Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the HAMPSHIRE FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE held at Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service Headquarters, Eastleigh on 16 June, 2006.

PRESENT:

Councillors: R.J. Baulk (Chairman); I.F.E. Beagley; K.G. Chapman; L. Hunt; H. Jones.

42 APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D.A. Kirk and David Simpson.

43 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should, normally at the time of debate, declare their interest and having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Fire Authority's Code of Conduct consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed.

Councillors Baulk, Beagley and Chapman declared a personal interest in Item 8 (Minute 49) as Hampshire County Councillors.

44 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 May, 2006 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

45 DEPUTATIONS

There were no deputations made under this item.

46 RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION ARISING FROM INTERNAL AUDIT REPORTS

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Item 5 in the Minute Book) setting out the final internal audit report on contracts.

    RESOLVED:

    That the Internal Audit Action Report be accepted and the progress of ongoing actions be noted.

47 BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (BVPI) AND LOCAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (LPI)

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Item 6 in the Minute Book) on the performance indicator data for the fourth quarter of 2005/06. All the indicators in the report were so-called `flight deck' indicators which the Principal Officers considered to be the most important, and also incorporate those that will be reviewed in the forthcoming Performance Management Framework.

    The Performance Review Manager went through the BVPIs noting that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service (HFRS) had set a local target of zero for BV143i (Number of deaths arising from accidental fires in dwellings per 100,000 population) against the Government target of approximately 0.45. The indicator does not include deaths due to arson or suicide, and it was noted that because of the very small numbers involved, performance can fluctuate significantly as a result of one or two serious incidents.

    Although BV144 (Percentage of accidental dwelling fires contained to room of origin) will be a key indicator in the Performance Framework it was re-iterated that HFRS does not agree with its inclusion as a key performance indicator. It is harder for rural areas to score well and there are problems with consistency in the comparable data. However, BV206i (Number of deliberate primary fires, excluding vehicles, per 10,000 population) showed the encouraging results of HFRS educational activities in schools and with arson offenders.

    RESOLVED:

    That the performance of HFRS be noted and the strategies to meet the target set be endorsed.

48 BEST VALUE REVIEW OF PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS


    The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Item 7 in the Minute Book) outlining the recommendations made by the external consultant in regard to HFRS partnership arrangements.

    The Committee agreed that HFRS made a valuable contribution to partnership organisations such as the National Trust and B&Q. While some partnerships could incur significant costs the recommendations set out in the report would ensure that beneficial arrangements would continue with greater clarity.

    RESOLVED:

    That it be a RECOMMENDATION to the Authority that:

    a) the Authority considers the assessment of the current arrangements for the management of its partnership working (set out in paragraph 5 of the consultant's report) and seeks ways of building on the strengths of its current approach to ensure it is fully `fit for purpose' in respect of the Audit Commission's principles of good governance for partnership working;

    b) the Authority builds on the recent rationalisation of current partnerships through the review of its Partnership Register by undertaking a further `light touch' audit of the arrangements for those partnerships that remain (using the checklist set out in Appendix 1 of the consultant's report) to reassure itself and its partners that the criteria for partnership working are satisfied; and

    c) the checklist be used by the Authority at both a strategic and an operational level -recognising that much partnership work is initiated by Group Managers - in its assessment of all future partnership proposals.

49 BEST VALUE REVIEW OF SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS FOR SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Item 8 in the Minute Book) presenting the external consultant's review of the service level agreements Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority (HFRA) has with Hampshire County Council (HCC) for the provision of: treasury and financial services; property, business and regulatory services; information technology managed services and support; and legal and committee services.

    The Director of Corporate Services explained that since the inception of the HFRA in 1997, the Authority had continued to procure these support services from HCC. The best value review was intended to examine the effectiveness and value for money of the current service level agreements. The review had not been intended to lead to a competitive tendering exercise. However, clarification was now required to discover if a tendering process will be necessary in respect of all or part of these services.

    The review by the external consultant found good relationships between the HFRA and HCC and the benefits of economies of scale. There was a belief amongst officers that HFRA is achieving value for money already and that to go to tender would be costly in both money and time.

    The majority of Members were agreed that HFRA was currently unable to prove value for money, but felt that benchmarking with HFRA's `Family Group' would be helpful in this respect. It was also apparent that disentangling the services for tendering specifications would be a difficult exercise. It was therefore,

    RESOLVED:

    That it be a RECOMMENDATION to the Authority that:

    a) the documentation of the various agreements be updated and improved to describe the services being delivered in a clearer and simplified way with emphasis on shared values, outcomes and consistent quality standards for all services;

    b) monitoring meetings should take place at least quarterly to review overall performance and performance on all individual services;

    c) arrangements be made for the Service to employ directly the Information Services Manager on or before 1 April 2007;

    d) arrangements be made as soon as possible for the Service to employ a full time person to provide the web support services, as detailed in the current agreement with the County Council, for the day-to-day support of the Authority's web site;

    e) a benchmarking group is established building on existing arrangements with other fire and rescue services to build a source of comparable information on the costs of similar services provided through service level agreements; and

    f) further advice be obtained as to the extent to which the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 oblige the Authority to undertake a full tendering exercise, prior to any decisions being made in respect of the following recommendations of the consultant's report:

      i. that the provision of various support services provided by Hampshire County Council should be established under a strategic service partnership with a single set of documents that describe the services delivered in a clearer and simplified way with emphasis on shared values, outcomes and consistent quality standards for all services. This to be achieved by 1 April 2007;

      ii. that there should be discussions between the officers with the aim of a single monthly itemised invoice for all services provided through the partnership;

      iii. that an annual strategic meeting should take place involving senior managers from both the Service and the County Council to discuss the plans for the partnership and make decisions about overall performance and effectiveness, strategic developments and any changes needed in the overall approach and agreement; and

      iv. the partnership should include the delivery of efficiency savings as one of the key new partnership principles rather than presume that rates and charges should simply be raised by the rate of inflation each year and agreement on the achievement of targeted efficiency savings should take place at each annual review.