On this page:

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE EFFICIENCY TECHNICAL NOTES: MARCH 2005: page 35

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE EFFICIENCY TECHNICAL NOTES: MARCH 2005

10. JUSTICE

1. Portfolio/Number/Name:J/C1 Fire Central Government

2. Programme/Activity: Please include a short description

There are two strands to this project:

  • More efficient delivery of centrally funded training for the modernising Fire and Rescue Service in order to improve quality of input and meet demand within existing funding constraints;
  • Some administrative savings.

3. Planned Savings

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Cash (m)

0.1

0.1

0.1

Time Releasing (m)

0

0

0

4. Accountable Officer for delivery

Robert Gordon

5. Project Manager

Bob Virtue

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 impact. Students will be able to access some alternative learning and development opportunities within Scotland, instead of having to travel to England.

8. Dependencies

Explain if your savings are dependant on legislation or other structural changes being achieved.

None.

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.

The savings will be made as follows:

(i) reduction in non-domestic rates paid to local authority 92K

(ii) reduction in funding support to Fire Services Examination Board (FSEB) 17-50K

(iii) reduction in travel and subsistence expenditure for students

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.)

Action to be taken:

(i) appeal rateable value applied by local authority, and Scottish Fire Service College to take administrative action to ensure correct non-domestic rates are paid

(ii) to reduce funding to Fire Services Examination Board

(iii) Implementation of Crew and Watch Manager Development Programmes (Management Modules) with further education partners in Scotland

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 -).

2005- 06

2006- 07

2007- 08

+

-

Net

Explanation

N/A

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.

Recurrent savings from rates = 92K

Reduced support to FSEB will result in a 17K saving in 05/06, with increased savings in later years up to a maximum of 50K from 07/08

Savings from reduced travel and subsistence of fire service staff no longer having to attend courses in England is difficult to quantify because of different journeys/modes of travel, but the FE-based programmes in Scotland will offer up to 120 places. This will allow for a reconfiguration of the College budget to sustain and improve the e-delivery of development programmes to the wider Scottish service, in particular as recommended by HM Chief Inspector of Fire Services in reports relating to the part-time service.

12.2 Against what budget does this expenditure and saving fall?

Fire Central Government.

12.3 Has this saving been built into your budget?

Yes, in that the saving is necessary to permit continuing expenditure at present levels on other Fire Central Government items, given that there is to be no increase (either in cash or real terms) in the budget over the SR2004 period.

12.4 If so, what is the maximum allowable expenditure against the budget data, in each year, for that saving to be delivered?

6,934,000 for each year of the Spending Review.

12.5 If not, how do you propose to invest the additional cash back into public services?

N/A

12.6 What plans do you have to exceed the required saving? Explain by how much in each year.

None. The savings are required in order to maintain existing levels of spending on other, largely unavoidable costs.

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)?

Savings from reduced FSEB contributions and rates refund are immediately apparent, and will be monitored by administrative processes by the College.

Re-configuration of the budget will be monitored via the Learning & Development Strategy and service planning process as implemented by the Director of Fire Service Training.

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?)

Reports will be issued on a quarterly basis to the Central Training Advisory Committee.

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)

    The savings from reduced FSEB contributions and rates refunds are quantifiable and available through normal budget controls. Tthe accuracy will be validated through normal audit control procedures. No risks or issues are foreseen.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Page updated: Thursday, March 31, 2005