Independent report

Independent assessment of the proposal for a PCC-style FRA for Cumbria

Published 11 August 2022

31 May 2022

Contact details

In the first instance please direct all enquiries to John O’Halloran, Director Business Advisory and Consultancy - CIPFA.

Telephone number: 020 7543 5600

Email address: john.o’[email protected]

1. Introduction

1.1 The Policing and Crime Act 2017 received royal assent on 31 January 2017 and introduced a range of measures to enable closer collaboration between the emergency services. In particular, it enables police and crime commissioners (PCCs) to take on the governance of their local fire and rescue service (FRS), where a local case is made, and establish a PCC-style fire and rescue authority (FRA), under one of the following three models:

• option 1: representation, which enables the PCC to have representation on the local FRA, with voting rights, where the FRA agrees

• option 2: governance, where the PCC takes on the functions of the FRA

• option 3: single employer, where the PCC takes on the responsibilities of the local FRA, enabling him or her to create a single employer for police and fire personnel

1.2 Whichever model the PCC recommends, the intention is to provide an opportunity to drive innovative reform across both services and bring the same direct accountability to fire as exists for policing.

1.3 The PCC for Cumbria commissioned a local business case (LBC), which recommended the governance model, and a consultation exercise was undertaken on this basis.

If, in response to the consultation, a relevant local authority indicates that it does not support the PCC’s proposal, the Home Secretary is required to obtain an independent assessment of the proposal and take account of its findings in making the final decision on whether or not to approve the PCC’s proposal.

This is the case in Cumbria and hence the proposal has been subject to an independent assessment undertaken by CIPFA.

This document details that independent assessment. It will be submitted to the Home Secretary for her consideration in the decision making process.

The statutory tests

1.4 In his letter requesting that CIPFA should undertake an independent assessment of Cumbria’s Section 4A proposal, the Minister of State for Building Safety, Fire and Communities made it clear that our assessment must clearly set out whether the proposal meets the statutory tests.

These tests cover whether, in our view, the proposal is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness (the 3Es) or public safety; and whether the proposal will have an adverse effect on public safety.

The letter also states that “whilst the conduct of the assessment is of course a matter for you I would ask you, in particular, to provide your view on the totality of potential costs of implementation” as set out in Appendix A.

1.5 In our discussions with Home Office representatives, further clarification has been provided regarding our remit on public safety.

It has been emphasised that our role is effectively looking at economy, efficiency and effectiveness and that, in terms of public safety, we are only expected to comment where we identify something on which comment is required.

Accordingly, we have focused our attention on economy, efficiency and effectiveness, although we will comment on public safety later in our report.

1.6 For the purposes of the independent assessment, we have used the following definitions provided by the National Audit Office:

• economy: minimising the cost of resources used or required (inputs)

• efficiency: the relationship between the output from goods or services and the resources to produce them (process)

• effectiveness: the extent to which objectives are achieved and the relationship between the intended and actual results of public spending (outcomes)

2. Work undertaken

2.1 As the Independent Assessor, we have been asked to review the Cumbria PCC’s proposal to transfer governance of the Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service to the PCC in its entirety, and to provide a view on whether we consider that any of the relevant statutory tests have not been met or whether there would be an adverse effect on public safety.

As suggested in the letter from the Minister of State for Building Safety, Fire and Communities, we have engaged with the Office for the PCC for Cumbria, with the Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service and Cumbria County Council.

2.2 We have also had due regard to the requirements set out in Annex A to the letter of the Minister of State for Building Safety, Fire and Communities, included in Appendix A

2.3 In undertaking this assessment CIPFA only had to review the case as put forward by the PCC. Nothing had been produced for a Cumbria wide FRA.

2.4 In order to reach our conclusions, we have:

• read the LBC prepared by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC)

• read the consultation report, the written responses and the PCC’s response thereto

• reviewed a wide range of other documents supplied by the OPCC and the FRA. A full list is attached at Appendix B

• interviewed the PCC

• interviewed a range of officers from the PCC

• interviewed the Chief Constable and the force S151 officer

• interviewed the Chief Fire Officer and the deputy S151 officer to the FRS

• interviewed a range of officers from Cumbria County Council

• interviewed a range of councillors: the fire portfolio holder and the deputy leader from Cumbria County Council; the leaders of the Shadow Unitary Authorities of Cumberland and Westmorland and Furness

A full list of those interviewed is attached at Appendix C.

2.5 Our work was carried out between 21 April and 31 May 2022. The interviews were conducted via Teams electronic media.

2.6 We have been able to access all the information that is currently available. We have been able to speak to all those individuals that we deemed necessary. The leader of Cumbria County Council, however, declined the invitation to meet us. Unfortunately, we were unable to speak to the S151 officer of Cumbria County Council who was on compassionate leave.

2.7 We are grateful for the courtesy and co-operation shown to us by everyone from Cumbria.

3. Comments on consultation

Process

3.1 The OPCC, alongside Cumbria County Council (CCC) and Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service (CFRS), delivered a public consultation outlining the two options to the public and key stakeholders, in line with the requirements of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. The exercise was undertaken between 26 January 2022 and 21 March 2022 using a combination of a range of materials and channels, consisting of:

• the full LBC

• the summary of the business case

• a dedicated fire governance section on the police and crime commissioner for Cumbria’s website

• an online survey hosted on SurveyMonkey

• a hard copy survey distributed to libraries across Cumbria with pre-paid envelopes

• internal focus groups with staff including: full-time and on-call firefighters; CFRS civilian staff; County Council staff that fulfil a CFRS role; and Cumbria Constabulary Officers and civilian staff

• staff briefings with full-time and on-call firefighters, CFRS civilian staff and County Council staff that fulfil a CFRS role

• meetings with trade unions

• social media (Twitter and Facebook)

• news articles on local media

• letters to stakeholders

• contacting partners and commissioned services of the OPCC

• internal messages to CFRS, County Council, OPCC and Cumbria Constabulary staff

3.2 The consultation exercise sought views on 2 different options, which were considered in the LBC, as follows:

• option 1: a police, fire and crime commissioner for Cumbria (PFCC): the governance of CFRS transfers to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cumbria and he would hold the sole responsibility for governance decisions of CFRS.

• option 2: a combined fire and rescue authority (CFRA): elected members from the two new unitary local authorities form a panel which holds responsibility for governance and governance decisions for CFRS.

Summary of the eight-week consultation

3.3 Stakeholders were broken down into three categories: public, organisations and media. The consultation was carried out in 3 phases:

• phase 1 - preparation and launch of the consultation: the PCC met with all trades unions before/around the initial launch of the LBC, materials were distributed to key stakeholders and all organisations involved. The media was invited to participate in interviews the day before the launch with all organisations involved. The consultation officially launched in early 2022

• phase 2 – the live consultation period: all organisations helped promote the consultation, externally and internally. Updates were made to key stakeholders. At the midway point, a reminder was sent to the media

• phase 3 – consultation concluded and results collated

Profile of respondents

3.4 The number and profile of responses is set out in the following table:

Respondent type	Respondents
	Number	%
1. General public	135	37.19
2. Elected official for Cumbria	12	3.31
3. Employee of Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service	48	13.22
4. Employee of Cumbria County Council	37	10.19
5. Employee of Cumbria Constabulary	113	31.13
6. Member of any panel for the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner/Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service/Cumbria County Council	5	1.38
7. Volunteer within the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner/Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service/Cumbria County Council	4	1.10
8. Others	9	2.48
Total	363	100.00

3.5 1. In addition to the results provided in the online survey and hard copy leaflet, 7 responses were gathered in the form of letters from key stakeholders.

Letters of support for a police, fire and crime commissioner

John Stevenson - MP for Carlisle Simon Fell - MP for Barrow & Furness

Mike Starkie - Elected Mayor of Copeland

Letter opposed to a police, fire and crime commissioner

Councillor and Leader of Cumbria County Council, Stewart Young

Responses from unions and staff associations

Response from Fire Brigades Union

Response from GMB

Other responses

1 letter from a member of the public

Summary of responses

3.6 Data was extracted from the SurveyMonkey exercise and hard copy leaflet responses and the results of the consultation were collated. Out of the 363 responses received, 54% identified a CFRA as the preferred option and 46% preferred the option of a PFCC.

The following table illustrates the demographic breakdown of respondents:

Where do you live?	Respondents
	Number	%
Allerdale Borough Council	68	18.74
Barrow Borough Council	26	7.16
Carlisle City Council	95	26.18
Copeland Borough Council	23	6.33
Eden District Council	74	20.39
South Lakeland District Council	45	12.39
Other responses	32	8.81
Overall total	363	100

Qualitative evaluation

3.7 Comments and objections were received both through the feedback section of the surveys and through separate written responses, mainly from representative bodies but occasionally from individual residents.

3.8 Our own summary analysis of the key objections is included in the following table:

Reference	Objection	Commentary
1.	Local government re-organisation (LGR) - the County Council works well in its present form, so therefore there is no need for LGR or any subsequent change to the fire and rescue service.	The decision has been made to split Cumbria County Council and therefore a new body will be required to oversee the governance of the Cumbria fire and rescue service.
2.	Comments that are negative about a police fire and crime commissioner (PFCC).
2a.	Politicising of governance The objection is that one person representing the views of a political party should not be in charge of emergency services.	Scrutiny is a key element of any process and the LBC acknowledges the need for increasing scrutiny through the enhanced Police, Fire and Crime Panel and the Ethics, Transparency and Audit Panel (ETAP). It also acknowledges the need for an additional resource in the OPCC to support the PCC.
2b.	Too much responsibility for one person The objection is that this increases the power of the PCC who represents the interests of one political party.	Accountability has been demonstrated elsewhere in the country to be delivered through the enhanced Police, Fire and Crime Panel.
2c.	Personal interests to expand portfolio The objection is that the business case is motivated by the personal interests of the PCC rather than the interests of the service.	There is no evidence to support this. The possibility of changing the governance model was previously considered in 2017, at which point the PCC did not wish to take on this responsibility. The fact of LGR means that it is necessary to consider future governance in the light of the abolition of the County Council.
3.	Comments that are negative about a CFRA.
3a.	Too political The objection is that a local authority governed model would be too influenced by the interests of councillors and unions.	The current model whereby the County Council has responsibility for the fire and rescue service functions effectively with improvements being seen within the service. There is no evidence to suggest that a CFRA will be “too political”.
3b.	Less effective The objection is that the need to accommodate different political views would make a CFRA less effective and more bureaucratic.	CFRA and PFCC models both exist and deliver services elsewhere in the country. There is nothing intrinsic in the model to suggest that it would be less effective. The LBC states that both models could operate successfully.
3c.	More expensive The objection is that a CFRA which has greater numbers of elected members would be more expensive to run.	The LBC puts forward that, due to the need to have in place a committee of representative members to give a greater range of geographical representation, it would be more costly to administer.

3.9 In addition to the formal general consultation exercise the PCC for Cumbria hosted 6 staff briefing sessions with Cumbria Fire and Rescue staff and Cumbria County Council staff who fulfil a CFRS role.

BearingPoint, the independent organisation that ran the consultation, also held 4 focus groups to collect qualitative data from Cumbria Fire and Rescue, Cumbria County Council and Cumbria Constabulary staff.

3 of these focus groups were with Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service and Cumbria County Council staff and one was held with Cumbria Constabulary staff.

3.10 A table displaying all themes and comments arising from the sessions and the responses provided was produced by BearingPoint. In summary, the 3 biggest concerns/questions were regarding:

• impact on staff – raised 6 times

• resources/infrastructure – raised 5 times

• other PFCCS – raised 5 times

Conclusion on consultation

3.11 In our view the consultation process appears to have been thorough and inclusive. The independent consultancy company, BearingPoint, reviewed all details of the consultation before launch and after the results were received to ensure that the OPCC had provided a fair and balanced opportunity for all to take part.

3.12 The range of media and communication channels used was broad enough to provide a fair opportunity for everyone to access the consultation and express their views. PCC briefings and the focus groups gave additional opportunities to members of the groups most directly impacted by the change to take part in the consultation and provide comment.

3.13 The consultation showed that there was a 54:46 split for “CFRA:PFCC”. It is fair to say that in both instances the objections cited were not regarding the governance of the fire and rescue authority but rather about political alignment, perceived democratic deficit and the role of the PCC.

4. Assessment

4.1 Following the initial options analysis and business case that was submitted for scrutiny on 26 January 2022, a revised LBC was produced on 21 April 2022.

This report presented the conclusions and recommendations of the analysis that was undertaken from October 2021 to March 2022.

Additionally, it was updated with the results of the consultation carried out between 26 January and 21 March 2022 and with further analysis from the ‘financial due diligence’ work carried out over the same period.

4.2 The options analysis in the LBC follows a standard form of presentation:

• strategic case - problem, context, long list appraisal and case for change

• public safety case – check on any impact on public safety, operational and prevention issues

• economic case – assessment of shortlisted options, identification of the preferred option and check on value for money

• commercial case – practical issues for the preferred option related to workforce, pensions and contracts

• financial case – a test that the preferred option is affordable

• management case – how the preferred option can be delivered successfully

4.3 We have used the “3E’s” framework of Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness, as described above, to evaluate the options analysis.

4.4 We began, however, by assessing the overall financial implications and affordability of the proposals.

Overall financial implications

4.5 The financial case within the LBC states clearly that there is considerable uncertainty in the assessment of affordability. It is conceded that this is due to the timing of the forecast period for 2023/34 onwards and detailed FRS budgets for 2022/23 not having been made available. Given that we are led to believe that the overall disaggregation of the County Council budget will not be concluded until the autumn this uncertainty will remain.

4.6 Long term financial sustainability of the FRA will be dependent on a fair settlement between the future unitary authorities (UAs) and the FRA, whichever model of governance is adopted.

4.7 The LBC states, and interviews with officers of the OPCC confirmed, that they had relied extensively on publicly available information, such as revenue outturn (RO) data, to assess the likely financial position of the fire and rescue authority.

Little attempt has been made by the OPCC to build up the likely costs of an FRA and we were told that they were indeed waiting for the County Council to carry out the disaggregation of the budget before commencing this exercise. This timescale gives rise to significant risks in assessing the financial viability of the FRA.

4.8 In terms of front line and operational staff, which make up over 70% of gross expenditure, it is reasonable to extrapolate forward from the base outturn data. It is, however, acknowledged that overheads and recharges are problematic.

It would appear that functions within the County Council, such as HR and IT have been apportioned to the FRA based on broad estimates of activity, but no assessment has been made by the OPCC as to what costs they would have to incur to provide the services.

4.9 The OPCC analysis suggests that results of the apportionment seem generally to give lower estimates of costs than the results of the activity analysis. It is cited, by the OPCC, by way of example, by using activity data to estimate ICT charges, the recharge would be £200k more than has been allowed.

4.10 It is stated within the LBC that the draft budget and medium-term financial forecast (MTFF) prepared as part of the ‘financial due diligence’ exercise, incorporated a small placeholder budget of £100k, which recognises that additional costs are likely to be incurred as a result of the FRS operating as a separate corporate entity.

Our discussions indicate that this is likely to be insufficient to provide the additional support costs that the case anticipates will be required.

4.11 There is no suggestion that further efficiencies can be identified from within the operational budgets. It is stated that although the estimates will be refined, this is not expected to change sufficiently to alter the overall conclusion.

4.12 In addition, it is acknowledged that a proportion of other expenditure which is currently centrally managed by the County Council, such as, insurance, the net cost of the PFI arrangement and the share of historic debt financing costs will be attributable to a “new” FRA regardless of its form.

These costs should have a neutral impact on the FRA spending power, as they will be matched by liabilities which would also transfer to the FRA. The additional budgets will, however, have an impact on the precept which will need to be levied.

4.13 There are a number of complex issues, which will need to be resolved through negotiations. The time, effort and additional on going resources to ensure these areas of activity are appropriately managed should not be underestimated.

4.14 The LBC highlights a shortfall in a number of capital programme areas over the first five years, totalling £3 million per annum:

4.14.1 To maintain the operating capacity of the FRS estate for buildings, where maintenance has been restricted to works required to ensure the premises are safe and water tight, will require an additional capital programme of £1.000 million.

4.14.2 The vehicle replacement capital programme of £1.250 million.

4.14.3 Replacement ICT capital programme of £0.750 million.

4.15 As stated above, it is assumed that historic capital debt will form part of the budget disaggregation, however, the additional implications of these “shortfall” items will not. The draft MTFF suggests that by 2027/28 the cost of servicing this accumulated debt will require £1.1 million in additional revenue.

4.16 A source of funding capital would be to consider the use of reserves, which can only be used once. The FRA could be entitled to £1.5 million from the County Council’s general reserve. This figure would represent 5% of the FRA budget in 2023/24, which is above the recommended minimum reserve level of 3%. The LBC assumes that the FRA would aim to maintain this level of reserve and would therefore not make either a planned contribution to or from the general reserve over the MTFF period.

4.17 Earmarked reserves relating to specific liabilities such as the PFI and insurance will be retained to meet the relevant liabilities. It is assumed, however, that if the FRS receives a share of the less specific earmarked reserves this could provide up to an additional £1 million to address the budget gap arising from the need to finance the capital programme.

4.18 An overall estimated amount from these two sources is approximately £2.5 million which would represent less than 10% of the FRS budget. It is stated that on average the reserves held by standalone fire and rescue authorities is equivalent to 42% of their core spending power. Both a CFRA or PFCC model would need to consider this issue and the lack of resilience that a lower percentage would represent.

4.19 The LBC has attempted to extract the size of a precept that would apply if a freestanding FRA had existed in Cumbria in 2020/21. This calculation suggests that a Band D Council Tax bill would be £110, which is at the upper end of the range of precepts set by CFRAs. All things considered the draft MTFF suggests this figure would be £121 for 2023/24; this is further extrapolated to increase by 2% year on year to 2026/27. This would produce annual revenue budget deficits of:

Year	Revenue Budget Deficit £000
2022/23	Balanced
2023/24	210
2024/25	477
2025/26	700
2026/27	886

4.20 Once again, this same issue would apply to both a CFRA or PFCC.

Conclusion on financial implications

4.21 There is considerable uncertainty about the affordability of this proposal due to the loss of economies of scale currently provided by the County Council.

4.22 Until the County Council budget is disaggregated there is lack of clarity about the level of resource likely to be available to the FRA.

4.23 This uncertainty is compounded by the lack of work undertaken to date by the OPCC to establish the cost of the operation of the FRA. They have informed us they are waiting for the disaggregated budget to understand how much budget will be made available to the PFCC. A “bottom up” estimate of the resources that will be required has not been produced.

4.24 The operational costs of the fire and rescue service are known and agreed. It is acknowledged that approximately 87% of expenditure is operational. The financial uncertainty centres around the cost of support services.

4.25 There is a lack of provision for future capital investment which will be necessary to update premises, vehicles and ICT systems and equipment.

Economy

4.26 Section 4 of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cumbria Fire and rescue governance options analysis and business case, “The Economic Case” sets out very clearly to demonstrate that the PFCC option would pass the tests for economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

4.27 The operational workforce of the CFRS will not be changed by either of the alternative governance arrangements, so these have been excluded from the economic case. The area where the differences may be possible as a result of the changes are in some of the support services. In all other areas the change in governance is not expected to make a difference.

4.28 The economic case within the LBC makes a number of conclusions regarding “economy” each of which we consider below:

4.28.1 The PFCC would be less complicated and quicker to set up than the CFRA. The CFRA would be at least £0.5 million more. The CFRA would be less able than a PFCC to manage the considerable uncertainties and risks in the implementation phase.

We would comment - we agree that the implementation costs for a CFRA are likely to be higher than those for a PFCC as relevant infrastructure is already in place within the PCC operations.

4.28.2 The ongoing governance costs of the CFRA will be about £0.2 million a year more than the PFCC.

We would comment - based on the assumptions within the LBC we have no reason to disagree with the conclusion that the on going governance costs of a CFRA could be £200k more than those under the PFCC model.

4.28.3 Ongoing corporate and support costs are likely to be about £0.5 million (between £0.2 million and £0.7 million) a year more in the CFRA than the PFCC.

We would comment – it is likely to cost less to support a PFCC than a CFRA by applying a structure that shares senior management posts. However, due to the lack of work undertaken by the OPCC to establish the estimated costs under the PFCC model it is difficult to comment on the level of savings stated in the business case.

4.28.4 The CFRA would be able to implement an improvement programme to create or buy in efficient corporate and support services, but this will take time and has inevitable delivery risks. The PFCC could make quicker progress.

We would comment - the business case itself acknowledges that these savings are based upon assumptions and do not represent any decisions or commitment about the design. Through the interview process it became clear that no further work had been undertaken in this area.

Conclusion on economy

4.29 We believe that the cost of governance will be less under the PFCC model compared to a CFRA.

4.30 We acknowledged that corporate and support services should cost less under the PFCC as it is stated that this is the case where this model has been implemented elsewhere. We have not been presented with any additional evidence to verify the assumptions within the business case.

Efficiency

4.31 The economic case within the LBC makes two conclusions regarding “efficiency” each of which we consider below:

4.31.1 That there are economies of scale in corporate services in favour of the PCC.

We would comment - as discussed above, the PFCC model should deliver efficiencies in this area but no evidence has been presented to describe how this will be implemented.

4.31.2 That the governance layer is leaner and less expensive.

We would comment - the LBC acknowledges that both a CFRA or a PFCC governance model could provide good governance and both could provide a structure in which the current good level of performance from the service could be maintained.

The business case argues that the PFCC model of governance is in line with the government’s strategy for fire and rescue services and therefore an advantage.

There is a wide range of conceivable arrangements for governance and leadership in a CFRA and therefore a wide range of possible cost differences between the two models.

Nonetheless, the structure of the CFRA means that it would inevitably cost more. This difference is likely to represent less than 1% of the cost of the FRS, which in itself is not necessarily “decisive”.

Conclusion on efficiency

4.32 As with all business cases the figures are subject to challenge and a different set of results could be obtained by changing the assumptions.

4.33 Some of the interviewees that we spoke to felt that the case for a PFCC delivering greater efficiency had not been made but were unable to provide evidence to support this view.

Our overall conclusion is that the figures for efficiency savings from governance included in the LBC are not unreasonable. We agree that savings could be achieved within corporate services but have been unable to substantiate the savings due to lack of evidence which was presented to us.

Effectiveness

4.34 This section assesses the extent to which the LBC satisfies the effectiveness statutory test, as defined at the start of this section.

4.35 The stated objective of the LBC is to identify which form of governance arrangement would best drive forward further potential collaboration and the associated realisation of benefits to communities in Cumbria, including increased effectiveness.

It states that both a CFRS and PFCC model would meet the requirements to maintain and improve public safety in Cumbria and to achieve economy, efficiency and effectiveness (or value for money), but concludes that with regard to effectiveness, the PFCC should be better able to accelerate collaboration and thereby aspects of effectiveness.

4.36 Our analysis has taken account of the following:

4.36.1 That the analysis and conclusions of the LBC which identified a PFCC or CFRS as the only viable models for future governance arrangements were agreed, without dissent, with the Blue Light Executive Group on 24 January 2022.

4.36.2 That the Blue Light Collaboration Agreement (May 2018) has delivered good examples of collaboration between emergency services in Cumbria including the use of Safe and Well visits to older, frail or vulnerable people, the Furness Peninsula Blue Light Hub in Ulverston shared with Cumbria Constabulary, North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) and British Transport Police and a memorandum of understanding to support the police with searches for highly vulnerable missing persons. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) has concluded that the Cumbria FRS is working well with others and exploring opportunities that will provide improvements for the public in the future.

4.36.3 That the LBC states that a PFCC would be better placed to realise potential benefits from collaboration more quickly and more extensively, based on the evidence of existing PFCC models. Potential savings, therefore, are expected to be greater for a PFCC although this is hard to quantify. We have not been presented with any evidence by the OPCC to substantiate this statement.

4.36.4 That work on the design of a PFCC has not yet begun and modelling within the LBC is based on a set of assumptions. The OPCC is yet to develop outline designs for the size, scope and cost of the support functions. This means that there is considerable uncertainty about the scale and pace of improvements in the future.

Conclusion on effectiveness

4.37 Both models could deliver greater collaboration over time.

4.38 Concerns have been expressed to us that in a PFCC model, the potential insufficiency of the budget for an FRS could impact negatively on the effectiveness of the police service.

Public safety

4.39 As part of our independent assessment, we have looked at the issue of public safety, although the guidance from the Home Office is that we are only expected to comment on this issue where we identify something on which comment is required. By its nature this is a very subjective area to assess, and the benefits are not easily quantified.

We have therefore relied on the relevant section of the LBC which undertook an assessment of public safety against the priorities for fire and rescue authorities as set out in the government’s national framework for fire and rescue authorities as follows:

4.39.1 Make appropriate provision for fire prevention and protection activities and response to fire and rescue related incidents.

4.39.2 Identify and assess the full range of foreseeable fire and rescue related risks their areas face.

4.39.3 Collaborate with emergency services and other local and national partners to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the service they provide.

4.39.4 Be accountable to communities for the service they provide.

4.39.5 Develop and maintain a workforce that is professional, resilient, skilled, flexible, and diverse.

4.40 The first conclusion within the assessment regarding public safety is that both the PFCC and CFRA models would maintain the momentum of the current good performance in Cumbria and there is no reason to expect an adverse impact on public safety.

It should be noted, however, that the change in FRA governance will occur at the same time as significant local government re-organisation is taking place. These changes in themselves will take time to settle down and owing to the inherent uncertainty may have a negative impact on the current momentum.

4.41 The conclusion to consider from the assessment is that the PFCC and CFRA models would keep the operational elements of Cumbria’s fire & rescue service as they are now.

In the public consultation the FBU response raised concerns around staffing numbers and the potential closure of fire stations. Whilst concerns have been raised regarding the longer term funding of the fire and rescue service, it is noted a PFCC FRA would have the same ring-fenced budget as a CFRA.

A transfer of governance, of itself, to a PFCC model would not put public safety at risk as resources would be available to match current operational capacity of the service.

4.42 The third point to consider is that the assessment concluded that the PFCC and CFRA models offer some opportunities to strengthen public safety in Cumbria including collaboration with other organsiations at a local, regional and national level.

The LBC assessment, however, goes on to suggest that the PFCC model, offers greater potential for synergy within the emergency services. This is a subjective judgement which has not been demonstrated through written or verbal evidence.

4.43 The final conclusion is the differences between the two models do not show that either has a decisive advantage. CIPFA would consider this to be a reasonable conclusion.

Conclusion on public safety

4.44 As we noted above this is a very subjective area to assess. From the evidence in the LBC and from our discussions with key individuals we have concluded that there is no increased risk to public safety due to the proposed change in governance and that there may be benefits in the future.

5. Overall conclusion

5.1 We have been asked to provide an independent assessment of whether or not the Cumbria PCC’s Section 4A proposal, to take on the governance of the Cumbria fire and rescue service, meets the statutory tests of being in the interests of:

• 5.1.1 economy, efficiency and effectiveness

• 5.1.2 public safety

5.2 We have concluded that:

5.2.1 Either model can deliver a fire and rescue service for Cumbria; both, however, are likely to be more expensive than the existing service model, primarily due to the loss of economies of scale.

5.2.2 The public consultation exercise showed that the majority of respondents preferred a CFRA over a PFCC (54% compared to 46%)

5.2.3 The governance costs of a PFCC should be lower than those of a CFRA.

5.2.4 The operational costs of the fire and rescue authority should not be affected by either option.

5.2.5 The cost of corporate services in either model is not sufficiently clear as the County Council has not yet disaggregated its budget. The OPCC has not carried out sufficient work to establish the cost of running a fire and rescue service. The Shadow Unitary Authorities have not considered the future provision of a fire and rescue service.

5.2.6 There appears to be general agreement that there is an additional capital requirement of £3 million per annum for the next 5 years, for which no source of funding has been identified.

5.2.7 Delays to decisions regarding the disaggregation of the County Council’s budget and the OPCC future model of service present a risk to the successful transfer of governance.

5.2.8 The current position of the PCC with regard to assuming governance responsibility of the fire and rescue service is unclear.

5.2.9 The leaders of the shadow unitary authorities have both indicated that they will not oppose the creation of a PFCC.

5.3 On balance we have no reason to oppose the proposal for the creation of a police, fire and crime commissioner for Cumbria.

Appendix A: Letter from the Minister of State for Building Safety, Fire and Communities

From:

Lord Greenhalgh
Minister of State for Building Safety and Fire
2 Marsham Street London
SW1P 4DF

To:

Mr John O’Halloran
Director, Business Advisory and Consultancy CIPFA
77 Mansell Street London
E1 8AN

01 May 2022

Dear John

Re: Independent Assessment of Section 4A proposal under the Policing and Crime Act 2017

On 22 April, I received a proposal from Cumbria’s police and crime commissioner (PCC) to take on governance of Cumbria fire and rescue service, and on behalf of the Home Secretary, I would like to request that you undertake an independent assessment of it.

Background

The Policing and Crime Act 2017 amended the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 by introducing a range of measures to enable closer collaboration between emergency services.

In particular, it enables PCCs to take on governance of their local fire and rescue service where a local case is made^{[footnote 1]}, and establish a PCC-style fire and rescue authority (FRA). This provides an opportunity for PCCs to drive innovative reform across both services and bring the same direct accountability to fire as exists for policing.

Where a PCC is interested in taking on the governance of their local fire and rescue service, they must bring forward a proposal for the necessary order demonstrating how this would be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or public safety (the “statutory tests”).

The Secretary of State is only able to make such an order where it appears to her that it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness or in the interests of public safety.

The Home Secretary may not make an order if she thinks that such an order would have an adverse effect on public safety.

The 2004 Act requires PCCs to consult on their proposal with the following parties:

• each relevant local authority^{[footnote 2]}, those who appear to the PCC to represent

• employees who may be affected by the proposal

• members of the police forces who may be affected by the proposal and seek the views of people in their police area on that proposal

If, in response to a consultation, a relevant local authority indicates that it does not support the PCC’s proposal, the PCC can still submit their proposal for consideration but is required to provide additional documents, including copies of the views expressed by the statutory consultees and the PCC’s responses to them.

I, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will then be required to obtain an independent assessment of the proposal. The Secretary of State will take into account the findings of this assessment when making the final decision whether or not to approve the PCC’s proposal.

The Home Secretary is required to publish such an independent assessment as soon as is reasonably practicable after making a determination in response to the proposal, and in such manner she thinks appropriate.

For the avoidance of doubt, the independent assessment is not a substitute for the Secretary of State’s decision-making process. She would not be properly discharging her duties by simply adopting the conclusions of an independent assessment, and anyone undertaking the independent assessment function is not discharging her role in assessing whether the statutory tests have been met.

If you agree to undertake this work, it should be done separately to any other proposal that you may be commissioned to assess.

The assessment

As the independent assessor, you are being asked to review the Cumbria PCC’s proposal to transfer governance of Cumbria fire and rescue service from Cumbria County Council to the PCC in its entirety, and to provide a view on whether you consider that either of the relevant statutory tests have been met or whether there would be an adverse effect on public safety.

Whilst the conduct of the assessment is of course a matter for you, I would ask that in particular, you provide a view on the total potential implementation costs. Your assessment should also be consistent with previous PCC proposal assessments you have completed.

In order to form a view against the statutory tests, you may wish to engage with the the PCC for Cumbria (Peter McCall), the Cumbria Fire and Rescue Authority (chair, Cllr Janet Willis) and Cumbria County Council (Cllr, Stuart Young). Please have regard to the assessment requirements as set out in Annex A.

Timeframe

It is anticipated that this assessment will take up to four weeks following confirmation that you accede. However, this may be extended, depending on the nature of the objections and the complexities of the case.

Subject matter expertise

The following provides a suggested list of experts who you may wish to consider consulting with to support you in making your assessment:

• operational fire expertise: National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC)

• operational police expertise: National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC)

• others, dependent on nature of the objection/s: Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), Association of Police and Crime Chief Executives (APACE) or Local Government Association (LGA)

The above list is not intended to be exhaustive; you may wish to seek other subject matter expertise.

Updates

This will be a wholly independent process for you to carry out as you see appropriate. However, I would be grateful if you could update the Home Office on any risks or issues with meeting the suggested timeframe, any lack of engagement from relevant parties, or any additional costs that are to be incurred as a result of seeking additional subject matter expertise. Such updates are not intended to cover matters relating to the substance of your view of the proposal or your initial findings.

Please can you confirm in writing by 29 April, whether you are able to undertake the independent assessment of the Cumbria PCC’s proposal. Should there be any conflict of interest, please make the Home Office aware prior to formally accepting.

I am copying this letter to the Chair of Cumbria Fire and Rescue Authority (Councillor Janet Willis), the leader of Cumbria County Council (Councillor Stuart Young) and the Cumbria PCC (Peter McCall).

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your ongoing support and engagement with this process.

Yours sincerely,

Lord Greenhalgh

Minister of State for Building Safety, Fire and Communities

Annex A

Further requirements of the assessment

To ensure the independence of the assessment itself, the Home Office is not prescribing how the assessment should be carried out but the assessor should have due regard to the need to:

• review the proposal and accompanying documentation (e.g. representations made in response to the consultation on the proposal) and interpret and clarify the objections

• consider the evidence that has been provided to support the conclusions reached in the proposal that are (i) being challenged and (ii) form the case to demonstrate that the statutory tests have been met

• consider the need to collect further evidence from relevant parties as appropriate

• develop a written assessment, citing all sources, and with a clear conclusion in response to whether the statutory tests have been met. Supporting evidence should be clearly presented

• list all assumptions made in coming to conclusions and reaching final figures

• be able to outline to the Home Office who they have contacted in conducting the assessment, when and on what basis. Where the assessor has been unable to come to a view on a matter due to inability to obtain required information from relevant parties they should outline this to the Home Office and make this clear in the final assessment submitted

Quality

The final assessment provided to the Home Office must clearly set out:

• whether the proposal, in their view, meets the statutory tests (either in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or public safety; and whether the proposal will have an adverse effect on public safety)

• any elements of the proposal they have been unable to investigate due to lack of engagement from relevant parties (where necessary)

• if there have been any elements of the proposal that they have been unable to form a view on, and the rationale for this

• how the assessor has reached their view, supplemented with appropriate backing information to enable the Home Office to understand their considerations and how they reached their conclusions. whether the proposal, in their view, meets the statutory tests (either in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or public safety; and whether the proposal will have an adverse effect on public safety)

• any elements of the proposal they have been unable to investigate due to lack of engagement from relevant parties (where necessary)

• if there have been any elements of the proposal that they have been unable to form a view on, and the rationale for this

• how the assessor has reached their view, supplemented with appropriate backing information to enable the Home Office to understand their considerations and how they reached their conclusions

Appendix B: Documents / Sources

Our independent assessment reviewed and referenced the following documents:

Number	Title of document	Author	Date
1.	Cumbria fire and rescue governance options - analysis and business case (final)	BearingPoint/Cumbria Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC)	21 April 2022
2.	Local business case for joint governance of police and fire and rescue in Cumbria - public consultation results and evaluation	BearingPoint/OPCC	21 March 2022
3.	Response to the police and crime commissioner’s public consultation on the potential transfer of fire service governance	Cumbria County Council	Cabinet – 17 March 2022
4.	Revenue budget and medium-term financial forecast (MTFF)	Joint Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)	Police and Crime Panel - 25 January 2022
5.	Draft budget 2022/23 and Medium-term financial plan 2022/27 and Draft capital programme 2022/27	Cumbria County Council	Cabinet – 27 January 2022
6.	Audited statement of accounts 2020/21	Cumbria County Council	30 September 2021
7.	Cumbria fire and rescue service integrated risk management plan – 2019/23	Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service	April 2019
8.	Police and crime commissioner annual report and appendix – 2020/21	PCC	Police and Crime Panel - 9 July 2021
9.	Police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) assessment – 2018/19 – an inspection of Cumbria constabulary	HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Service	May 2019
10.	Police and crime plan for Cumbria	OPCC	Police and Crime Panel - 20 September 2021
11.	Update on strategic issues facing Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service (CFRS)	Chief Fire Officer	Scrutiny & Advisory Board – Communities and Place – 10 March 2022
12.	PCC for Cumbria statement of accounts 2020-21	OPCC	30 June 2021
13.	Chief Constable of Cumbria constabulary statement of accounts 2020-21	Chief Constable	30 June 2021
14.	Fire risks from financial diligence	OPCC	April 2022
15.	Risk register business case fire governance FRS	OPCC	April 2022
16.	Overhead analysis	OPCC	May 2022

Appendix C – List of consultees

The following were consulted during the course of our independent assessment. All interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams:

Name	Title	Organisation	Day and Date
Luci Robb	HR Lead	Cumbria County Council	Friday, 13 May 2022
John Metcalfe	Chief Executive	Cumbria County Council	Friday, 13 May 2022
Peter McCall	PCC	Office of the PCC (OPCC)	Monday, 23 May 2022
Paul Robinson	Head of Transformation / Change	Cumbria County Council	Monday, 23 May 2022
John Beard	Chief Fire Officer	Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service	Monday, 23 May 2022
Vivian Stafford	Chief Executive	OPCC	Tuesday, 24 May 2022
Councillor Janet Willis	Fire Portfolio holder	Cumbria County Council	Tuesday, 24 May 2022
Stephanie Stables	Programme Manager for the Joint Police and Fire Transformation Programme	OPCC	Wednesday, 25 May 2022
Cath Whalley	Director of Adult Services	Cumbria County Council	Wednesday, 25 May 2022
Michelle Skeer	Chief Constable	Cumbria Police	Wednesday, 25 May 2022
Debbie Middleton	Deputy Section 151 Officer	Cumbria County Council/ Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service	Wednesday, 25 May 2022
Jonathan Brook	Leader	Westmorland & Furness Council	Thursday, 26 May 2022
Roger Marshall	Chief Finance Officer/Director of Finance and Performance (Section 151 Officer)	OPCC	Friday, 27 May 2022
Peter Thornton	Deputy Leader	Cumbria County Council	Monday, 30 May 2022
Mark Fryer	Leader	Cumberland Council	Monday, 30 May 2022

1. See in particular sections 4A to 4M of, and Schedules A1 and A2 to, the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 ↩

2. See paragraph 6(6) and (7) of Schedule A1 to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 ↩