Independent review of conditions of service for fire and rescue staff in England February 2015 By Adrian Thomas Adrian Thomas February 2015 (amended where appropriate for passage of time) 1 © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications ISBN: 978-1-78655-270-9 2 Contents Foreword 4-5 Approach to the review 8-11 Executive summary & Key findings 12-18 Chapter 1: The working environment 19 Section 1.1: The role of the customer in defining working practice 19-20 Section 1.2: Change Management 20-23 Section 1.3: Culture & Trust 23-24 Section 1.4: Bullying & Harassment 24-26 Section 1.5: Equality 26-28 Section 1.6: Second jobs 28-30 Section 1.7: Technology 30-32 Chapter 2: Documented Conditions of Service 33 Section 2.1: Role of the firefighter, response vs prevention 33-35 Section 2.2: Grey book 35-39 Section 2.3: Role Maps 39-41 Section 2.4: Duty systems 41-43 Chapter 3: Industrial Relations 44 Section 3.1: National Joint Council 44-47 Section 3.2: Technical Advisory Panel/Resolution Advisory Panel 47-48 Section 3.3: Fairness in representation 48-50 Section 3.4: Right to strike 50-53 Chapter 4: Retained Duty System 54 Section 4.1: Flexible contracts and legislation 54-57 Section 4.2: Bounty payments 58-59 Chapter 5: Management of the Fire & Rescue Service 60 Section 5.1: Fire Authorities 60-61 Section 5.2: Recruitment 62-65 Section 5.3: Training and development of workforce 65-69 Section 5.4: Gold Book/ Principal Officers/ Brigade Managers 69-75 Appendices 76 3 Foreword I was delighted when Penny Mordaunt MP, the then Fire Minister endorsed my appointment to investigate further the barriers to change that had been suggested by Sir Ken Knight within his review of the efficiencies and operations of the fire and rescue authorities in England1. The review launched formally in October 2014, although I had the benefit of it being announced a little earlier in the year. This gave me time to read and become familiar with the fire and rescue service prior to launching the fieldwork phase of the review (terms of reference are shown as appendix 1). I was appointed as an independent reviewer, not being linked to the Government, the fire and rescue service employers nor any of the representative bodies. This independence has been challenged by both the employers and the employee representatives – although I sensed most of the objection was more from having a review imposed with little consultation rather than an accusation of potential bias. Independence also meant that there was only one of me! Combined with limited time (an average of two days per week over five months, equivalent to just two months’ full time investigation) to deliver the report led to the practical decision to appoint a small secretariat and technical advisory support from the National Fire Policy team. Additionally, I appointed (on a pro bono basis) PwC, to provide specialist input to the section that looks at the evaluation of the role, and pay, of Principal Officers. I have included their report in full in the appendices and drawn extensively from it in the section on Gold Book pay. The overriding first impression I received of the fire and rescue service was of the particular dedication towards being a firefighter. Whilst many conversations, especially with front line firefighters, started with an element of suspicion and a degree of awkwardness, these soon melted away and the sense of passion and concern for their role and the industry came flooding through. It is clear that the history of the service and the public’s appreciation of the role of firefighter play heavily on the many people I met. It was also clear that the industry has been extraordinarily successful. Reducing attendance at fires and false alarms 1 Facing the Future, May 2013 4 by over 50 per cent in the last ten years2, becoming increasingly more efficient and undertaking a much wider range of activity than simply (if you can say ‘simply’) responding to fire calls. Despite all of this change it was somewhat surprising to find that ‘conditions of service’ had not been reviewed for some time. As I travelled between fire authorities I was struck by the very different cultures I encountered. I found examples of clear, arguably inspirational, leadership and in other places a management team than seemed to struggle with direction setting and dealing with resistance. The one thing that perhaps struck hardest, early in the review, was the language being used to describe the relationship between staff and various layers of management (and indeed government). Often ‘fruity’, it went beyond banter to, in some places, vitriolic comments about the management, leadership and direction of the service. It is against this combative environment that I set out to explore, to unearth, the barriers to change identified by the Knight review. The small team supporting me did so in addition to their ‘day job’, working extremely long hours to support the various visits, note taking and checking back with contributors. I am indebted to them as I am to all the individuals who met with me or contributed to one of the several surveys that provided input to the review. I believe that there is a clear direction of travel emerging from this review: one that balances the superb but ever changing contribution the fire industry (and the people within it) make to our society with the resources that are available. The challenge for the Fire and Rescue Service is to continue to build upon the passion of the people within the industry, to accept and accelerate change, reach out to new technology and working practices and get in front of the change curve. Adrian Thomas Independent Reviewer for the conditions of service of fire and rescue staff in England 2 Table 1.1 Fire Statistics Great Britain: 2013 to 2014 5 Approach to the review It would have been easy to set myself up in London and taken evidence in a comfortable office environment. However I viewed this as a risk. It was clear to me that there were large differences in the scale and delivery of service of fire authorities and there was a risk that the review could be seen as being undertaken from a London/South east viewpoint and that the rank and file could be excluded from giving evidence unless I went to them. As a result the fieldwork phase of data/evidence gathering reached out to 21 fire authorities, key players within government, the employers’ representatives and all the employees’ representative organisations. In addition I met with academic researchers, Skills for Justice, ACAS, the Fire Service College and diversity groups. I also wished to guard against evidence being gathered in a legalistic or court room environment – I wanted people to speak openly and my findings to reflect what I was hearing. With this in mind I instigated a feature of this review, whereby when verbal evidence was gathered it was transcribed and returned to the individual for sense and accuracy checking and only then submitted to myself for inclusion in the review. As a result all the points I highlight within this review have come directly from within the industry (with the sole exception of the section on Gold Book pay). It is clear that there has been a significant amount of change, particularly with reference to the declining number of fires attended around the various Fire and Rescue Authorities, with some instigating changes of approach and others maintaining a status quo in staffing and operational activity. This review had a clear mandate3 to look at barriers to change (rather than change itself) and why successful change in one authority is not a guarantee of successful change within another. The need for a ‘conditions of service’ review arose from the Knight Review. During his review Sir Ken Knight found what he identified as inexplicable differences in the expenditure of different fire and rescue authorities in England with the net result that some authorities were spending almost twice as much as others with little relationship between that spend and any reduction in demand for operational response. Sir Ken went on to consider what the options may be available to deploy, in reducing expenditure (noting that he believed there were opportunities to change operational practice, including minimum crewing levels and the ratio of senior officers to firefighters) without reducing the quality of outcomes for the public. 3 Terms of Reference - Appendix 1 6 Having noted opportunities for efficiencies (in particular crewing levels, ‘on-call’ firefighters, lean management, conditions of service, merger, spend to save projects, duplication in evaluation and procurement) the Knight review left it to others to identify how those opportunities could be realised in practice. Sir Ken argued4 that there were clearly barriers occurring that were hindering the progression of positive change and these should be investigated more fully, with the objective of unearthing the issues behind those barriers. Sir Ken clearly made those comments with ‘conditions of service’ in mind, however even a rudimentary evaluation of the evidence (previous research papers, submissions to the Knight review and initial desk research for this review) shows that some fire and rescue services/authorities seemed able to instigate change in this area successfully, whilst others appear to find excuses and reasons not to progress change.