Decision details

60.1           The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated separately at Pages No. 1-12, asked Members to debate the options and make any relevant representations to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposals in respect of the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service on behalf of the residents of Tewkesbury Borough.

60.2           Members were advised that the report set out the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposals and the reasons for them. The business case for change explored four options for the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service: no change/status quo; representation; governance; and single employer. The Police and Crime Commissioner’s preferred model was governance which would see the Police and Crime Commissioner take on responsibility for the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service in much the same way that he currently did for Gloucestershire Constabulary with the role becoming the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner. The Police and Fire Services would retain their own Chief Officers and staff, and be operationally independent of each other, but all staff and relevant assets and liabilities would transfer from the County Council to the Police and Crime Commissioner acting in the capacity as the new fire authority.

60.3           During the discussion which ensued, a Member indicated that he had circulated a proposed response to Members prior to the meeting which stated that Tewkesbury Borough Council considered the proposals to be ill-founded and would, if implemented, be likely to deliver a deterioration in the standards of the Fire and Rescue Service currently experienced by the residents of the Borough. It was considered that this deterioration would occur because any fundamental change to the governance structure of the Fire and Rescue Service was unnecessary and would be to the detriment of residents; the proposed change would create a significant additional cost to tax payers due to the costs of change, set-up and ongoing expenses created with no commensurate longer term reduction in Council tax identified; the proposal would create a democratic deficit in the governance of the Fire and Rescue Service with the new arrangements having one county-wide elected person functioning as the residents check on service delivery rather than the current arrangement whereby 53 locally elected representatives held the Service to account; the Fire and Rescue Service had a completely different culture and service objective to the Police Service and combining the two would inevitably deliver a conflict of interest without a resolution mechanism – the essence of the Fire and Rescue Service was saving lives and it acted independently to achieve that objective whereas law enforcement was effectively an instrument of the government and state and operated accordingly; and the Fire and Rescue Service was a community service which was well integrated with the County Council social and community services and operated from shared facilities – it was felt that any change to that would inevitably cause negative disruption to the provision of that essential community service. In addition, Members felt that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s case for change failed to establish a factual cost benefit for Council Tax payers; failed to explain in specific detail how performance of the Fire and Rescue Service would be improved; and that it implied unsatisfactory experience with the current governance structure yet failed to substantiate that in a meaningful way or provide a more effective alternative. He therefore proposed, and it was seconded, that the proposal was fundamentally flawed, offered no benefit to Tewkesbury Borough residents and should proceed no further. The Member indicated that he had been a member of the Fire Service and he felt that, whilst both the Police and Fire and Rescue were emergency services, they were otherwise very different. The Fire and Rescue Service often went into situations which were not Police-friendly yet Officers were treated with respect and he feared that amalgamation of the two services would result in confusion with Fire Officers being seen as part of law and order which would put them in further danger.

60.4           Members expressed agreement with that view and felt that combining the two services would result in detrimental effects to residents. One Member was of the view that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s report showed the Fire and Rescue Service had become a national leader and actually gave the case for the status quo as it did a really good job; she felt, as did others, that the cons outweighed the pros in this case. The Council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel indicated that the Police and Crime Commissioner had considered this issue last year and had decided not to pursue it; however, he had now changed his mind. The Member was of the view that the recent issues with the Chief Fire Officer actually showed how well the governance of the Fire and Rescue Service worked, rather than showing failings, which was very different to the recent report on child protection in the County which had shown a failing in the leadership in critical areas which ultimately lay within the remit of the Police and Crime Commissioner. The Member suggested that the view put forward by the Council should not only say that the proposal should proceed no further but also that, of all of the options presented, the no change/status quo option should be adopted. The proposer and seconder of the motion accepted the amendment.

60.5           A Member suggested that the Council’s view should be provided to the Home Office and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary as well as the Police and Crime Commissioner. Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That a letter be sent to the Police and Crime Commissioner,                              the Home Office and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of                                             Constabulary to express the Council’s view that:

1.    the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposal in respect of the Fire and Rescue Service is fundamentally flawed, offered no benefit to Tewkesbury Borough residents and should proceed no further; and  

2.    of all of the options presented in Paragraphs 3.1.1-3.1.4 of the report, option 3.1.1 – no change/status quo – should be adopted;

for the reasons set out below:

Tewkesbury Borough Council considers that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s ‘Case for Change’ business case is ill-founded, and would, if implemented, be likely to deliver a deterioration in the standards of the Fire and Rescue Service currently experienced by the residents of the Borough, for the following reasons:

·      Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service currently provides an outstanding service to residents, by all relevant measures. Any fundamental change to the governance structure is both clearly unnecessary, and can only risk service deterioration, to the detriment of residents.

·      The proposed change will create a significant additional cost to Council Tax payers, due to the costs of change, set up, and ongoing expenses created, with no commensurate longer-term reduction in Council Tax identified.

·      The proposal would create a significant ‘democratic deficit’ in the governance of Gloucestershire’s Fire and Rescue Service; under current arrangements 53 local elected representatives hold Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service to account, whereas under this proposal only one, county-wide elected person, would function as the residents’ check on service delivery.

·      Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service has a completely different culture and service objective to law enforcement, and combining these two organisations will inevitably deliver conflict of interest, without a resolution mechanism. The essence of Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service is saving lives, it currently acts independently to achieve this objective; law enforcement is effectively an instrument of the government and state, and operates accordingly.

·      Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service is a community service which is well integrated with Gloucestershire County Council Social and Community Services, and operates from shared facilities. Any change to this would inevitably cause negative disruption to the provision of this essential community service.

In addition, in assessing the proposal provided, Tewkesbury Borough Council finds that:

·      The ‘Case for Change’ fails to establish a factual cost benefit for Council Tax payers.

·      The ‘Case for Change’ fails to explain in any specific detail how Fire and Rescue service performance will be improved, choosing instead to provide unsubstantiated general statements of intent.

·      The ‘Case for Change’ implies unsatisfactory experience with the current governance structure, yet fails to substantiate this in any meaningful way, or provide a more effective alternative.