Agenda item

(To receive a report from Mark Baxter, Chief Fire Officer and Spencer Creek, (T) Area Manager Response, which enables the Committee to comment on proposals which will be considered by the Executive Councillor for Fire and Rescue and Cultural Services prior to consultation with the workforce)

The Committee considered a report from Mark Baxter, Chief Fire Officer, which advised the Committee of the proposal to enter consultation to seek to change the Lincolnshire crewing duty system.

The Chairman invited Mark Baxter, Chief Fire Officer to present the item to the Committee.

In guiding the Committee through the report reference was made to the current arrangements; and reasons why the Lincolnshire crewing duty system needed to change.  Appendix A to the report provided a copy of the fire cover review; changes proposed.  It was highlighted that following the service review, understanding of operational fire risk, improved training, and assessment of on call firefighters and redistribution of specialist skills the service was able to change the crewing model at Sleaford fire station to a day crewing duty system as detailed on the national scheme of conditions of service.  This would then provide a wholetime service with daytime cover 7 days a week and night-time cover being provided by on call personnel.  It was highlighted that Sleaford fire station was the only station identified through Fire Risk Assessment Methodology (FRAM) as medium risk, with the other seven stations still requiring 24/7 wholetime cover.

A copy of the Impact Assessment was detailed at Appendix B to the report and Appendix C provided a copy of the Risk Log for Sleaford Fire Station. 

The Committee was advised that the service had been involved in a joint working group to review the operational response model and efficiencies provided; and that personnel had been engaged in the process via a staff survey and face to face meetings.

The Committee were asked to comment on the proposal to seek to change the Lincolnshire crewing duty system to that detailed in paragraph 1.4 of the report, to change the Sleaford crewing model.

During consideration of this item, the Committee raised some of the following comments:

·       What effect the potential change would have on the response times in the Sleaford area.  The Committee was advised that minimal impact was expected regarding response times/standards.  The change would however mean there would be savings with not having to pay allowances for the wholetime cover, which would enable more core personnel to be recruited that might live closer to the station, to ensure that the response standard was maintained in Sleaford;

·       Whether 20 personnel, four watches of five, was adequate, as some comments received had indicated that on some occasions, the service was running on four people.  The Committee was advised that this specifically referred to Lincoln Station, where there were 20 personnel and that regarding ridership, an optimum ridership of four was deemed as safe practice, but that ideally five on an appliance was better, but this was not always possible.  Reassurance was given that the number would never go below the minimum crewing of four and that steps were taken to ensure that the right amount of personnel attended an incident.  Some clarity was sought over the role of the fifth person as being the breathing safety person, and if that was the case if the appliance was riding four, were there safe systems in place to ensure that rapid deployment was applied.  The Committee was advised that the technique had been well embedded across all fire stations, so that deployment was immediate;

·       Compensatory rest.  It was reported that compensatory rest was when people who had been committed to station for four or five days, were not expected to work 24/7, as people’s welfare was at the heart of the service.  However, it was highlighted that there was a clear understanding, if there was a life risk incident, someone on a compensatory rest could get called in to respond. The Committee was advised that a local review had been done on this matter with every single firefighter on the Lincolnshire crewing system and that agreement had been reached which enabled them to get rest periods they required, but also ensured that there was appliance availability should it be needed. It was highlighted that where a rest was interrupted alternative flexible duty patterns would be given to address as many concerns as possible in this regard;

·       Assurance was also sought that the proposed changes were not just about savings;

·       Timing of the consultation being through the summer holidays when lots of people would be on their summer break. A further question was asked regarding publicity and methods of consultation.  The Committee was advised that the fire and rescue service would be working with the Councils Engagement Team, and that the Engagement Plan would ensure that as many people as possible were contacted; and that the timescale for the consultation would be reviewed in light of earlier comments made, and for contact to be made with parish councils;

·       How certain the service was that the proposed changes would improve recruitment opportunities.  It was reported that the conversation for change had been initiated from staff, when members of the leadership team had taken time to visit stations to ask them directly how things were operating.  One area that had been highlighted had been the restrictions within the Lincolnshire crewing system.  As a result of this and the impact on recruitment, steps were then taken to ensure the service was to become an employer of choice for all people within local communities and to ensure that the service represented the diverse nature of Lincolnshire;

·       Whether there had been any response from officers.  Clarification was given that the whole process had been done in collaboration with staff and with the direct bodies that form the joint working group, who actually outlined what needed to be achieved. The proposals had then been checked to make sure that they met the needs of fire and rescue and its statutory duties, but also addressed the concerns of the work force and the direct bodies.  Reassurance was given that the whole process had been conducted in a very collaborative way and was a well-supported proposal within the organisation;

·       Page 97 advised that there had been challenge from the Fire Brigades Union.  The Committee was advised that there was a fundamental difference as to how Lincolnshire approached the crewing duty system compared to other fire and rescue services.  It was reported that Lincolnshire had been one of the first services to adopt this type of system and that this had been done through a local agreement with the FBU.  Other services had not gone down this route and had imposed a duty system without a local agreement. Because of this, that was why the court ruling had challenged this regarding working time directives.  It was highlighted because of the positive working relationship Lincolnshire had with the representative bodies it did not need to go down that route, as early engagement and discussions had taken place to make sure the service satisfied the Working Time Directive; and

·       The definition of a close proximity crew.  It was reported that these were crews that were available for 96 hours, but in that time staff were able to either go home if they live within five minutes of the station, or if not the station provided accommodation, to ensure that the personnel were available for operational response.  It was highlighted that this was in essence, the same as an on call firefighter, which in Lincolnshire was the backbone of the response model within the county.

The Chairman on behalf of the Committee extended thanks to the presenter.

RESOLVED

That support be given by the Committee to the report and that the comments raised be forwarded on to the Executive Councillor for Fire and Rescue and Cultural Services.