Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services

This paper provides an update on the Emergency Services Collaboration Programme (ESCP) between emergency services in Surrey and Sussex. 

Declarations of Interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Russell Pearson, Chief Fire Officer

Sally Wilson, Service Improvement Manager

Victoria Kiehl, Project Specialist

Ian Thomson, Group Manager

Asif Aziz, Fire Brigade Union, Surrey Brigade

Richard Jones, Fire Brigade Union, Surrey Brigade Secretary

Kay Hammond, Associate Cabinet Member, Community Safety Services

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Officers introduced the report and highlighted some of its key points with a presentation. It was explained that the main aim of the Emergency Services Collaboration Programme was to integrate the six emergency service partners[1] to help improve the current services for the residents they serve whilst increase savings potential and service efficiencies. The Officers presented the three project areas to the Board with details on the different ways in which costs would be reduced and how the services would be interconnected. The Board were also informed of plans to build stronger working relationships with neighbouring Fire and Rescue Services with a view to increase and improve fire cover.

2.    Members expressed concern with the report showing that a significant number of requests for assistance from emergency service partners  did not require any action from Fire Officers upon arrival. The Officers explained that there were occasions where the Fire Service were no longer needed after the request had been processed and that it was their aim to reduce this number.

3.    Referring to the co-responding scheme with South East Coast Ambulance (SECAmb), a Members questioned whether SECAmb provided an estimated time of arrival to the fire fighters to have responded to the emergency, and also whether fire fighters were permitted to transport casualties to hospital themselves if an Ambulance crew was not available.  Officers reported that an estimated time of arrival was provided, but it relied on the availability of Ambulance resource, based on their demand at the time. It was also reported that only ambulances may be used to transport casualties to hospital as the equipment is clinically prepared, whereas Fire and Rescue appliances were not.

4.    The Board asked Officers to give details on their vision for this project and to confirm the ways in which they will be measuring the projects progress. The Associate Cabinet Member reported that the vision was for all emergency service partners to achieve shared goals effectively together. It was also commented that the collaboration programme would require perseverance and commitment from all partners. Officers explained that their vision was to provide the best possible service for the residents of Surrey and unlocking all the potential within the emergency services. In regards to the measurement of progress it was confirmed that a number of project management tracking tools were in place, and that new Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were being drawn up.
The Chairman informed the Board that these KPIs were scheduled to go to the Board’s Performance and Finance Sub-Group in September 2016.

5.    A Member queried whether response times were improving in line with changes made in relation to the collaboration programme in addition to a question around 999 and non-emergency call handling in light of an increase in false alarms triggered by automatic fire alarms. Officers suggested that delays to attendance could be attributed to call handling at contact centres. They also confirmed that they were exploring how best to coordinate and integrate the emergency call systems with their partners and stated that improvements would provide residents with a shorter response time to incidents and provide a better all round service. It was mentioned that automatic fire alarms were a big problem and Officers reported that they had been working with automatic fire alarm manufacturers for 4 years previously, but could consider their procedures to change the way they responded to automatic fire alarm calls.

6.    A Member of the Board asked Officers a variety of questions covering topics such as: the number of staff vacancies within the service; the potential opportunity to have a confidential meeting regarding Prevent; and it was asked if Fire Officers used body cameras and used satellite phones. Officers informed the Board that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service had not needed to recruit any on-call firefighters forfive years. The Officers went on to confirm that they were willing to provide a paper on Prevent for the Board to review. Officers also confirmed that the service was considering the introduction of personal CCTV cameras such as those used by Police as it would Officers the opportunity to review previous experiences as well as offer protection to themselves. 

7.    The Board made reference to the recent heavy rainfall in Surrey and thanked the Fire Service for its effort to keep the people of Surrey safe. 

8.    A discussion was had around the possibility of merging computer systems with neighbouring emergency service partners to the benefit of Emergency Services in the wider region, including Surrey, the Sussexes and London. It was suggested that this would not only provide potential savings but also would give residents an improved, efficient and quicker service. However, Officers explained that other Emergency Service Partners were under contract with their own software providers and so negotiations with these partners would be a long-term project for the programme. As an example, Officers explained that Surrey Police and Surrey Fire and Rescue were interested in co-designing a new joint software package and that other services were under contract for 4-5 years.

9.    During a discussion around a potential shared emergency call centre to cover a wider region, a Member of the Board raised a concern that, although the efficiency of the service would improve, call centre staff and operators may lack local knowledge of the wider Service area; which may cause problems when dispatching resources to emergency situation. A discussion was had in which the Officers clarified that the local Fire Crew would still have an understanding of their local area when attending incidents; and that they would work with call centre staff to advise and avoid any problems when attending.
Officers also made the point that the Surrey Fire and Rescue’s Joint Emergency Contact Centre was contracted to receive emergency calls from the Isle of Wight and suggested the success of this relationship proved that Surrey was in a good position to collaborate further with its partners.

10.  The Board noted its invitation to visit the new Joint Emergency Contact Centre above Salfords Fire Station. The Chairman agreed that it would be very worthwhile as it would give Board Members the chance to see the changes that are being made.

Recommendations:

·         The Board agreed to the suggested recommendations outlined in the report.