Why is the government consulting on abolishing fire and rescue authorities in England?

Why is the government consulting on abolishing fire and rescue authorities in England?

Why is the government consulting on abolishing fire and rescue authorities in England?

                                                          

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)

Earlier this month I filmed the first meeting of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s Police and Fire Collaboration Committee and blogged about its first meeting.

Around the time of that meeting, there had been talk of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority possibly being abolished and transferred to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority if Merseyside had an elected Mayor which would happen at the earliest in May 2017. This formed part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s proposals to central government for greater devolution (as reported on this blog).

Since then the government has started a consultation (which finishes on the 23rd October 2015) called the Emergency Services Collaboration Consultation which proposes abolishing all fire and rescue authorities in England and transferring their powers to the Police and Crime Commissioner (on the left of the photo above).

This article in the Guardian about the consultation on the proposals has the opening two sentences which sum things up, "What do you do if you’re part of a government that believes in decimating the fire and rescue service as a means to making "efficiency savings", only to find yourself regularly thwarted by elected councillors who sit on the local fire and rescue authority? Answer: abolish the fire and rescue authority."

For those opposed to the proposed Saughall Massie fire station, the concept of such savings being thwarted by councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority will sound strange. The opposition to the plans for a fire station at Saughall Massie are coming from the local Conservative councillors for Moreton West and Saughall Massie and local residents compared to the councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority who are unanimously in favour of closing Upton and West Kirby fire stations and a replacement fire station at Saughall Massie.

It 2012 the Merseyside Police Authority (made up half of local councillors and half of independents) was scrapped and replaced with a Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner. It would seem the Conservative government wants to do something similar to what the Coalition government did to the police authorities in 2012, but this time to the fire and rescue authorities in England.

What happened to the police authorities and their replacement with police and crime commissioners plus police and crime panels was part of the Coalition agreement:

"We will introduce measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual, who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives."
 

The Conservative 2015 manifesto stated "We will enable fire and police services to work more closely together and develop the role of our elected and accountable Police and Crime Commissioners." but didn’t go as far as stating the fire and rescue authorities would be abolished and their functions transferred to the police and crime commissioners.

This government consultation on abolishing with fire and rescue authorities for England, shows a national political will for less oversight by local councillors of the fire services in England and goes against the grain of the localism agenda.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Why did Councillor Blakeley ask councillors to block a fire station in Saughall Massie?

Why did Councillor Blakeley ask councillors to block a fire station in Saughall Massie?

Why did Councillor Blakeley ask councillors to block a fire station in Saughall Massie?

                                          

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Committee meeting of the 15th September 2015 (Part 1 of 4) who discussed a notice of motion about a proposed new fire station in Saughall Massie

Yesterday evening’s meeting of Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Committee was well attended by members of the public.

There were also many councillors from the ruling Labour administration to see what was happening first hand.

Many members of the public were there to see what happened on a vote on whether the land at Saughall Massie (owned by Wirral Council) would be blocked from being gifted, leased or sold to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service for a new fire station.

However let’s start at the beginning.

The sole Lib Dem councillor at the meeting was running late so the Committee started the meeting with just the Labour and Conservative councillors. The first item was declarations of interest.

Councillor Steve Nilbock (a Labour councillor) had to declare a prejudicial interest in the Saughall Massie fire station item as he’s a member of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. This meant he had to leave the room during that item and not take part in the vote.

Councillor Anita Leech (a Labour councillor and Chair of the Planning Committee) also declared an interest in the Saughall Massie fire station item as although no planning application has yet been made she may have to make a decision on it in the future.

Councillor Jean Stapleton (a Labour councillor) had to declare a prejudicial interest in the Saughall Massie fire station item as she’s a member of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. This meant she had to leave the room during that item and not take part in the vote.

So that was three Labour councillors that couldn’t vote (as they wouldn’t be in the room).

The Chair then announced he would be dealing with item 4 (proposal for a fire station on green belt land in Saughall Massie) first due to the large numbers of members of the public present.

Although he was reminded he had to first approve the minutes, he pointed out he hadn’t been at the last meeting so someone else would have to propose approval of the minutes.

At this point three Labour councillors (Councillors Niblock, Leech and Stapleton) had to leave the room (having each declared a prejudicial interest) and took no further part in the discussion or vote on the Saughall Massie fire station issue.

At this point the Lib Dem councillor on the Committee, Cllr Dave Mitchell arrived and apologised for being late.

Wirral Council - Regeneration and Environment Committee Policy and Performance Committee 15th September 2015 - Councillor Chris Blakeley in the foreground explains his notice of motion on the Saughall Massie fire station
Wirral Council – Regeneration and Environment Committee Policy and Performance Committee 15th September 2015 – Councillor Chris Blakeley in the foreground explains his notice of motion on the Saughall Massie fire station

The Conservative councillor for Moreton West and Saughall Massie, Cllr Chris Blakeley (in the foreground of the photo above) was then invited to introduce his notice of motion (which had been referred by the Mayor to this Committee at the Council meeting on the 6th July 2015).

At this point (and I’m trying not to take sides on what is now a party political issue) and as this issue has had many decisions and press coverage over the years, I will feel it would be better to just quote his speech (and declare an interest as he mentions me twice in it). The Chair told Cllr Chris Blakeley he would have ten minutes (although the procedural rules on notices of motion agreed by the Coordinating Committee earlier in the year (see rule 17) don’t give any time limits at all).

Councillor Chris Blakeley (a Conservative councillor for Moreton West and Saughall Massie) said,

“Thank you Chairman, Members, I’ll try not to take up ten minutes, but I have to say it’s an improvement on Council which comes to only seven minutes! So if I do use the ten please forgive me but I will try and keep it as brief as I can.

Thank you Chairman and Members, first of all can I put on record my admiration for the work Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service do and make it clear that this Notice of Motion is not an attack on them. This is simply saying that while the Chief Fire Officer may believe the closure of Upton and West Kirby and building a new fire station on green belt land in Saughall Massie is his only option, the residents of Saughall Massie have made it very clear that they do not want their green belt developed with this or any other development.

As you will see on the Notice of Motion it states that there has been massive public opposition to this proposal which now has risen to over twelve hundred signatures and is growing daily. Also there’s opposition from Saughall Massie Village Area Conservation Society and the Wirral Society and the Chairman of the Saughall Massie Village Area Conservation Society is here tonight.

Sadly however, the proposal for a fire station at this location on our precious green belt appears to have the support of the Labour Party on the Wirral or at least its candidate in this year’s local election who made it very clear in his paperwork and his election address when he said in a leaflet, "I’ll be calling on the Fire Service to guarantee any design for the new fire station is sympathetic to the neighbourhood and will minimise disturbance to the residents of Saughall Massie."

Sadly this begs the question, has Wirral made up or already made up its mind and that’s very difficult to see?

Chairman and Members, the Chief Fire Officer says he has to have a site that is near to the midpoint of West Kirby and Upton as possible in order to give him the best response times.

On response times there’s a little bit of confusion there because at all the public meetings I went to the Chief Fire Officer said about response times and at other public meetings he said let’s not get hung up on response times. So I’m very concerned that the message that’s going from the Chief Fire Officer were to say the least mixed and confused and I don’t think anybody at any public meeting got the same words other than we need this fire station.

So it’s to give him what he says the best response times for West Wirral residents, the protection he believes is necessary.

Yet Chairman, for the last two years, West Kirby he says because these are his words has only been operational for 50% of the time and so he’s covering West Wirral from Upton without any problems and has been for the last two years!

In fact firefighters I talk to on the doorstep told me for all intents and purposes West Kirby Fire Station is not operational at all and of course what about the most at risk site if he moves from Upton which is Arrowe Park Hospital?

The response times to that vulnerable site will be extended, so why the need to move a mile at a cost of over £4 million?

Assuming the Chief Fire Officer is right and they need a new fire station for whatever reason, why does it have to be on our precious green belt? A green belt that has, kept by this Council, has historically defended to the hilt, green belt that according to the very eminent Doctor Hilary Ash, Honorary Conservation Officer for Wirral Wildlife and the Wirral ??? and Cheshire Trust who says the proposed site is used as foraging for barn owls who are nesting on the north side of Saughall Massie Road, who says that bats are feeding here, who says that kingfishers were reported here, who says that if some of the green belt is lost here it would affect these species of protected wildlife along the corridor along there.

Surely this Committee and Council do not want to be responsible for neglecting its biodiversity duties?

Moving on, it’s come to light there’s been an ongoing string of emails. I’d like to thank Mr. Brace for this, because he got all these emails and I will say a long string of emails as you can see. These are them here so thank you Mr. Brace for your tenacity in getting those emails.

The emails are between senior fire officers and senior council officers, including senior planning officers. Therefore it’s no wonder that local people perceive that this is a done deal!

Look Chairman, Members for the avoidance of doubt I’m not saying that there has been any deal at all, I’m simply expressing views said to me by many residents who I represent and given the evidence who can blame them?

One of those emails was from Kieran Timmins. He was Deputy Chief Executive, I hear he’s retiring, I don’t know whether he’s quite gone so I’ll refer to him as the current Deputy Chief Executive of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and Council.

Officers talked about sites that had been discounted and sites considered in more detail. According to Mr. Timmins’ email, six sites were considered in more detail, however according to him there were only two runners left. Saughall Massie bypass, which is not the green belt site currently proposed and the library community hub site in Greasby.

Now having had the Greasby site withdrawn by the Leader of the Council, one has to ask why the other frontrunner, their second choice of Saughall Massie bypass described by Mr. Timmins as owned by Wirral Council and looks quite positive based on recent correspondence, was not then turned to. Instead a brand new green belt site, that has never been in the mix previously.

This site which we’re talking about tonight, has never been in the mix until Greasby was withdrawn. Where and how did Council officers suddenly identify a brand new site?

And this isn’t a case of NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard]ism, the site in Saughall Massie Road at the bypass is still in the north-west of Saughall Massie ward. The site at Saughall Massie Road/Upton bypass, like the Greasby site is not in greenbelt and while it’s wooded I checked with Council officers, there are no tree preservation orders on any of the trees. In fact one senior Council officer said the site would already have its own perimeter buffer with the trees that are already in situ.

So Chairman and Members here is a Council owned site that is not in green belt, that is described by Mr Timmins as looking positive. So the Chief Fire Officer’s assertions that there are no alternative sites is clearly is incorrect.

Now I know that the Committee raised earlier this is something that Wirral Planning Committee should a planning application be submitted, however this Committee can act before that in sending a message to Council and the Fire and Rescue Service that this Committee recommends to Council that this Committee asks Council to retain the protection of its green belt, as set by the Authority to stop inappropriate development, ask Council not to give, sell or lease the land concerned at Saughall Massie because of the value it has to the community and ask Council to continue work to work cooperatively with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service in identifying and facilitating a more suitable site, for operational purposes and to maintain the amenity of local people.

And in closing Chair I will just say that site is available. It’s six hundred metres from this site we’re discussing tonight, it will add nothing or very little to the response times the Chief Fire Officer has been quoting, maybe fifteen or twenty seconds either way. Fifteen or twenty seconds closer to Upton, fifteen or twenty seconds further away from West Kirby and Hoylake.

And one final thing Chairman, that wasn’t in my initial thing but, given the floods we had last week and the horrendous scenes we had in Moreton, with over a hundred families displaced, that field, that green belt, was also underwater from the brook.

By building on that field, you’re taking away natural drainage, you are assisting the freak weather conditions that are becoming more and more frequent to flood that area.

So Chairman I would ask that this Committee fully supports the Notice of Motion that was put forward to Council but moved to this Committee and sends those messages back to the Council.

Thank you for your time Chairman and Members.”

Continues at Labour use casting vote to delay decision on Saughall Massie fire station land.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Which councillor claimed £72.05 for a dinner?

Which councillor claimed £72.05 for a dinner?

Which councillor claimed £72.05 for a dinner?

                                                            

Cllr Leslie Byrom Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting 30th June 2015
Cllr Leslie Byrom Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting 30th June 2015

 

Above is Cllr Leslie Byrom, Vice-Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. He is one of the Labour representatives from Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. Some readers may recognise him as the councillor who chaired the public meeting when councillors decided to close Upton and West Kirby fire stations.

Last year he submitted an expense claim to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service. You can see this expense claim and the accompanying receipt below.

Cllr Leslie Byrom expense claim September 2014 page 1 of 2
Cllr Leslie Byrom expense claim September 2014 page 1 of 2
Cllr Leslie Byrom expense claim September 2014 page 2 of 2
Cllr Leslie Byrom expense claim September 2014 page 2 of 2

So, as you can see from the above the hotel receipt is for one night bed and breakfast (£100) and dinner (£72.05) which comes to a total of £172.05.

On the claim form however, despite Cllr Byrom signing a declaration that “I declare that I have actually and necessarily incurred additional expense” this £172.05 amount becomes £180. Someone has reduced the value of the claim £180 to £172.05.

Dinners costing £72.05 are of course technically within the expense claiming rules as if you read page 202 councillors can claim up to £180 for a subsistence allowance for stays in London.

However under the expenses system had Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid his accommodation directly, Cllr Byrom would’ve only been allowed to claim up to £47.81 for meals (a daily allowance of £56.82 minus £9.01 for the cost of breakfast).

As to whether spending £72.05 on a dinner is necessary. On an earlier stay at the same hotel, Cllr Leslie Byrom’s dinner was only £45.70 (see below).

Cllr Leslie Byrom hotel invoice February 2014
Cllr Leslie Byrom hotel invoice February 2014
Cllr Leslie Byrom expenses February 2014
Cllr Leslie Byrom expenses February 2014

As you can see he didn’t claim for the cost of the £45.70 dinner for that trip, but someone at Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service has increased the value of the claim to include it anyway!

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

Why did Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority pay a PR company £250 a day?

                                                          

Peter Rushton Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority fire station merger consultation meeting Greasby 10th November 2014
Peter Rushton Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority fire station merger consultation meeting Greasby 10th November 2014

On the right of the photo above is Peter Rushton. He’s chairing a public consultation meeting in Greasby last year, one of the public meetings held to consult with the public on the closure of West Kirby and Upton stations and a replacement fire station at Greasby. It’s a still from this video I took of the public consultation meeting.

He introduces himself as “I’m Peter Rushton from Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service”. What I don’t think the public knew then (or perhaps know now) is that Peter Rushton had a contract with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority through his service company Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited.

His contract has a secrecy clause which states:

"Publicity

10.8 Neither the Authority nor the Supplier shall publicise in any media or public announcement information regarding the terms of the Contract, or the Service supplied, without the prior written consent of the other party in either case such consent not to be unreasonably withheld."

 

However I’m skipping ahead a little here and I’d like to briefly make a point about how this contract was awarded. The contract originally for six months (although it was later extended for a further six months) was for a value of £12,500 and started on the 8th April 2014.

Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited was only incorporated a fortnight before being awarded the contract. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution at the time required that for contracts of this value that two written quotations had to be obtained first. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s constitution required there to be a report if this isn’t the case and 3.3 of their contract standing orders detailed the procedure to be followed:

"For procurement projects under £172,514 for Goods and Services and £4,322,012 for Works, the Head of Procurement or their nominated deputy, and a Director must approve any exemption, prior to any commitment being given by the Authority to any supplier. The Chief Fire Officer will keep a register of exemptions granted detailing the nature and value of the contract, the circumstances justifying the exemption and the name of the contractor awarded the contract."

 

However what was the contract actually for? That’s detailed in an attachment to the contract. A day was defined earlier in the contract as meaning 7 hours of work.

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 11
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 11

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

ATTACHMENT 1

SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES

Background

  1. MFRA is in the process of merging 8 fire stations into 4 as part of a major service reengineering exercise to deliver large scale savings. This will necessitate a large programme of internal and external consultancy.

Project Scope/Deliverables

The service required is to deliver professional communications expertise, a communications strategy and support to the following people during the process:-

  • CFO and Exec team
  • Director of Strategy and Performance who leads the restructured corporate communications team in house

It will include devising and over-seeing the implementation of a comprehensive communication strategy with all stakeholders to effectively help deliver 4 fire station mergers.

The work will require (but is not limited to) attendance at the following meetings which may take place outside normal office hours:-

  • Internal PO briefings
  • Public consultation meetings both open and facilitated
  • To chair open public consultation meetings
  • Briefings with stakeholders in the area including MPs, councillors
  • IRMP meetings

The services will also provide for the following:-

  • Play a leading role in delivering two events
  • Long Service & Bravery Awards
  • The official opening of the Joint Control Centre
  • Assist Principle Officers on all PO Briefings
  • Provide strategic communication advice to Principle Officers

Plus any other duties in relation to the station merger programmes as requested by the Director of Strategy and Performance.

Timescales and fees

Timescales
The Services will be provided over a maximum of 8 days per a calendar month for a period of six months from the commencement date with an option to extend on the same or different terms which would be agreed between the parties prior to any extension period.

Times, days and hours of the service to be agreed between the parties in advance of any attendance.

Fees

  1. The daily rate for the provision of the Services is £250 plus any pre-agreed expenses.
  2. Total fee is £12,000 + expenses.

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 12

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

ATTACHMENT 2

FEES AND INVOICING SCHEDULE

  1. Peter Rushton will undertake the activities as per the Specification in Attachment 1 during the period 8th April 2014 to 7th October 2014 based on a commitment of 8 days per a calendar month. For the avoidance of doubt, the Authority shall only be charged for days actually undertaken by the Supplier.
  2. 48 days will be undertaken during the six month period at the standard day rate of £250. The total value of this contract (including any pre-agreed expenses) is therefore £12,000.

  3. The Authority will apply a ceiling to the Travel & Accommodation Expenses Rates payable to the Supplier of £500 for the six month period. Expenses must be approved by the Authority in advance of being incurred and shall be payable at the Authority’s approved rates in force at the time of Contract award. The Supplier will be required to provide copies of relevant accommodation and travel receipts.

  4. Consolidated invoices shall be presented every 4 weeks clearly detailing the dates on which activities were undertaken and itemising any expenses claimed which were incurred during the same 4 week period.

  5. The Authority shall pay the Supplier the sums due under the Contract, on 30 day payment terms, from receipt of a true and valid invoice.

All invoices should be submitted to:

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
Exchequer Services Department
Bridle Road
Bootle
Merseyside
L30 4YD

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 13
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited page 13

Contract Ref: RFQ/15/14

AS WITNESS the hands of the parties

Signed by and on behalf of the Authority (In Caps): MERSEYSIDE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY JANET HENSHAW

Signature: (Janet Henshaw’s signature)

Date: 08/04/2014

Signed by the Supplier (In Caps): PETER RUSHTON CONSULTANCY LIMITED
Signature: (Peter Rushton’s signature)
Date: 08.04.2014


The six month contract was then extended for a further six months (see below).

Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 1 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 1 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 2 of 2
Contract Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Peter Rushton Consultancy Limited addendum page 2 of 2

Finally, the last report to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority on the outcome of the consultation to close Upton and West Kirby fire stations with a new fire station at Saughall Massie mentioned many of the expenses that related to the consultation, but nothing was in that report about this contract. If the cost of this contract had been included in the report, there should’ve been an extra £6,250 mentioned in the report (£25,000 divided by four is £6,250).

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: