|
 THE RESULTS of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of the fire and rescue services in England were released by the Audit Commission in August. The results classed two authorities as excellent, 20 as good, a further 18 as fair, five as weak and two as poor.
Although the results were described as ‘encouraging’ by Fire Minister Jim Fitzpatrick MP, there seems to be some confusion about what the ratings actually mean; the standards against which performance has been measured; and what the authorities which have been singled out for criticism need to do to improve.
According to the Commission, the primary objective of the CPA is to provide a baseline for improvement. It is keen to stress that its assessment only examines how fire and rescue authorities are managed and how they are implementing the Government’s modernisation agenda, rather than how well they respond to emergencies. The Commission states that authorities were assessed on what they were trying to achieve, through their strategy, leadership and priorities; their capacity to deliver; their achievements to date; and their plans for the future.
The Chief Fire Officers’ Association (CFOA) says the results reflect the ‘hard work and commitment of the service to deliver improvement and modernisation’. However, in contrast, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) declared that the Audit Commission appeared ‘to have missed the real point of what the fire service is here to do’; an opinion with which many in the fire industry appear to concur.
It is good to know that the Audit Commission believes almost 50% of our fire and rescue authorities are well-managed. But, what about those that are poorly managed? The Commission states that the results do not reflect the level of emergency response offered. Does this mean that we should not be concerned that corporate governance and management processes in half of the brigades in England are classed as being, at best, fair? Are we really to believe that poor management does not impact on response arrangements? If this is the case, then surely the CPA ratings are somewhat meaningless.
CFOA claims to be ‘confident that the operational activities of fire and rescue services continue to ensure the safety of communities and that, at a time of national need, the capability of the fire and rescue service remains resilient.’ I would like to know where this confidence comes from.
No measure of response
As a result of the Independent Review of the Fire Service, the inspection role of HM Fire Service Inspectorate was replaced by the CPA process. But the Audit Commission clearly states that the CPA does not consider emergency response. Thus, there has been no independent assessment of the service delivery provided by fire brigades in England since these ‘traditional’ inspections came to an end.
Before integrated risk management planning was introduced, Best Value Performance Indicators enabled a brigade’s emergency response to be measured against the national standards of fire cover. But integrated risk management planning allows authorities to set their own targets for emergency response. So, how do we know an adequate service is being offered? Without some external body setting a standard and measuring service delivery against it, surely there is no way of knowing how well fire authorities are performing? With the current system, a fire service could, theoretically, have great leadership and excellent business planning in place but, without some measure of outputs, how can we be confident of its performance where it matters, on the front line?
Responding to the CPA findings, the FBU’s general secretary, Matt Wrack, declared: ‘The public judges us by how well we respond to emergencies and other incidents. They judge us by how quickly we respond, how many lives we save from fires, and how we deal with other major emergencies, from chemical spills to flooding, or the aftermath of bombings. This is what the public sees as important but this report deals with none of these crucial issues’. Perhaps it is time the Audit Commission and the Government paid heed to the Union’s concerns.
|