Dear Brother / Sister

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT – PUBLICATION

The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Select Committee have today published their report on FiReControl, which can be seen on the following link :-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcomloc/352/352.pdf

The Report is a damning indictment of the Project.  

Select Committee condemns CLG for not co-operating with its work.

The Select Committee (SC) states: “our inquiry has been hampered by the Government decision not to provide us with sight of various reviews of the FiReControl project carried out for CLG.” (1)   Those external reviews were seen by the National Audit Office (NAO) which reported in February 2010. In what the FBU considers to be a significant criticism of the Department, the SC Report says that “CLG’s written evidence refers to the  review implying that their conclusions were positive” (2) and then goes on to say  “However, repeated references in the NAO’s memorandum to the same reviews suggested that may not be the full story.” (3)

It is clear that the public safety fiasco known as FiReControl is now more than simply a matter of mis-management of a key component of the delivery of fire and rescue services. CLG’s refusal to hand over the external reviews the matter has developed into one that seems to point to obstruction of independent parliamentary scrutiny of a project which has cost millions of pounds; which has been subject to delay after delay; and is still nowhere being created, let alone functioning!

(1) Paragraph 5 on Page 8 of the SC Report.
(2) Paragraph 6 on Page 8 of the SC Report
(3) Paragraph 7 on Page 9 of the SC Report
(4) Paragraph 98 on Page 41 of the SC Report

Select Committee slams CLG and challenges the Department to live up to its hollow promises.

However, there are some real clues as to what the Select Committee feels about the viability of FiReControl. The Committee reflect that “the history of the project is a catalogue of poor judgement and mismanagement” (5) and goes on to say “There are now considerable doubts about whether the project can be delivered.” (6)

It is against this backdrop that the lack of a clear call for the Project to be axed now must be considered. On the one hand the Committee says “On balance, given the investment of public funds already committed, and the benefits that will accrue, we conclude that CLG should press ahead with the FireControl Project.” (7) This highly disappointing comment must be considered in the context of the qualification made by the SC which reads “In particular it is conditional on the urgent agreement of a viable project plan… which will ensure that the target ‘go-live’ date of mid-2011 will be met.” (8)

Select Committee not confident in the Project.

The Select Committee doesn’t appear to be too reticent in expressing its doubts about the likelihood of the Project ever getting off the ground. It mentions, or alludes to, alternative strategies three times in its seven “Conclusions and recommendations”! In paragraph 101, the Committee recommends that CLG should “review its options and make an informed, clear, open decision about the future of FiReControl.”This sits alongside these two comments: “This project plan must include interim milestones which will allow progress to be assessed on a regular basis and decisions to betaken about whether alternatives need to be considered” (9) and “CLG should urgently draw up and consult on contingency plans for any further failures.” (10)

Select Committee suggests safeguards for the Fire and Rescue Service when the Project almost inevitably fails.

Holding CLG to deliver on its assurances or to foot the bill for its failure to do so and thereby maintain sound emergency fire service mobilisation for the public via the existing control rooms, the Select Committee said that the contingency plans which should be put in place “should include provision for the maintenance and, where necessary, upgrading of existing control room technology, and CLG should meet the full costs of that to FRAs where it has become necessary as a result in the FiReControl project.” (11)

(5) Paragraph 99 on Page 41 of the SC Report
(6) Paragraph 100 on Page 41 of the SC Report
(7) Paragraph 101 on Page 41 of the Report
(8) Paragraph 101 on Page 41 of the Report
(9) Paragraph 101 on Page 41 of the Report
(10) Paragraph 103 on Page 41 of the Report
(11) Paragraph 103 on Page 41 of the Report

Select Committee report seems to be predicting an absence of ‘buy-in’ by fire and rescue authorities.

Recognising perhaps the scepticism of many fire and rescue authorities reflected in the written submissions (known as ‘memoranda’) that were sent in, coupled with the LGA’s position (though probably confused by the muddled messages which it has received from CFOA as it struggles under the weight of money it receives from the government) the Select Committee drew attention to what the FBU believes will be inevitable: “Each FRA has the legal right to make the final decision on whether to accept FiReControl. Any failure to ensure that all FRAs use the new system would be a significant blow to the ultimate aims of the project.” (12)

CLG spin machine kicks into action.

Within hours of the Select Committee report being published, the CLG seem to have drafted in a Malcolm Tucker to write their press release; either that or they have been given a spoof copy of the report. The assertions by the Minister as to what the Report says bear no resemblance at all to what the Report actually says. The release is not worthy of detailed comment. Perhaps the most critical point which reveals the myth that the Department is trying to create, is that there isn’t even a prototype “machine” on which the trainers can train on. That said, the FBU do not want to be overly critical. Seven years on, CLG officials did tell LGA and FBU representatives at a recent meeting that they have managed to produce one training note - on the phonetic alphabet!

Concluding remarks.

The FBU’s position on the FiReControl Project is well-known to members and is reflective of the view of the vast majority of members, and need not be reiterated here. This circular provides a commentary on only some of the issues contained within the Select Committee report.  I encourage all members to read the Report from cover to cover and to compare it against what CLG have to say on the matter.

Hard copies of the reference documents will be provided to control branches throughout the UK. All of the documents are available to view on the FBU website using the following link http://www.fbu.org.uk/campaigns/outofcontrol/index.php

The FBU written submissions provided to the Select Committee can be found on pages EV 101 – EV 116 of the Select Committee report.

(12) Paragraph 102 on Page 41 of the Report

Best wishes.

Yours fraternally


ANDY DARK
Assistant General Secretary