1. Portfolio/Number/Name:FPSR-LG/C2 - Fire Service Reform |
2. Programme/Activity: Please
include a short description Possible reduction in the number of
emergency fire service control rooms from the
present 8 to one, two or three. Following an
independent review of the future of fire
control rooms in Scotland by the consultants
Mott MacDonald, the Scottish Executive embarked
on a public consultation on the report's
recommendation of a rationalisation from the
present eight control rooms to one, two or
three. Further work is being carried out as a
result of the consultation. Once this work is
concluded Ministers will report on the outcome
to Parliament (Justice 2 Committee). Any
changes will be taken forward in discussion
with Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs) and
other stakeholders. The planned savings shown
below are the minimum saving estimated by Mott
MacDonald. The report can be viewed at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/Fire/19077/19766 |
3. Planned Savings | | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 |
Cash (m) | 0 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
Time Releasing (m) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4. Accountable Officer for
delivery | Robert Gordon |
5. Project Manager | Not yet determined. No decision has
been reached on whether the project should
proceed. |
6. EGDG account manager | Carolyn Girvan |
7. Quality Impact | Describe any impact on the quality
of service delivery. Be specific and
explain if the expectation is positive,
negative or neutral. Positive. There would be up-to-date
communications and information systems;
common processes and procedures for call
taking, despatching and associated duties
for all the Fire and Rescue Services in
Scotland. Staff would be able to develop
experience of handling a wide range of
incidents. |
8. Dependencies | Explain if your savings are
dependant on legislation or other
structural changes being achieved. Consensus with FRAs remains the
preferred way forward but there are
Ministerial powers contained in the Fire
(Scotland) Bill which is expected to
receive Royal Assent by the end of March
2005. (A final decision on the project has
still to be taken following further
consultation with stakeholders and a report
to Parliament.) |
9. Description of efficiency and
actions to be taken | 9.1 How will the saving be made? Be
specific about number/size of contracts, staff,
posts dates etc. Rationalisation of the existing 8
control rooms to 1, 2 or 3 has the capacity
to deliver savings in excess of 1.5m
primarily from a reduction in staff
numbers. |
9.2 What action is critically needed to
secure delivery of this saving? Be specific,
and name the key action managers if they are
outwith your immediate management chain (e.g.
in an NDPB.) The cooperation of Fire and Rescue
Authorities and staff associations is
essential in taking this programme forward.
Further consultation with stakeholders is
essential in reaching a final
decision. |
10. Impact on Staffing to achieve the efficiency
gain | If there are to be any changes in
staff numbers (at activity level) to
achieve the efficiency gain, please
indicate how many full time equivalents and
how far you expect savings to be achieved
by natural wastage (show additions as + and
reductions as -). Total control room establishment levels
are presently at 212. The Consultants
report suggests that rationalisation could
reduce the numbers to between 91 and 148
depending on whether there are 1, 2 or 3
control rooms. Until a final decision is
reached on taking the project forward it is
difficult to predict when the savings will
begin to flow. |
| 2005- 06 | 2006- 07 | 2007- 08 |
+ | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- | 0 | 64 (potentially) | 64 (potentially) |
Net | 0 | -64 (potentially) | -64 (potentially) |
Explanation | | Reduction in staffing numbers on a
phased basis | Reduction in staffing numbers on a
phased basis |
11. Benefits | In general, the benefits of the
Scottish Executive Efficiency Plan are the
enhanced outputs from the resources
Ministers have been able to allocate in
SR04. But if there is a direct connection
between this efficiency saving and the
enhancement of a particular service please
describe it here. N/A |
12. Gross/Net Cash Savings | 12.1 Please set out the gross recurring
saving and any offsetting recurring
expenditure. Potential recurrent saving of 1.5 from
2006-07 |
12.2 Against what budget does this
expenditure and saving fall? Fire Grant Aided Expenditure |
12.3 Has this saving been built into your
budget? No |
12.4 If so, what is the maximum
allowable expenditure against the budget
data, in each year, for that saving to be
delivered? N/A |
12.5 If not, how do you propose to
invest the additional cash back into public
services? Not determined as yet |
12.6 What plans do you have to
exceed the required saving? Explain by how
much in each year. None |
13. Time - release savings | 13.1 Please explain any
time-releasing savings indicated at
question 3. N/A |
13.2 Please describe the method you
plan to use to calculate the cash
equivalent of those time release
savings. N/A |
14. Measurement and
Monitoring | 14.1 How are you proposing to
measure the expected efficiency benefits
(e.g. in terms of costs, level of output or
quality of service)? Cost efficiencies from fewer staff
delivering the same level of service. |
14.2 What monitoring &
reporting procedures will be put in place
to measure the efficiency savings (How
often will progress towards the target be
monitored? Who will have lead
responsibility for reporting progress and
what procedures will be in place?) Data on control room numbers and
activity will be gathered through
statistical returns. |
14.3 Monitoring Data: Sources,
validation and risks - What data will be used to
measure progress? Is all the required
information quantifiable and readily
available? If not what action will be
taken to rectify this?
- What measures will be in place
to validate the accuracy of the data?
Who will take responsibility for this?
- Are there any issues or risks
relating to how you plan to use the
data? (e.g. accuracy, difficulties in
collection)
As above. Inspection visits will
validate the processes and accuracy of
the data and there are no unforeseen
risks or issues.
|