeting that they have managed to produce one training note – on the phonetic alphabet! Concluding remarks. The FBU’s position on the FiReControl Project is well-known to members and is reflective of the view of the vast majority of members, and need not be reiterated here. This circular provides a commentary on only some of the issues contained within the Select Committee report. I encourage all members to read the Report from cover to cover and to compare it against what CLG have to say on the matter. Hard copies of the reference documents will be provided to control branches throughout the UK. All of the documents are available to view on the FBU website using the following link http://www.fbu.org.uk/campaigns/outofcontrol/index.php The FBU written submissions provided to the Select Committee can be found on pages EV 101 – EV 116 of the Select Committee report. Best wishes. Yours fraternally ANDY DARK Assistant General Secretary WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT From Bob Neill MP/ Baroness Hanham 20 December 2010 Fire and Rescue Service I would like to inform the House about recent developments on the FiReControl Project. This is the third part of the last Government’s resilience programme and set out to replace the standalone control rooms in England’s Fire and Rescue Services with a national network of nine control centres. The aim was to improve national resilience, interoperability and efficiency as well as to enhance the technology available to the Fire and Rescue Service. Many Hon Members will be aware that, for some time, the project has experienced delays and delivery problems. The progress of the project has caused serious concern, and so in June this year I made it clear to the main FiReControl contractor, Cassidian (formerly EADS Defence & Security), that the main IT system must now be delivered to time, cost and quality. At this point, we activated a key milestone in their contract requiring the main IT system to be completed in three control centres by mid-2011. We told Cassidian that no additional taxpayers’ money could be invested in this project, nor would delivery of a system of reduced quality or functionality be acceptable. Following extensive discussion with Cassidian, we have jointly concluded, with regret, that the requirements of the project cannot be delivered to an acceptable timeframe. Therefore the best outcome for the taxpayer and the fire and rescue community is for the contract to be terminated with immediate effect. Cassidian and the Department for Communities and Local Government have reached an acceptable settlement over this although the details will remain commercially confidential. I know many people in the Fire and Rescue Service and in Fire and Rescue Authorities have devoted considerable time and expertise to this project, especially those who have served on governance and working groups, directors of the local authority controlled companies, advisers from the Chief Fire Officers’ Association, Fire and Rescue Service secondees to the project and other staff involved from the fire and rescue community, and many technical and resilience experts. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking all these people for their contribution. Over the next few weeks we intend to identify the extent to which any legacy assets from the project, including the control centre buildings, can be used for the benefit of the Fire and Rescue Service and local communities in future. We will also be making arrangements for maintaining products already delivered. 12 Paragraph 102 on Page 41 of the SC Report. FBU Annual Report 2011 79
Page 1:
The Fire Brigades Union Executive C
Page 4 and 5:
MICK SHAW President MATT WRACK Gene
Page 6 and 7:
Executive council members (continue
Page 8 and 9:
Section D Pensions 91 Section E AIF
Page 10 and 11:
8 FBU Annual Report 2011
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
SECTION A — NATIONAL JOINT COUNCI
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31: SECTION A — NATIONAL JOINT COUNCI
Page 32 and 33: SECTION B — FIRE AND RESCUE SERVI
Page 84 and 85: SECTION C — TUC AND LABOUR MOVEME
Page 94 and 95: SECTION D — PENSIONS On 8 Decembe
Page 96 and 97: SECTION D — PENSIONS included pap
Page 98 and 99: SECTION E — AIF 2010 Accident and
Page 100 and 101: SECTION F — LEGAL REPORT absence
Page 102 and 103: SECTION F — LEGAL REPORT brunt of
Page 104 and 105: SECTION G — INTERNAL ADMINISTRATI
Page 130 and 131:
SECTION G — INTERNAL ADMINISTRATI
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
SECTION H — EDUCATION The review
Page 146 and 147:
SECTION H — EDUCATION The final s
Page 148 and 149:
SECTION H — EDUCATION two worksho
Page 150 and 151:
SECTION H — EDUCATION The new FBU
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
SECTION I — FAIRNESS AT WORK Ther
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
SECTION J — HEALTH & SAFETY shown
Page 160 and 161:
SECTION J — HEALTH & SAFETY WCPSs
Page 162 and 163:
SECTION J — HEALTH & SAFETY a num
Page 164 and 165:
SECTION J — HEALTH & SAFETY These
Page 166 and 167:
SECTION J — HEALTH & SAFETY CFOA
Page 168 and 169:
SECTION K — ACCOUNTS 2010 AND FIN
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186:
show all

Report - Fire Brigades Union

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?