DOCSLIB.ORG

London Boroughs V the Mayor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London Boroughs V the Mayor Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 4142 (Admin) Case No: CO/14653/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 20/12/2013 Before : MR JUSTICE FOSKETT --------------------­ Between : THE QUEEN on the application of LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON (1) LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK (2) LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN (3) LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS (4) LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY(5) LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM (6) LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH (7) INGRID RICHARDSON (8) Claimants -v- THE MAYOR OF LONDON (1) THE LONDON FIRE COMMISSIONER (2) THE LONDON FIRE AND EMERGENCY PLANNING AUTHORITY (3) Defendants -AND­ FIRE BRIGADES UNION(1) Interested Party --------------------- --------------------- Daniel Stilitz QC and Hannah Slarks (instructed by London Borough of Islington) for the Claimants Richard Drabble QC and Charles Banner (instructed by Transport for London Legal Department) for the 1st Defendant Jonathan Moffett and Heather Emmerson (instructed by Legal and Democratic Services, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority) for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants Antony White QC and Sarah Hannett (instructed by Thomsons Solicitors) for the Interested Party Hearing dates: 26-29 November 2013 --------------------- Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. London Boroughs v The Mayor MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: Introduction 1. Against the background of a need to make significant savings of expenditure in 2013­ 4 (in the region of £29.5 million) and 2014-5 (in the region of £35.5 million) in relation to the cost of the provision of fire and emergency services in London, decisions were taken in August and September this year which, if implemented, would have the following principal effects: (a) the closure of 10 London fire stations (reducing the number from 112 to 102); (b) the decommissioning of 14 fire appliances (in other words, reducing the number of fire engines from 169 to 155); (c) the reduction by 552 in the number of fire-fighters in London (a reduction of approximately 10% of the total fire- fighting force). 2. If implemented, the impact of this decision across the whole of London will be to increase the average attendance time of the first fire engine at an incident to 5 minutes 33 seconds (an increase of 13 seconds from the current position) and the average attendance time of the second fire engine to 6 minutes 32 seconds (an increase of 10 seconds from the current position). However, it is the specific effect upon the seven Claimant boroughs of increased attendance times generally that underlies the claim made in these proceedings. 3. During the period from 2009/10 to 2012/13 budget savings of £52 million had been made across the London fire and rescue services necessitated by the Government’s 2010 ‘Comprehensive Spending Review’ which required the fire service nationally to save 25% over the 4-year period to April 2015. Savings totalling £71 million had been made over the five years prior to the consideration of the proposals under challenge in these proceedings. The savings thus made had not hitherto affected “front line” services in London, but the need to make yet further significant savings in the light of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for 2013-14 (which set out Government grant funding for every local authority), published for consultation on 19 December 2012, made this a necessary consideration for the first time. 4. The need to make the cuts in expenditure is not under challenge in these proceedings. It is the manner in which the cuts are to have an impact that forms the backdrop to the issues before the court. 5. The formal decision under challenge in these proceedings is embodied in what is known as the “Fifth London Safety Plan 2013-16” (‘the Plan’ or ‘LSP5’). Prior to its ultimate acceptance it was known as “the draft Fifth London Safety Plan” (‘the draft Plan’). 6. It hardly needs stating that the decision and the process that led to it have been controversial and that the issues surrounding the decision are sensitive from a number of points of view. People are, understandably, very concerned when they hear that Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. London Boroughs v The Mayor their local fire station may be closed or that the number of fire engines and/or fire­ fighters in or who serve their locality are to be reduced. Their elected representatives have reflected these concerns during the debates and votes that have taken place. The concerns have led to petitions, local demonstrations and strong opposition from some quarters. 7. It is important that anyone interested in this case and its outcome should understand the extremely narrow basis upon which the court is being asked to interfere with the decision made. The hearing does not constitute a public inquiry into the fire safety proposals for London and it has not involved an evaluation of competing evidence about the proposals. The case is also not about whether the court agrees or disagrees with the proposals. What is the subject of legal challenge in these proceedings is primarily the process by which that decision was reached. Whatever conclusion may be reached by the court in relation to this challenge, it is important to understand that the court’s focus is primarily upon the process leading to the making of the decision, not upon the merits of the decision itself or any individual aspect of it, or indeed upon how relevant factors were weighed in reaching the decision: those have always been matters of judgment for the elected decision-makers with the help of advice from those with expertise in the field. The court is not the place where any such decision is made and, of course, any political issues that may arise are not matters for the court either. The issue for the court in this case is primarily whether the process by which the decision was made has led to an unlawful decision, as is contended by the Claimants (and supported by the Fire Brigades Union - ‘the FBU’), or to a lawful decision, as is contended by the decision-makers. 8. The principal decision-makers for this purpose were the Mayor of London (‘the Mayor’) and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (‘LFEPA’). The substantive reality is that it was the Mayor who made the decision based upon advice from and the recommendations of the London Fire Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) although that fact may not be conclusive as to who should have been made parties to the present proceedings (see paragraphs 403-410 below) and the relief sought. The Commissioner is employed by LFEPA and may only exercise the functions delegated to him by LFEPA: he does not have a statutory role as such. The report and recommendations of the Commissioner upon which the decision of the Mayor was founded are criticised by the Claimants and the FBU in these proceedings. 9. The FBU represents over 90% of the uniformed staff of the United Kingdom fire and rescue service and has in the region of 41,000 members. They include fire-fighters, area managers, emergency fire control staff and fire-fighters working in what is known as the retained duty system. (Retained fire-fighters have other occupations than merely that of fire-fighter, but respond to an emergency call to become part of a team that attends an incident.) The FBU has over 5000 members in London. 10. It is right to observe that LFEPA as a body was not in favour of the Plan (in the sense that a majority of its members voted against its adoption), but reluctantly accepted eventually that in law it had to comply with a direction from the Mayor to implement it. However, notwithstanding that background fact, LFEPA joins with the Mayor in rejecting the criticisms made in the present proceedings of the process by which the ultimate decision was made. The Commissioner rejects the criticisms of his report and recommendations and contends that it is not open to the Claimants to bring, as indeed they seek to do, a free-standing claim for judicial review of his report. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. London Boroughs v The Mayor 11. The parties advancing the criticisms are seven Inner London boroughs (Islington, Southwark, Camden, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Lewisham and Greenwich) and one individual, Mrs Ingrid Richardson. Each of those boroughs claims that its residents, particularly certain vulnerable sections of their communities, will be seriously affected by the Plan if implemented. I will say more about the position in each individual borough later (see paragraphs 101-128 below). 12. Mrs Richardson (the 8th Claimant) and her husband live in the Brunswick ward of Southwark on the 7th floor of a 15-storey apartment block. Mrs Richardson, who is housebound and moves about with a walking-frame, has severe Parkinson’s Disease and her husband suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Her participation in the proceedings as a claimant is designed to highlight and illustrate the impact that the Plan is said to be likely to have on older and disabled residents in Southwark. 13. The other Interested Parties in these proceedings are listed in Appendix 1 to this judgment. Of those interested parties, as I have indicated, the FBU supports the challenges made by the Claimants and makes its own submissions in support. None of the other interested parties has played any part in the proceedings. 14. The final decision in the process (that made by LFEPA) was made on 12 September following the direction from the Mayor dated 2 August (see paragraph 66 below). The claim for judicial review was received in the Administrative Court Office on 3 October.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City Hall Rich List 2020
    City Hall Rich List 2020 Darwin Friend June 2020 Introduction Scrutinising staffing costs at local and national level is a hallmark of our mission to make government more accountable to taxpayers. This principle underpins our annual Town Hall Rich List, which details remuneration of the highest paid people across local government.1 It should also apply to municipal government. The Greater London Authority (GLA) is one of the biggest local authorities in the UK; it includes a number of well-known bodies and a powerful mayor. Sadiq Khan, the current mayor of London, has complained about financial woes, while the staffing costs of City Hall employees have risen by 82 per cent, from £36 million in 2016-17 to £65.5 million in the 2020-21 proposed budget.2 Meanwhile, the mayor has increased the band D council tax precept by just under nine per cent in 2019-20, and London taxpayers have gone from paying £295 in 2015-16 to £332 in 2020-21 for the GLA.3,4 The City Hall Rich List details the employees working for the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, London Fire Brigade and Metropolitan Police whose total remuneration exceeds £100,000. Key findings ▪ There were at least 654 people employed by the GLA and its subsidiary bodies in 2018-19 who received more than £100,000. Of these, 154 received over £150,000 in total remuneration. In 2015-16, 653 received more than £100,000 and 147 employees collected over £150,000. ▪ In 2018-19 the body with the highest number of employees with remuneration in excess of £100,000 was Transport for London, with 518 employees.
    [Show full text]
  • London's Burning: Assessing the Impact of the 2014 Fire Station
    IN BRIEF VISUALISATION London’s burning: Assessing the impact of the 2014 fire station closures What effect have fire station closures had on response times in central London?Benjamin M. Taylor investigates n the face of ongoing austerity To its credit, the LFB collects boroughs can be divided further into measures imposed by the British information on all call-outs – including wards; however, my analysis sought government, the consequences of the type of fire, date, time of day, spatial to understand the effect of the station Icuts to public services are beginning location and response time – which closures at the sub-ward level. to unfold. One of the most contentious allows researchers to analyse the impact Deciding which spatial areas may decisions taken in 2014 related to the that station closures have had. In fact, be at risk of increased response times closure of 10 fire stations and the loss in preparation for the closures, the Open Benjamin Taylor following the closures is not just a of 552 fire-fighters around the central Data Institute used this information to completed his question of producing maps of the London area. These measures were a work out that average response times PhD, “Sequential raw data. The time an engine takes result of the London Fire Brigade (LFB) across London were likely to increase Methodology with to respond to a call depends at what Applications in Sports being tasked with making savings of only marginally, from 5 min 34 s to 5 min Rating” at Lancaster time of day and on which day of the almost £29 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Resilience/Special Operations Group Review
    Report title Operational Resilience/Special Operations Group Review Report to Date Operations DB 29 July 2020 Transformation Directorate 11 August 2020 People Directorate 13 August 2020 Corporate Services DB 18 August 2020 Commissioner’s Board 26 August 2020 Deputy Mayor Fire and Resilience Board 8 September 2020 London Fire Commissioner Report by Report number Assistant Commissioner Control and Mobilising LFC-0406 Protective marking: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Publication status: Published in full Summary This report sets out the key findings and subsequent recommendations from the Review of the Operational Resilience and Special Operations Group (OR/SOG) see Appendix 1. Recommendations That the London Fire Commissioner approves: a. The content and findings of the Review (Appendix 1). b. The recommendations of the Review. Background 1. London Fire Brigade (LFB) is one of the largest metropolitan fire and rescue services in the world and operates within a highly complex and challenging environment. The threat that emerged from international and domestic terror following the attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Centre and the subsequent challenges posed by Marauding Terrorist Attacks (MTA) has meant LFB has needed to ensure it is able to respond to these threats and mitigate their impact. As a result, the OR/SOG Department has provided the capability and expertise to deliver that response. This also included the development of a new tactical advisor role in 2001 with the creation of Interagency Liaison Officers (ILO) now National Interagency Liaison Officers (NILO). The instigation, development and coordination of the NILO role has been a significant achievement for LFB and enjoys substantial support across the fire and rescue sector and with partner agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • LFC-0465 Temporary Labour Supply Contract
    Report title Temporary Labour Supply Contract Report to Date People Board Corporate Services Board 8 December 2020 Commissioner’s Board 17 December 2020 Deputy Mayor’s Fire and Resilience Board 5 January 2021 London Fire Commissioner Report by Report number Assistant Director, People Services LFC-0465 Protective marking: OFFICIAL - Sensitive Publication status: Published with redactions If redacting, give reason: Commercially sensitive information I agree the recommended decision below. This decision was Andy Roe remotely signed on London Fire Commissioner Date 07 April 2021 Executive Summary The London Fire Brigade (LFB) entered into a contract with Hays Specialist Recruitment Limited (Hays) as of January 2016 following a collaborative Procurement with the TfL/GLA Group. The current TfL contract which the Brigade has access to is due to expire on the 30 June 2021, and a new competitive tendering process, to continue to provide temporary labour services started on 30 July 2020. This project has, once again, been led by TfL on behalf of itself and the London Fire Commissioner (LFC), Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). The Pan GLA procurement involves the establishment of a framework agreement with a single supplier. This framework agreement will be awarded on a three-year basis, with the option to extend for an additional one year. This report requests permission to join the new contract once it has been awarded and incur expenditure up to a maximum ceiling limit, based on current spend and future modelling factors explained in body of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • LFB Quarterly Performance Report – Quarter 1 2020/21
    Decision title LFB Quarterly Performance Report – Quarter 1 2020/21 Recommendation by Decision Number Assistant Director, Strategy and Risk LFC-0397-D Protective marking: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Publication status: Published in full Summary Report LFC-0397 presents the Brigade’s performance against the London Safety Plan as at the end of quarter one 2020/21 (data to the end of 30 June 2020). The report covers performance against budgets, key indicators, risks and projects Decision That the London Fire Commissioner approves report LFC-0937 and Appendix 1 (LFB Quarterly Performance report). Andy Roe This decision was remotely signed London Fire Commissioner Date on Wednesday 03 February Access to Information – Contact Officer Name Steven Adams Telephone 020 8555 1200 Email [email protected] The London Fire Commissioner is the fire and rescue authority for London Report title LLLFBQ uarterlyPerformanceReport –––QQQuarter 111202020 202020 ///222111 Report to Date Commissioner’s Board 29 July 2020 Report by Report number Assistant Director, Strategy and Risk LFC -0397 Protective marking: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Publication status: Published in full Summary This paper presents the Brigade’s performance against the London Safety Plan as at the end of quarter one 2020/21 (data to the end of 30 June 2020). This report covers performance against budgets, key indicators, risks and projects. Recommendations That the London Fire Commissioner approves this report and Appendix 1 (LFB Quarterly Performance report) prior to publication. Background 1. This is the quarter one 2020/21 performance report covering the Brigade’s activities in terms of key decisions, financial information, performance against key indicators across the Brigade’s three aims, workforce composition, risks and projects, set out in more detail at Appendix 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia
    THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA 2015 Churchill Fellowship Report by Ms Bronnie Mackintosh PROJECT: This Churchill Fellowship was to research the recruitment strategies used by overseas fire agencies to increase their numbers of female and ethnically diverse firefighters. The study focuses on the three most widely adopted recruitment strategies: quotas, targeted recruitment and social change programs. DISCLAIMER I understand that the Churchill Trust may publish this report, either in hard copy or on the internet, or both, and consent to such publication. I indemnify the Churchill Trust against loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out of any claim or proceedings made against the Trust in respect for arising out of the publication of any report submitted to the Trust and which the Trust places on a website for access over the internet. I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe on copyright of any person, or contain anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is, actionable for defamation, a breach of any privacy law or obligation, breach of confidence, contempt of court, passing-off or contravention of any other private right or of any law. Date: 16th April 2017 1 | P a g e Winston Churchill Fellowship Report 2015. Bronnie Mackintosh. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 PROGRAMME 6 JAPAN 9 HONG KONG 17 INDIA 21 UNITED KINGDOM 30 STAFFORDSHIRE 40 CAMBRIDGE 43 FRANCE 44 SWEDEN 46 CANADA 47 LONDON, ONTARIO 47 MONTREAL, QUEBEC 50 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 52 NEW YORK CITY 52 GIRLS FIRE CAMPS 62 LOS ANGELES 66 SAN FRANCISCO 69 ATLANTA 71 CONCLUSIONS 72 RECOMMENDATIONS 73 IMPLEMENTATION AND DISSEMINATION 74 2 | P a g e Winston Churchill Fellowship Report 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Against the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Recommendations
    Quarterly thematic update on progress against the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Recommendations March 2021 Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...... p. 3 Summary of thematic update………………………………………………………………. p. 4 Fire and rescue services: knowledge and understanding of materials used in high-rise buildings………………………………………………………………………...................... p. 5 Section 7(2)(d) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004…………………………...... p. 7 Plans…………………………………………………………………………………………. p. 8 Lifts…………………………………………………………………………………………... p. 10 Communication between the control room and the incident commander……............. p .11 Emergency calls……………………………………………………………………............. p .12 Command and control……………………………………………………………………… p .14 Equipment…………………………………………………………………………………… p .16 Evacuation…………………………………………………………………………………… p. 17 Internal signage……………………………………………………………………………… p. 21 Information to residents……………………………………………………………............. p. 21 Fire doors……………………………………………………………………………....……... p. 22 Cooperation between emergency services………………………………………............. p. 24 London Fire Brigade………………………………………………………………………… p. 26 Fire and Rescue Services…………………………………………………………………... p. 28 Emergency Services………………………………………………………………............... p. 31 Annex A – Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Recommendations……….......................... p. 32 Annex B – Table of completed Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Recommendations…...p. 38 2 Introduction On the date of publication, this document outlines the Government’s current position on implementation
    [Show full text]
  • New Dimension— Enhancing the Fire and Rescue Services' Capacity to Respond to Terrorist and Other Large-Scale Incidents
    House of Commons Public Accounts Committee New Dimension— Enhancing the Fire and Rescue Services' capacity to respond to terrorist and other large-scale incidents Tenth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 9 February 2009 HC 249 [Incorporating HC 1184–i, Session 2007–08] Published on 12 March 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Public Accounts Committee The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No 148). Current membership Mr Edward Leigh MP (Conservative, Gainsborough) (Chairman) Mr Richard Bacon MP (Conservative, South Norfolk) Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Mr Paul Burstow MP (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam) Mr Douglas Carswell MP (Conservative, Harwich) Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon) Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour, Glasgow South West) Angela Eagle MP (Labour, Wallasey) Nigel Griffiths MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Rt Hon Keith Hill MP (Labour, Streatham) Mr Austin Mitchell MP (Labour, Great Grimsby) Dr John Pugh MP (Liberal Democrat, Southport) Geraldine Smith MP (Labour, Morecombe and Lunesdale) Rt Hon Don Touhig MP (Labour, Islwyn) Rt Hon Alan Williams MP (Labour, Swansea West) Phil Wilson MP (Labour, Sedgefield) The following member was also a member of the committee during the parliament. Mr Philip Dunne MP (Conservative, Ludlow) Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 148.
    [Show full text]
  • LFB Quarterly Performance Report – Quarter 2 2020/21
    Decision title LFB Quarterly Performance Report – Quarter 2 2020/21 Recommendation by Decision Number Assistant Commissioner, Grenfell Tower Investigation and LFC-0431-D Review Team Protective marking: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Publication status: Published in full Summary Report LFC-0431 presents the Brigade’s performance against the London Safety Plan as at the end of quarter one 2020/21 (data to the end of 30 September 2020). This report covers performance against budgets, key indicators, risks and projects. Decision That the London Fire Commissioner approves report LFC-0432 and Appendix 1 (LFB Quarterly Performance report) prior to publication. Andy Roe This decision was remotely London Fire Commissioner Date signed on Monday 21 December 2020 Access to Information – Contact Officer Name Steven Adams Telephone 020 8555 1200 Email [email protected] The London Fire Commissioner is the fire and rescue authority for London Report title LFB Quarterly Performance Report – Quarter 2 2020/21 Report to Date Commissioner’s Board 04 November 2020 Corporate Services Directorate Board 10 November 2020 Operational Delivery Directorate Board 19 November 2020 People Services Board 26 November 2020 Deputy Mayor’s Fire & Resilience Board 9 December 2020 Report by Report number Assistant Commissioner, Grenfell Tower Investigation and LFC-0431 Review Team Protective marking: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Publication status: Published in full If redacting, give reason: Executive Summary This paper presents the Brigade’s performance against the London Safety Plan as at the end of quarter one 2020/21 (data to the end of 30 September 2020). This report covers performance against budgets, key indicators, risks and projects.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Fire Service: Part 1
    The National Fire Service: part 1 This year sees the 80th anniversary of the formation of the National Fire Service (NFS). That organisation came into being on 18th August 1941 and ceased to exist in England and Wales at 00:01 on 1st April 1948, and in May 1948 in Scotland. Over those six plus years there was one fire service for the whole of Great Britain – from the northernmost of the Shetland Isles to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly. When war broke out in 1939 it was estimated there were over 1500 fire brigades across Great Britain, though some say the number was higher. This discrepancy serves to underline the fragmentation and lack of standardisation of the pre-war British fire service. In fact, apart from some emergency measures to improve and coordinate fire services in Greater London in response to World War I air raids, successive governments had studiously avoided any involvement with firefighting. It took the threat of another war to create something of a ‘cart-before-the-horse’ situation whereby, in 1937, the government created a national organisation: the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS). This assisted regular fire services in time of war and then, in 1938, finally took a grip on firefighting generally by obliging local government to establish or maintain efficient fire brigades and for those brigades to cooperate. Even so, the fire authorities in England and Wales were district and borough councils, and in Scotland, burgh and county councils, so there was little, if any, scope for reducing the overall number of fire brigades.
    [Show full text]
  • Training Update Report – Q4 2019/20
    Report title Training update report – Q4 2019/20 Report to Date People Directorate Board 27 May 2020 Operational Delivery Directorate Board 3 June 2020 Commissioner’s Board 17 June 2020 Report by Report number Assistant Director, Training and Professional Development LFC-0370x Protective marking: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Publication status: Published in full Summary This is the quarterly training update report, which is produced for the Commissioner’s Board (CB), to provide an update on the workings of the Training and Professional Development Department. These activities demonstrate our commitment to deliver the London Fire Brigade (LFB) Transformation Delivery Plan, to respond to the findings of phase one of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and the LFB’s HMICFRS inspection report. The key updates are: The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has led to a reduction in the number of training courses that are running. That had an effect on training performance in 2019/20, and has continued to impact training performance in early 2020/21. A report seeking to confirm what constitutes risk critical training is due to be submitted to the People and Operational Delivery Directorate Boards by 31 July 2020, along with a new training policy. The report will also seek to establish clear rules for action to be taken when a member of staff goes “out of ticket” (i.e. that they have not received refresher training within the designated time frame for that particular skill). A second phase of work is then due to commence, to address other skill areas, as well as systems considerations and delegate self- allocation to training courses.
    [Show full text]
  • LFC-0505X Budget 2020-21
    Report title 2021/22 Budget Report to Date Corporate Service’s Board 16 March 2021 Commissioner’s Board 24 March 2021 London Fire Commissioner Report by Report number Assistant Director, Finance LFC-0505x Protective marking: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Publication status: Published in full If redacting, give reason: I agree the recommended decision below. This decison was Andy Roe remotely signed on London Fire Commissioner Date 29 March 2021 Executive Summary This report presents the London Fire Commissioner’s (LFC) final draft revenue and capital budget for 2021/22 for approval. Recommended decisions For the London Fire Commissioner That the London Fire Commissioner agrees that: 1. Subject to the decisions below, a 2021/22 revenue budget of £405.4m be approved, being made up of net expenditure of £363.8m with £8.3m funding from earmarked reserves and £33.3m funding from specific grants; 1 of 87 2. The revenue estimates, as set out in Appendices 1, 3 and 4, showing proposed savings, growth and budget movements, are approved; 3. The movements in reserves, as set out in table 6, are approved; 4. The establishment changes associated with the 2021/22 revenue budget, as set out in Appendices 1, 3 and 4, are approved; 5. The capital programme with gross expenditure in 2021/22 of £17.6m, as set out in Table 7 and confidential Appendix 7, be approved; 6. The capital strategy at Appendix 7 is approved for publication. Introduction and Background 1. This report updates the budget proposals included in the Budget Submission to the Mayor in November 2020 (LFC-0432).
    [Show full text]