Subscribe to our Newsletter
|
|
|
Facing the challenge or fudging the floods? |
|
|
|
The recommendations in the recent report of last summer’s flooding, Facing the Challenge, have not been universally welcomed, especially in regards to resisting calls for a statutory duty. FIRE asks, is a regulatory requirement really necessary?
The Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser’s review into last summer’s flooding has many recommendations for improving the effectiveness of FRS response to catastrophic events, vouching for interoperability and capability (see pg 19). There is a repeated emphasis on the crucial role Regional Control Centres will play in maximising response for future disasters. What it does not do is recommend a statutory duty for fire and rescue services to respond to major flooding. The question is, do we really need one? The crucial issues come down squarely into two areas, around responsibility and capability: Which agency takes overall charge? and, can emergency responders meet public expectations?The answer to the first was unclear during last summer’s flooding. Not that the public cares much about that, however. They care about the result. The response to the second question was, according to most, satisfactory. The calls for a statutory duty are understandable. In the recent past disparate strands of Fire and Rescue Service activity had been brought together under the Fire Services Act 2004. Likewise, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order had brought together over 100 bits of fire safety legislation under one umbrella, to a collective sigh of relief from most within the fire sector. It would therefore seem obvious to pursue a similar remit for inland water rescue. But which agency should take the lead? Obviously, overall governance goes to central government. However, DEFRA, the Cabinet Office, CLG, even the Treasury, struggled for primacy when the floods hit. The Environment Agency seems the natural co-ordinator with frontline responders perhaps coming under the jurisdiction of the Fire and Rescue Service.
At the launch of the report Sir Ken said that one of the reasons he was reluctant to advocate a statutory duty would be the additional burden it would place on local authorities. The ad-hoc arrangement worked in relation to high volume pumping but that was more to do with the “can do” attitude than established operating procedures. Sir Ken also challenged the purpose of a statutory duty beyond the responsibility aspect. It would not, he maintained, ensure interoperability and improved capability. Team typing and requisite training standards – the model gleaned from North Carolina, USA and long advocated by FIRE – would lead to longer term resilience planning and interagency working, he assured. Team typing is a system which enables teams from different agencies to work together within a common set of training, equipment, terminology and command and control structures. This was developed following North Carolina’s emergency services failure to respond adequately to a succession of hurricanes. Eight years on they have a system, something akin to the military model of moving teams into position prior to the disaster, rather than reacting following the event. For UK fire and rescue services and agency partners this would be something of a stretch at present. However, under the jurisdiction of a co-ordinating body, perhaps represented equally by the appropriate agencies, responders could use team typing to establish a response option beyond current public expectations. The public expects the Fire Service – in fact all emergency responders – to be able to perform effective rescue within the requisite time frame. They do not expect units of responders to be camped in the adjacent field to their home, planning the operation and checking equipment in advance of the thunderclouds gathering.
From this perspective it seems that in the discussion over statutory duty, capability, health and safety, call handling and all of the myriad concerns that have arisen since the flooding, that the Fire and Rescue Service is being somewhat unambitious in not seeking to raise the stakes even higher. Such a system, under one overarching agency, would also facilitate mutual support between authorities and regions within the national framework. CFOA has a point (see opposite) in wanting to improve the “patchwork quilt of different local arrangements”, yet so has Sir Ken in saying that a statutory duty does not ensure compatibility, interoperability and capability. Both views are true, but partial.
Ultimately, public concerns would be assuaged if the operational guidance was in place to ensure consistent standards of training, equipment and interoperability (agreed upon at Regional Resilience Forum level across the board) combined with an overarching agency with primary responsibility. Beyond that, the Fire and Rescue Service could continue to develop and improve upon the team typing and standardisation training to take water rescue to a new plane. CFOA have picked up the ball from colleagues who have been through even worse overseas and are using their experience well, whilst frontline responders are exceeding public expectations by the “magnificence” of their actions. The support structure needs refining further to leave the responsibility factor unequivocal. The answer lies in bringing together responsibility and capability into one tangible entity, however it is done. |
|
|
