Agenda item

Purpose of report: Scrutiny of Services and Budget

This report provides an update to specific issues and risks raised by the Select Committee in July 2013 in response to the Fire and Rescue Services Income Generation Report.

Declarations of interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Kay Hammond, Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services

Russell Pearson, Head of Fire and Rescue, Chief Fire Officer, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service

Liz Mills, Chief of Staff, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service

Steve Owen-Hughes, Assistant Chief Fire Officer Operations Support, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services briefly introduced the report to members of the committee and explained that questions arising from the previous select committee meeting were answered in the report provided.

2.    A member of the committee asked for clarity around the decision not to use the Surrey Fire & Rescue Service (SFRS) branding for potential trading activity (paragraph 3 of the report). The member asked what the branding would be and asked for assurances that it would be distinctly different from SFRS. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services stated that there have been legal challenges across the country in using the branding of Fire & Rescue Service’s for trading purposes. She explained that a brand for a future trading arm has not been decided yet and the service will need to develop a business case before any branding can be established. However, she could confirm that as a result of the legal advice the service has received the SFRS brand will not be used. 

3.    A member of the committee raised concerns over staffing levels required for extra income generation activities and questioned if there would be charges for services which were previously free. The Chief of Staff explained that there would be strict separation between core services and business services. The money raised from income generation would go back into core services ensuring that key services would continue to be provided. The Chief of Staff assured the committee that uniformed employees would not be involved in income generation activities but that new staff would be employed for this purpose. She went on to give her reassurance that the service would not charge for services which were previously free, and explained that there are legislative requirements in place to ensure those lines are not blurred. The Chief of Staff explained that the service would use a business plan to ensure any changes were sustainable.          

4.    It was commented on by a member of the committee that the fire service was moving into income generation through business and this appeared to be the general direction of travel for the whole Council. The member queried whether this raised any philosophical concerns as regards the direction of travel of a local authority. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services explained that the move towards business was not unique to the fire service. The service needed to be innovative in order to meet their statutory duties and provide the best value for money, at a time when funding from central government was being severely reduced. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services explained that people did not want to lose their fire stations so if the service could find a way to avoid this, then they should look at other options. All directorates of the council were having to take a strategic view on making savings and providing the best value for money

5.    Members of the committee recognised that there was a gap in the market for fire and rescue services which SFRS could develop for income generation activities. 

6.    A member of the committee expressed concerns over SFRS achieving its additional income target of £660,000. The Head of Fire and Rescue stated that they did have significant savings to make as part of the MTFP but the service was slowly gaining confidence in what the arrangements will be in order to work towards these savings. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services understood that there would be some difficulties in achieving this target but that plans would be put in place to ensure the service succeeded in achieving its target. A further question over where the budget to start the income generation proposals would come from was asked by a member of the committee. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services explained that there was some provision from a corporate pot of money to help with this.  

7.    A question over the possibility of outsourcing the SFRS was asked by a member of the committee. The Head of Fire and Rescue explained that this was a possibility but the services had no intention of doing this. Rather SFRS would keep their options open.

8.    A member of the committee asked if the income target of £660,000 was the same as the net profit target. Officers commented that the income target was the same as the net profit target. A further question over what the ‘turnover’ would be was asked. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services explained that this would be addressed in the business plan.

9.    A member of the committee asked if SFRS was currently charging for services it was entitled to charge for. The Head of Fire and Rescue explained that the service had gone out to public consultation on this and proposals to do this were not supported during the consultation. It was recognised that the service needed to engage locally and find out what the public wanted in local areas. The Head of Fire and Rescue went onto explain that the SFRS contract with the Isle of Wight was bringing in a net profit of £1.42m to the service, at zero cost, so successful income generation was viable.   

10.  The meeting was adjourned at 11.40am for a private member briefing. The meeting recommenced at 12:15pm.

Recommendations:

a)    To note the content of the report.

Actions/further information to be provided:

SFRS to continue to update the select committee on the development of its income generation strategy.

Committee Next Steps:

None