FBU Response to Draft Budget Proposals

The following is the FBU submission to the Fire Authority Management Committee held on Monday 24 January 2011:

The FBU fully recognises the budgetary pressures in the current financial climate. As previously stated, our opinion is that the “glass is half full” and we have urged that a cautious approach is taken when formulating future budgets.

The draft budget you are being asked to consider equates to a cut of £20,000 from the 2010/11 budget.

Given that there is such a small cut and that there is a pay freeze in place, the FBU has concerns as to the level of savings having to be made in order to balance the budget. We recognise that NI contributions will increase, but would challenge the need to make budget provisions for inflation, bank holidays and most of the bids made in the respective appendices. These could be delivered by continuing the current saving regime which was put into place at the direction of the authority. If £800K can be realised this year, then it is reasonable to say that given the above £500k can be realised in the 2011/12 cycle.

The FBU is of the opinion that the outcome of the grant settlement for RBFRS is the result of us already being one of the most efficient and value for money authorities. Having said that we should not be complacent as no one knows what is round the corner in years 3 and 4.

We are also surprised that for the first time ever, there is a line in the budget of increments of £181K whereas there is no line for salaries, surely the two go together.

The authority is on course to realise savings in excess of + £800K in the current budget despite employing 2 consultants on what looks like permanent contracts and having to work with 2 Officers over the establishment in order to deliver the authorities agenda. These savings have come about through many initiatives which have had an impact on the way we do things and by not filling vacancies. What do you propose to do with these savings? We note that the draft budget includes a “Contribution to capital development fund” of £542K which is somewhat short from the known savings.

Considering that the authority has in excess of £3M in reserves and is proposing to cut mainly uniformed front line jobs, the FBU has serious concerns that the authority is putting revenue money aside to for capital projects such as a new head quarters.

We are not accountants, but there are aspects of the draft budget proposal which cause us concern, namely:

PROPOSED REVENUE SAVINGS

• The level of savings being made as indicated in appendix C. Some of these are being rushed through without a full analysis of the impact on the service we deliver
• The LSI to CPD – money belongs to fire fighters and was ring fenced at the inception of CPD. If these levels have been maintained year on year then we suspect that original level of payment was not set correctly and should be reviewed
• Removal of London Fringe Allowance – Your fire fighters are facing a pay freeze for three years and it could be argued that in reality we have all taken a pay cut in real terms of 3% last year and 3.7% this year. This proposal equates to a 2.9% and 1.9% pay cut respectively for competent fire fighters and more for managers.
• Internal courses – removal of meal provision – It is an integral part of conditions that a meal is provided if we are away from our normal place of work. The removal of this provision will result in a lower morale and higher cost to the authority as we will be claiming an allowance as per the grey book which is more than the cost of providing the meals in the first place. Ironically it is proposed to maintain the provision of meals to members so as not to pay the higher entitlement of an allowance
• W/T appliances to low risk incidents on RDS station grounds – Although a £100K saving is estimated to be realised, there has been no analysis of the impact on the development of the fire nor just as importantly the impact on the morale of RDS fire fighters and the subsequent impact on their retention
• Fire Safety Enforcement – To our knowledge, no impact assessment on RBFRS ability to perform its statutory duties nor the impact on current personnel’s’ abilities and work loads has been carried out.
• Director Post – The £110K is dependent on the director retiring and does not address the issue whether, of all the directors posts, that is the most suitable to reduce
• HRU crewing – The loss of crewing of the Heavy Rescue Unit at Newbury will result in the loss of 12 uniformed posts and a worse service to the public in both rescue and fire intervention capabilities. Newbury already has the worst fire cover in the whole County and to switch crew the front line appliance with the HRU will only result in a worsening of service and a less safe system of work and environment for fire fighters. This is also contradictory to government expectations that front line services will not be cut. 
• Officer rotas – There has been no analysis to substantiate the claims made in order to justify the reduction in officer numbers, the impact on safe systems of work, the impact on workloads or the impact on RBFRS to deliver a service when called upon. Furthermore, the proposal does not identify how many non-uniformed personnel will have to be employed and, as such, we believe that the £350K saving in year one will not be realised.  

PROPOSED REVENUE BIDS

• Portable Generators – To our knowledge, there has been no power cut in recent history which had an adverse impact on our ability to deliver the service. Having said that, it is prudent to plan, but we would ask why do we need more than one generator?
• IRMP related premises costs – We do not understand why there are costs associated with Dee Road (not happening in year one), Wokingham (there is no disposal), Windsor (we are unaware of the disposal of the current site), Wargrave (not happening in year one)
• Information Manager – This work can be done by current uniformed Officers and it’s somewhat perverse that you are proposing to cut 12 Officer posts whilst at the same time wanting to employ more people to do work which can already be sourced from within the organisation.
• Projects/Planning Officer – Same as above and it should be noted that all the work done thus far in relation to this issued has been done by the very people you are trying to cut – uniformed Officers.

PROPOSED CAPITAL BIDS

At a time when we are cutting jobs, making people redundant, reducing the level of front line services we deliver, etc. the FBU finds it ironic and contemptuous that some of these bids have been proposed

• Security Fencing and gates – £110K is being asked for to upgrade the gates at five sites. The FBU recognises that the current provision is not ideal, but we also wish to confirm that it is adequate. To our knowledge there have been no issues with security at these sites and as for BHQ, if we are moving out, why replace the current gate? This level of expenditure on such items in the current climate is inadvisable and not welcome.
• Fire Alarms Station’s 1 and 20 – £124K, which we would take as being for a total replacement. Although we recognise the need to confirm to current legislation, we are confident that an upgrade would not cost anywhere near as much. We would also ask the question whether such work has indeed has to be carried out!
• Access Control System Upgrade – We accept it has to be renewed at some stage, but is this the right time? The system still works, has had no major failure, has not yet reached the end of its life and like all IT systems, its life can be prolonged. Additionally, there is key access to all premises should a failure occur.
• Light Vehicle Replacements – We support the provision of a modern fit for purpose fleet, but would like to see a replacement programme for the now aged off road support vehicles (Land Rovers) as they are being utilised on a more regular basis. Failing that, we would like to see the ongoing introduction of personnel carriers with an off road capability thus supporting RBFRS resilience during spate conditions 

The FBU asks that the Authority directs its Managers to continue realising savings and evidence any potential cuts that may have to be made in the future. We do not accept that savings of the scale being indicated in the draft budget are required at this time. We should do the work in order to be prepared for such a time as they may be required. However, as most of this work is an IRMP issue, the work could be done now and placed on the shelf for a rainy day, but a risk assessment should be carried out at the appropriate time to reflect current assumptions – if worked on now and implemented later, the evidence will have changed as might have the risk.

The current position of rushing everything through by April 2011 is placing huge pressure on managers and having a negative impact on their workloads and wellbeing.

Your employees are at an all time low with regards to morale and worthiness. They have worked extremely hard and have demonstrated continuous commitment to the organisation, and yet they are treated as disposables and less important that capital projects

Finally, the FBU is continually asking to make its own proposals. However, despite the numerous ideas we have, we are unable to do so as we are refused an overview of the wider issues. We therefore ask the authority to consider including FBU Officials in the budget working parties so that we can really be an inclusive authority.

ENDS