To put questions, if any, to the designated Members on the discharge of functions of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority and South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11(5).
Minutes:
(1) Councillor R. Elliott asked why did Councillor Atkin not lobby for the reinstatement of the second pump at the recent Fire Authority Budget Meeting.
Councillor Atkin stated that the Council had made clear its view that it would wish to see the second appliance restored and his Fire Authority colleagues were in no doubt about that.
However, the latest financial report presented to the Fire Authority had showed the Service achieving a relatively small underspend of £600k on an annual budget of £50m. In presenting this report to Members the Director of Support Services outlined significant financial risks facing the service. These included:-
· The requirement to save £1.4 million from the Service’s annual budget, following the outcome of a Judicial Review relating to the Close Proximity Crewing duty system.
· The outcome of a Government pensions revaluation, which would almost certainly mean a sharp rise in employer pension contributions.
· Substantial legal costs and detriment claims for staff displaced because of Close Proximity Crewing, which were not yet known and would have to be met from the current year’s underspend
It was as a result of these factors that the Fire Authority agreed earlier this year that the Service should begin the process of developing a revised Integrated Risk Management Plan, which would consider its future Service provision (including fire cover) in line with the money available to it. It was as part of this process that the Fire Authority would consider whether the resources were available to restore the second appliance.
In a supplementary question Councillor Elliott welcomed the glimmer of hope relating to the restoration of the second appliance. When the motion requesting reinstatement was amended Councillor Elliott knew it was a fudge, but he would not let the situation drop despite numerous answers and excuses given to his questions since. Twelve new recruits had been appointed and a further twelve were in training and more to follow and fire fighters in Rotherham had offered to work overtime whilst the new recruits were in place so to enable the second pump and to keep residents safe at night.
There were questions about money that was spare and Councillor Atkin had previously said there was £5 million whereas the Fire Chief at the Scrutiny meeting said they were £10 million. Again inconsistencies in information. If the money was there and staff were there when would the second pump be reinstated.
Councillor Atkin confirmed twelve new fire fighters had been recruited and a further twelve were in training, but they had been recruited to replace those lost to retirement. Approximately, twenty fire fighters retired each year and each time someone retired it was the plan to replace them.
(2) Councillor R. Elliott asked did South Yorkshire residents suffer from a lack of attention by South Yorkshire Fire Authority when it set up a now failed company and spent thousands on a company credit card.
Councillor Atkin advised that Safety Solutions UK Ltd was set up by the Fire Authority in anticipation of future profits being reinvested into the service. Indeed UKIP had often said that public services needed to be more commercially minded and tried to raise more external revenue.
The company’s performance was regularly scrutinised, but fell short of its initial business projections. Earlier this year board members approved a recommendation to begin a managed and solvent closure of the company, which was being delivered with minimal impact on the Service and its activities. In closing the company a small retained profit was expected to be returned to the Service for future investment in its core activities, with no cost to the Council tax payers of South Yorkshire.
In a supplementary question Councillor Elliott agreed he had spoken about commercial activity previously, but while this had been engaged and failed a second pump had been taken from the residents of Rotherham and asked what was the Service going to do now to build confidence in the Fire Authority.
Councillor Atkin confirmed the company was set up following the formation of a relationship with the Kuwait Fire Authority to train in South Yorkshire at Handsworth. Unfortunately, due to the volatile position of the Middle East it was decided the company would cease. Councillor Atkin found it, however, disingenuous to indicate that those employed in the company were incompetent in their roles.
(3) Councillor Carter asked given there was a £153,000 underspend in the Fire Authority’s budget last year, did the Member agree that finances now allowed for a second Rotherham fire engine to be on duty at night time?
Councillor Atkin reported that South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue had suffered severe cuts to its budget, having lost around £12.5 million in Government funding since 2010 – a 29% reduction. The most recent medium term financial plan actually predicted a small deficit by 2019/20.
The Fire Authority as a whole had determined that there was currently no opportunity to reverse changes which had already been made to frontline services as a result of previously published plans. It was only as a result of implementing those changes that the Service was now in a relatively stable financial position, although there remained considerable uncertainty about its finances beyond 2020. This was due in part to mounting cost pressures, including the need to save £1.4 million from its annual budget as a result of the Close Proximity Crewing Judicial Review and a potential multi-million pound increase in employer pension contributions.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked what representations had Councillor Atkin taken to the Fire Authority on behalf of the Council based on the motion passed earlier this year to reinstate an overnight fire pump.
Councillor Atkin confirmed he had at every opportunity lobbied Fire Authority colleagues. The finances did not allow at this time so it was premature to reinstate the second pump on nights when a new Integrated Risk Management Plan was being developed.
(4) Councillor Carter asked how much were the legal costs of losing the case about knowingly implementing an unlawful duty system for Close Proximity Crewing?
Councillor Atkin advised that it had previously been reported to the Authority – in July and September - the costs position in respect of the Judicial Review as being in the region of £75,000 which included own costs.
There were two elements of the litigation – the ongoing claims of the Employment Tribunal, but until this was resolved the precise cost of compensation to be paid to individuals was unknown, and the legal costs relating to the proceedings as mentioned above.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked did South Yorkshire Fire Authority consider appealing the Close Proximity Crewing judgement if possibly to delay having to pay these costs.
Councillor Atkin confirmed the Fire Authority had considered appealing the judgement, but following legal advice and because of the wording of the Judge resolved it would not be in the best interests to go to appeal.
(5) Councillor Carter asked given the Judge’s ruling about the duty to provide adequate fire cover across the county not being a reasonable excuse to implement an unlawful system that breaches Regulation 6 of the Working Time Directive, did this leave those Councillors who took that decision open to further legal challenge?
Councillor Atkin confirmed the Judge who heard the case ruled that firefighters’ rights under Regulation 10 of the Working Time Directive were being breached. Whilst not quashing Close Proximity Crewing, this did mean that the Fire Brigade Union could use the judgement to make an application through the courts for an injunction prohibiting the use of Close Proximity Crewing in South Yorkshire. It was likely that similar crewing systems would continue to be used around the rest of the country, despite this ruling.
Since the judgement, Members had resolved that the process to develop a new Integrated Risk Management Plan and consequent operational proposals should commence immediately. The Service had begun this work, which would involve appropriate consultation with staff, public and partners.
The Monitoring Officer had commented there were no additional or personal implications for members of the FRA. The obligation to comply with the requirements of the Working Time Directive fell on the Authority as a corporate body and not on its individual members. The Authority was dealing with the implications of the Judgement by undertaking a review of its Integrated Risk Management Plan which would be the subject of appropriate consultation before any final decision was taken in respect of any changes to existing operational arrangements to address the financial implications of the discontinuation of close proximity crewing.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked as Vice-Chair, prior to signing off on close proximity crewing, what legal advice had he had that this would be legal.
Councillor Atkin confirmed that when the Authority looked at close proximity crewing and the advice provided it was confirmed that if close proximity crewing was voluntary and not compulsory the Service was not in breach of the Working Time Directive. The Judge, however, disagreed.