HFRS Representatives

HFRA (Best Value Committee) Members

David Howells - DCS

Cllr Mrs Barron

SDO Philip Webb

Cllr Semmens

Mr Chas Betts - Group A leader

Cllr Gausden

StnO Steve Hamm - Group B leader

GROUP A Chas Betts

Six members in group. All persons entered into the discussion with enthusiasm. There was no one 'pushing' their personal views.

Corporate Aims

The group placed our aims in the following order of priority:-

1^st Reduce Fire Related Deaths and Injury

2^nd Improve Performance Management

Skills

3^rd Improve practical training

4^th Reduce False Alarms

5^th Reduce Sickness Levels

6^th Reduce Time Taken to Issue Fire

Certificates

7^th Promote Fairness and Dignity

8^th Review Provision of Fire Cover

Group B Steve Hamm

Six members in the group. Widely different make up of group. One in particular had an excellent grasp of Best Value and Local Government initiatives.

Corporate Aims

The group placed our aims in the following order of priority:-

1^st Reduce Fire Related Deaths and Injury

2^nd Improve Practical Training

3^rd Reduce Sickness Levels

4^th Reduce False Alarms

5^th Improve Performance Management

Skills

6^th Review Provision of Fire Cover

7^th Reduce Time Taken to Issue Fire

Certificates

8^th Promote Fairness and Dignity

Comments

· The group were unanimous in stating that the primary function of the fire & rescue service is to reduce death and injuries and this must be achieved.

· The majority of the group believed that performance management skills are the basis of achieving the other aims. Without these in place then wasted/ duplication of effort would result.

· The group placed training and resources next as without these there would be little impact on other aims.

· The types of false alarms had to be explained to the group. They were adamant that there should be discretion to charge for false alarms when the service felt it was justified.

· The group were divided on the importance of reducing sickness levels by 20%. Why devote resources if the initial problem is not large? (20% of what?) They thought that incentives might be tried to improve attendances, eg pay bonuses for good performance

· The three remaining topics were deemed relatively unimportant and placing from 6^th to 8^th was purely done for the purpose of the meeting. They believed that resources targeted here would be wasted.

Best Value

The Summary document was issued to each group member. None of the group remembered receiving a copy in previous years. The group were asked to make comments re the Summary in front of them.

· Too much like 'junk mail' ... in fact had less impact than the usual junk mail.

· Statistics a turn-off ... they preferred pie-charts if statistics have to be shown.

· Unanimously stated it is a waste of time /effort to produce.

Fire Cover Review

· All believed that there should be priority given to hospitals and nursing/ sheltered accommodation. An attendance commensurate with the risk and within 5 minutes.

· Residential/ hospitals should be a priority ... life risk before commercial risk.

· If there had to be a classification because of resource implications then commercial/ industrial premises should be of a lower priority.

· Whatever the type of property, there should be an attendance to a fire situation inside 10 minutes.

Community Education

· The present strategy fully approved - Learn Not to Burn, Key Stages, Fire Setters, etc.

· Target all the population - but new methods needed to impart the 'message'.

· Residents questionnaires are a good idea so long as the statistics gathered are used to target risk areas.

Comments on Initiatives/ advertising

· All remember the present TV campaign/ grave stone. This has had an impact. Previous campaigns not remembered.

· Nobody remembered seeing fire safety message on fire appliances. Two remembered seeing something on the vans but could not remember the message.

· None thought the message on the rear of a 'fire engine' was appropriate.

Comments

· The group believed that, above all, preventing fire deaths and injury were the highest priority.

· Stated that good training and less sickness absence would also help to achieve this.

· They saw performance management as important but also said they thought HFRS is well managed.

· Were not aware of the false alarm problem ... had to be explained in detail.

· They did not see the fire cover review as a problem, but were only thinking of Southampton rather than more widely.

· Fairness and dignity not perceived as being an issue.

Best Value

Best Value was explained to the group, HFRS responsibilities and our methods of compliance.

Summaries

· No knowledge or awareness of HFRS Best Value aims.

· Accepted the explanation of its content but repeatedly stated that most people view the fire service as providing an efficient, effective service anyway.

· Accepted that a focus group was in fact part of Best Value and thought it was a good, positive thing in this respect.

· The Best Value Summary document was received as being a bit muddled and not clear.

Fire Cover Review

· The group were surprised at current arrangements for fire cover i.e. risk categorisation.

· Hospitals and nursing homes should have a maximum attendance time of 5 minutes.

· All members, despite efforts to the contrary, were focused entirely on Southampton

Community Education

· All aware of the HFRS schools' initiatives and thought it was very good and will be effective in future generations of home occupiers.

· Leaflets are not a good idea ... they go straight in the bin.

· Liked the idea of the facilities provided at St Marys for advice on demand rather than HFRS targeting them.

Comments on Initiatives/ advertising

· The group would like to see more face to face contact through attendance at workplaces and fire appliances in the streets.

· Safety messages to be provided via the internet, displays in shops/ checkouts, estate agents.