Agenda item

Project 21 Future Mobilising - Final Options Appraisal

Report of the Deputy Chief Fire Officer

Minutes:

The Fire Authority considered the report of the Deputy Chief Fire Officer (DCFO) which presented Members with the outcomes of the final due diligence stage of Project 21 – Future Mobilising Project and sought their approval to implement the preferred option as recommended by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT).

 

The Vice-Chair addressed the Authority explaining that the Members all accepted that any decision that involved substantial change and a potential financial risk was difficult.  She informed the meeting that Members had received a letter from a member of staff raising personal thoughts on the proposed option, perceived financial difficulties of the county authorities and concerns that the respective Fire Services were not in control of their own finances.  The letter also stated that staff did not feel they had been fully engaged in the process which raised concerns with Members.  The Vice-Chair understood there was an operational balance and the project was very technical but felt the report demonstrated that the Surrey option was potentially a risk and had concerns about their ability to meet the timeline.  It was a large amount of money and in these times of financial difficulty it needed to be a carefully considered decision.  The Vice-Chair proposed a pause in the process requesting officers provide a further report detailing the costings and requirements of a standalone control centre and additionally the possibility of sharing accommodation with Sussex Police on the shared HQ site.  This proposal was seconded by Cllr Powell.  The Chairman asked that this proposal be held aside in order to allow the DCFO to introduce the report and for Members to fully debate the contents.

 

The DCFO provided the Fire Authority with a brief introduction to the report ensuring that all relevant points were covered.  The DCFO thanked the Sussex Control Centre (SCC) staff and other colleagues for their work on the project.  The DCFO also thanked Mott MacDonald for their support and challenge during the evaluation process.  The due diligence work showed that all four shortlisted options were possible but were not without risk.  It had been clear from the start of the process that each option would impact on staff, not just with regard to IT, but operationally too.  There had been regular staff engagement throughout the process.  SCC staff, members of the SCC technical team and the SCC Group and Station-Managers had been included on the analysis team.

 

The DCFO explained that the due diligence process had led to the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) being clear on a preferred option which was to partner with Surrey as a member of a tri-service collaboration.  Whilst the North-West (NW) Outsource solution was technologically preferable it was essential that Members considered the operational risk, impact on staff and potentially challenging industrial relations that may result from it. 

 

The NW Hybrid option was not currently operational and the most expensive.  The SLT were concerned that option would not in SLTs opinion offer the same inter-operability and operational benefits of co-location with a neighbouring service and therefore officers advice was that this would only ever be considered as a temporary option rather than a permanent solution.

 

The DCFO explained that the Surrey Hybrid option was the least robust and well understood.  Whilst ESFRS would be able to retain more staff, the technical solution was the least well developed.  As a result there was no certainty as to the cost of this option; during the due diligence process it was made clear that Surrey and Capita did not have the capacity to consider the hybrid solution and would not be able to do so until the start of 2020.  It would then take approximately 8-12 weeks to review this option.  In reality, the detail for this solution would not be presented to the Fire Authority for a decision until April 2020, meaning the March 2021 go-live date would be impossible to meet.  This would result in ESFRS being required to renegotiate with Remsdaq for continued provision and support to the existing system in order to continue to be able to mobilise during the intervening period.

 

The DCFO told the Authority that the Surrey Outsource option was not without risk and that there was no intention to play this down, but it was deemed that the risks were outweighed by the potential future benefits.  The Authority were told that whilst no guarantees could be made to SCC staff, this option meant the prospect of compulsory redundancies would be reduced.  It was confirmed that there would be no loss of accountability to ESFRS, under the Fire & Rescue Services Act the statutory duty of provision remained with ESFRS, although through a “Section 16 agreement” this could be delivered by working with a partner.  The DCFO accepted that perhaps the choice of terminology was not helpful, the preferred option was not a straightforward commercial “outsource” but could be better described as being a tri-service partnership.

 

The DCFO confirmed that the Information Technology Governance (ITG) Manager agreed that the proposed Surrey solution was deliverable.  The DCFO closed by telling the Authority that putting all concerns aside, the operational benefits of the proposed solution were immediate, the detail of these were included on pages 21 - 22 of the report.  The responsibility of the Fire Authority and ESFRS was to provide a functional mobilising system and this proposed solution would achieve this and enable the Service to keep the communities of East Sussex safe.

 

Members welcomed the change of process that had allowed the acceptance of Public questions on this agenda item.  There was some discussion on the long history of upheaval and change within Control provision, not just in East Sussex but nationwide.  Some Members explained that they ideologically opposed outsourcing as they believed it removed local accountability and that they believed residents of East Sussex would also oppose this.  Members commented that ESFRS had expert staff who were valued but that years of uncertainty had been a challenge which was reflected by many staff moving on to new employment. 

 

The Authority felt the cost of the proposed options was also a concern and were disappointed that there appeared to have been no real consideration given to a standalone provision on the shared HQ site.  Cllr Scott proposed, seconded by Cllr Evans, an amendment to the recommendations to defer any decision until Members had been presented with a fully costed option for a standalone control centre at the shared HQ in Lewes – this amendment was later withdrawn.

 

Some Members reminded their colleagues that any delay would not prevent them from having to make a difficult decision.  They reminded the Authority that the standalone option had been considered by them previously and deemed not practical or affordable, but that this had regrettably not been included in detail in the report before them today.  There were other problems with a standalone option including foregoing any economies of scale and the importance of collaboration.  The DCFO replied that it was not accurate to say that an option which included maintaining a control room in East Sussex had not been referenced in the report.  The NW Hybrid option included reasonably robust costings.  This was the most expensive option with limited operational advantage, and as previously stated, it could only ever be considered as a temporary solution.  The national picture across the fire sector was that services were moving towards local shared services and collaborations.  The DCFO explained to the Authority that the costs of a standalone control provision would be considerably higher and the service less resilient than any of the four options considered in this process.  There was a reasonably strong assumption that the cost of re-tendering for a standalone system would add an additional c. £2.5m to the costs outlined in the report.  Whilst a standalone control option might technically be achievable it would be more expensive and against the national direction. 

 

The debate continued with a discussion on the issues that would be presented by a delay, including the supplier potentially no longer providing or supporting the current software; if this was the case then ESFRS would have to re-provision fast.  Remaining with the current situation was not possible in the long term.  Some Members explained they would not be seeking a pause in the process but felt there should be a preference expressed by the Authority which should be progressed but a final decision deferred.

 

Everyone at the meeting agreed that SCC staff had remained remarkably resilient and loyal to the Service and should be credited for this.  Members recognised that there was one hybrid model presented in the report that had the benefit of providing some staff retention.  The DCFO responded to queries regarding the staffing levels at Surrey by confirming that this had been identified during their HMICFRS inspection and they had already begun to respond to the findings, including a current recruitment process.  A TUPE process would also be carried out, should it be agreed to partner with them.

 

Members had strong concerns regarding the financial risk that could be faced if sharing provision with County Authorities.  They were aware of pressures on both Fire Services, however, some Members recognised that there were substantial advantages to a partnership with Surrey.  There was a request that a mechanism must be in place to ensure robust, secure ring-fencing and safeguarding of funds in order to ensure there was no impact on control centre provision from outside pressures at either County Authority.  The DCFO explained that a Section 16 Agreement was the mechanism through which the Governance arrangements would be agreed and that ESFRS would have the chance to influence and contribute to the creation of robust governance arrangements and ways of working.

 

Members discussed whether there were further reasons for progressing two options rather than settling on one at this meeting.  It was suggested that the preferred option would be Surrey Outsource, but there was some desire to keep the NW Hybrid option open.  The Authority were reminded that Project 21 had already been a 12 month process, including long-listing of potential options, refining and short-listing.  In line with the time limitations and the option requirements set out before the process started there were no other options that could have been tabled for Members.

 

Members asked for clarity on the operational benefits that had been referred to and whether, if a different option were chosen, these operational benefits would be possible by other means.  The DCFO referred Members to the details of the operational assessment shown at pages 21-22 of the report.  There was an expectation through the National Framework for England on fire and rescue services with regard to operational standards.  The framework described expectations of intraoperability and interoperability across emergency services and fire and rescue services were expected to work with each other to deliver the intraoperability element, including compatible communications systems, control rooms and equipment and cross border working.  The view of officers was that it was easier and more effective to deliver this through a local control room rather than one located in a different part of the UK, it was also noted that this was one of the reasons that the majority of control room collaborations and partnerships were based on defined and logical, coterminous geographical groupings.  Operational benefits that might be achieved included truly borderless mobilising for two adjacent counties, convergence of operational procedures including standardisation of Predetermined Attendances (PDAs – the number and type of resources mobilised to certain incidents on the initial call) and making a local incident control room available for large scale and major incidents, there would also be increased tie-in with the local Resilience Forums for Sussex and Surrey and their arrangements.

 

The Chief Fire Officer (CFO) added that by having a shared local control centre the staff had access to live visuals of the availability of all appliances across all borders; if there were no borders then the response to an incident could be far quicker.  A standalone control solution would not provide this.  The benefits would be particularly apparent when dealing with large operations involving multiple partners.  Members were informed of how valuable it was to be able to place officers at the control centre to support control staff and to add their knowledge to an incident response.  A further risk to ESFRS of moving to a standalone provision would be the loss of collaboration, shared knowledge cross county, organisational benefits and alignment to others with regards to policy change.  ESFRS would also be closing itself off to future potential opportunities including multi-service control rooms, unlocking more collaborations, sharing wider resources, joint PDAs, shared purchasing and improvements in service delivery.

 

The DCFO reiterated the impacts a pause in the process might have. Financially this was presented at paragraph 4.6, page 40 of the report.  Whilst it might be contractually possible it would pose the service with a technical risk.  The ADR/T added that the assessed additional cost of an extension would be £500k per annum, with the additional requirement to maintain project resources at a minimum cost of c. £100k, but likely greater.  He added that it was already proving challenging to manage operationally with the current SCC, including maintaining cover which presented its own operational risk. 

 

The ITG Manager informed Members that the equipment at SCC had been purchased in 2013 with maintenance agreements in place.  There had been some prudent investment during that time to make improvements to ensure that the system would continue to function.  If a delay were agreed then assessment would have to be undertaken to evaluate the fitness for purpose of the servers and other equipment at SCC.

 

The Authority discussed the complexity of the papers and admitted to being surprised at the preferred option, as it did not appear to be the number one suggestion from the due diligence process.  They accepted that operational benefits were stacked against some serious financial and technical issues.  These were not easy issues to resolve and there was some concern regarding the capacity of Surrey to be able to on-board West and then East.  Some Members were keen to be clear that this was not a political issue and there were cross party concerns that they did not perceive that all the options had been fully tested and not enough information had been provided.  There was a lack of confidence in both authorities and concerns that Surrey and West Sussex might begin to lean financially on ESFA.  The DCFO reminded Members of the earlier discussion regarding the Section 16 Agreement and reassured them that all these matters would be covered fully within this partnership agreement.  He confirmed that the SLT was able to support the Surrey option because of the significant operational benefit that it would bring to ESFRS.  The capacity of Surrey had been covered in the report where it was explained that they would not be able to on-board until the New Year but that they had committed their own costs to provide resources in order to do so.  The resources of ESFRS had been fully costed and were included in the report.  The DCFO confirmed that he did not disagree with the evaluation of the timeline made by Members and accepted that there was a possibility that the deadline of March 2021 may be missed and that the process was not risk free.

 

Members reiterated concerns regarding SCC staff and wanted some clarity on the TUPE process and what support was being provided.  TUPE regulations were clear on what terms and conditions were protected, and that under these regulations the travelling distance to the proposed new location was deemed reasonable.  The Authority accepted that this process was difficult for all involved but wanted further reassurance regarding the level of staff consultation.  The ACFO provided clarity and reassurance, explaining that the technical team included the most experienced staff at SCC, they were control operators with a full understanding of the control room operation and requirements.  The impact on staff of all the options was recognised and time had been spent with them discussing the potential impact of the decisions to be made.  Their involvement was critical to the process and SCC managers had been crucial in sharing information with their teams.  Additional communications with SCC staff had included FAQs and letters ensuring that the SCC staff, where possible, were always the first to be informed of any new or relevant information. 

 

There were questions asked regarding the cost of the project.  The ADR/T explained that this would not all be additional money.  The existing cost of the control centre was circa £1m annually.  The report set out the full costings on page 23-24, including £5.1m of transitional costs such as those for on-boarding, project management, and technology including Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), station end equipment and pagers.

 

Members proposed that no decision be taken at the meeting, but that a motion should be considered that a meeting be held with Members and Officers to discuss the options further.  Members stated that despite having discussed the project at length they still felt unprepared for the decision that they had to take.  The CFO confirmed that Officers would take whatever direction given by Members, but reminded the Authority that it would still not be an easy decision and the implications would remain the same.  The CFO informed the Meeting that she was troubled by the suggestion that Members felt they did not have enough information or had not been given enough opportunities to discuss the project.  Members were reminded that reports on the project had been made to both Scrutiny & Audit, Policy & Resources Panels, Fire Authority meetings, Members Seminars and a large amount of other correspondence.  The Authority was also reminded that it had made the decision on the shortlist of which four options should be considered by Mott MacDonald.  If Members felt that the information had been delivered in a convoluted or overly complicated manner, then the CFO took responsibility for this personally.

 

There were motions proposed and voted on as follows, the earlier proposals made by Cllr Lambert and Cllr Scott were withdrawn:

 

Motion for a deferral of the decision on this project being taken until a meeting of Members and Senior Officers can be held to discuss the options in a full and frank way ahead of asking officers to undertake further work – proposed by Cllr Osborne, seconded by Cllr Lambert

 

Votes:              For – 8             Against – 9

 

Motion that the Authority would like to explore further the hybrid option of a local control room with NWFS Technology and also the Tri-Service Surrey Outsource model with a preference for the latter if satisfied with the governance, and financial and operational scrutiny of that option – proposed by Cllr Barnes, seconded by Cllr Fox

 

Votes:              For – 2             Against – 7

 

Motion that the existing recommendations i), ii) and iv) remain as set out in the report with recommendation iii) being amended to state that the Authority agree to take forward the preferred option but with a direction to officers to return to the December meeting of the Fire Authority to provide further information on the operational benefits and governance arrangements of this option.  Also to direct officers to provide the Authority with further detail on a standalone control option – proposed by Cllr Galley, seconded by Cllr Fox

 

Votes:              For – 6             Against – 8

 

Motion to direct Officers to provide specific information about a stand-alone control option.  Also to provide specific information about the recommended option to specifically outline the operational benefits and governance arrangements that would be in place, to be presented to the December meeting – proposed by Cllr Boorman, seconded by Cllr Lambert

 

Votes:              For – 13           Against – 1

 

This motion was carried and replaced in full the original recommendations included in the report.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Authority agreed:

 

       i.          to direct Officers to provide specific information about a stand-alone control option; and

 

      ii.          to also direct Officers to provide specific information about the recommended option to specifically outline the operational benefits and governance arrangements that would be in place.  To be completed by the end of November 2019 and presented to the December meeting of the Fire Authority.

 

Supporting documents: