Agenda item

Purpose of report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets

This report is presented in order to keep the Committee appraised of the Service’s approach to income generation and to ensure that the Select Committee has the opportunity to scrutinise the development of proposals ahead of the Cabinet meeting in September 2013.

Declarations of interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Kay Hammond, Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services

Liz Mills, Chief of Staff, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS)

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The report was introduced to members of the Committee by Mrs Kay Hammond, Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services and Liz Mills, Chief of Staff, SFRS.  Mrs Hammond provided the Committee with some context to the report in terms of the aims of the Public Safety Plan.

2.    The Cabinet Associate stated the importance of Committee members having sight of the Public Safety Plan 2011-2020, if they haven’t already. The Chairman of the Committee asked for a copy of this to be circulated to all members on the Committee.

3.    The Chief of Staff explained how the Service was already generating income and their plans to expand this and plough this back into the Service.

4.    The Chief of Staff referred to different income operating models such as a Local Authority Trading company and a Surrey Fire Service independent charity. The Chief of Staff also stressed the importance of understanding and learning different ways of working from other Local Authorities.

5.    A member of the Committee questioned whether achieving an additional income target of £660k by the end of 2017/18 was realistic. The Chief of Staff stated that they had built in the realism factor when preparing the business model for this income target, to ensure the target was realistic. The Chief of Staff explained that resources planning would also ensure the target was realistic. Both the Chief of Staff and Cabinet Associate felt confident this target could be achieved.

6.    A member of the Committee sought clarification on which services SFRS would be charging for. The Chief of Staff explained that it was services which SFRS were not required to provide e.g. occupational health, but which SFRS could use their expertise creatively in order to generate income.

7.    Members of the Committee referred to the opportunities available for SFRS to sell technical services to private companies, for example events safety management. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services explained how the Fire and Rescue Service already works alongside the Local Resilience Forum, looking at possible risks with events and how best to manage these with both the police and ambulance services. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services commented that the Fire and Rescue Service were already supporting large events, for example, the recent Epsom Derby.

8.    Some members of the Committee raised concerns over selling services to companies that would have previously received these services free of charge. The concern was that these businesses may now be putting themselves at risk by opting out of receiving these services. The Chief of Staff explained that the SFRS intended to apply charges to new companies they planned to go into business with rather than companies they already provided services for free of charge. Furthermore, operating as a trading company provided SFRS with more flexibility to promote the right services to companies who were interested and willing to pay.

9.    Members of the Committee raised concerns over staffing capacity for these proposals, having to provide extra services with low staffing levels, especially in the case of fire fighters who could not leave fire stations unmanned. The Chief of Staff stated that these plans did not negatively impact staffing for SFRS core services. Instead staffing would be achieved through collaboration with other emergency services and opportunities would be made available to those employees looking for secondary opportunities.       

10.  A member of the Committee questioned whether there could be a perceived conflict of interest between the Service operating as a trading company and as a local authority service, using the SFRS brand in both cases. The Chief of Staff stated that the service would continue to provide high quality free advice and service provision in their capacity as a Local Authority, thereby maintaining the strong SFRS brand. Furthermore, Equality Impact Assessments would be carried out to ensure resident needs were addressed. The Chief of Staff stated the importance of ensuring residents’ confidence was not compromised and hence feasibility studies for these proposals would be carried out over the next few months. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services commented that it was important to be mindful of the public’s views and that Councillors could assist the service in ensuring resident opinions are heard. Legal advice would also be sought in respect of potential conflicts of interest. A member of the Committee noted the importance of public buy in for such incentives and the fact that there were examples of positive public reaction to emergency service collaboration already taking place in Surrey. 

11.  Some members of the Committee questioned how extra employees required to support this new service provision would be funded. The Chief of Staff explained that details on resource and asset requirements and funding would be set out in a detailed business plan going to Cabinet.

12.  Some members of the Committee commented on their reservations about the business case as a whole given some of the issues raised by the Committee.  The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services explained that Committee members could be given the opportunity to scrutinise the detailed business plan going to Cabinet once this had been finalised.  Furthermore the Cabinet Associate stated the Fire and Rescue Service had more capacity than it has had for the last 10 years because the numbers of incidents the Service were attending had decreased. SFRS wanted to utilise additional capacity and the specialist skill set within the service, and these proposals could help achieve this.

13.  A member of the Committee asked what the provision was for animal rescue callouts and if these costs were covered by the taxpayer. The Chief of Staff stated that the costs incurred depended on the individual situation. There was a ‘special service charge’ in place for situations which did not meet the standard Fire and Rescue criteria. It was further explained that people requesting services were told in advance if the service they required would incur a charge.

14.  Members of the Committee asked for the opportunity to scrutinise the detailed business plan for income generation by SFRS before it went to Cabinet. The Cabinet Associate for Police and Fire Services agreed to this approach.

15.  Members of the Committee agreed for ‘endorse’ to be replaced with ‘reconsider’ in the first line of the recommendation.

Recommendations:

a)    The Communities Select Committee noted the approach taken by the Fire & Rescue Service to ensure the income generation target in the Medium Term Financial Plan is achieved.

b)    The Communities Select Committee recommends that prior to a decision being taken by Cabinet to endorse the income generation strategy of SFRS, a more detailed income generation strategy, addressing the Committees concerns, be presented to the Committee for scrutiny.

Actions/further information to be provided:

Public Safety Plan 2011-2020 and ‘Facing the Future’ report (Sir Ken Knight CBE) to be circulated amongst members of the Committee.

Committee Next Steps:

None