Agenda item

To consider an update on collaboration between:

-       GFRS and the Constabulary/ OPCC

-       GFRS and SWAST.

5.1          Mark Preece, Chief Fire Officer (CFO), introduced the item on blue light collaboration. He explained that the Emergency Service Collaboration Board, involving Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service (GFRS), Gloucestershire Police, and South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWASFT), oversaw the collaboration of the three emergency services.

5.2          Nick Ashcroft, Area Manager for Business Planning and Transformation, GFRS, gave a presentation detailing blue light collaboration activities. The presentation was attached to the agenda for the meeting.

5.3          Members were advised that collaboration was about aligning the values of the emergency services and working together to ensure efficiencies, increased productivity, and safer communities in Gloucestershire.

5.4          Members were informed that there were four areas of focus for tri-service collaboration. These were estates, communications, operational capabilities, and learning and development and health and wellbeing. Specific teams met to consider collaboration in these areas.

5.5          In terms of estates, it was understood that GFRS and Gloucestershire Constabulary (and SWASFT where possible) collaborated on the use of estates. It was noted that on-call fire stations at Newent and Winchcombe were used by the Police. Three further sites at Chipping Campden, Fairford and Wotton Under Edge had been identified as potential opportunities for further shared use of facilities, based on data collated by the Police.

5.6          The CFO recognised the concerns that had been raised previously relating to the blurring of lines between GFRS and the Police and the impact the shared use of facilities could have on GFRS’s reputation. However, he highlighted the positive benefits of collaborating in this area for the Fire Service, including that the presence of the Police at fire stations acted as a deterrent for break-ins.

5.7          Members were advised that consideration was being given to the employment of tri-service safety officers to support these shared-use stations. These officers would have several roles across the emergency services, working to make communities safer. They had already been used in other areas, such as in Cornwall and in Hereford and Worcester.

5.8          Members were informed that, in terms of operational capabilities, collaboration related to the sharing of information and resources to improve service delivery across Gloucestershire. This included GFRS attending police daily management meetings, a memorandum of understanding for GFRS to use police drones, and quarterly operational and capabilities away days.

5.9          Attention was drawn to the data which determined the incidents GFRS had assisted the Police and SWASFT with between March 2023 and March 2024. Whilst collaboration was increasing, the importance of recognising each service’s limitations in providing support was highlighted. The role of GFRS in taking the pressure off SWASFT in terms of helping to deal with call volumes was also highlighted.

5.10       Members were informed that all three emergency services had taken part in a school emergency preparedness event, following an incident at Tewkesbury School in July 2023, to raise awareness of the emergency response to a lockdown incident within an educational environment.

5.11       The Committee was advised that involving SWASFT in blue light collaboration remained a challenge, given that they were one of the busier services in the Tri-Service Agreement, and consideration was being given as to how to encourage them to be more actively involved in collaboration. Next steps also included GFRS further assisting the Police with missing persons cases and anti-social behaviour hotspots.

5.12       Members were informed of collaboration activities relating to communication and were presented with staff comments highlighting the benefits of collaborative working.

5.13       It was confirmed, following a question from a member, that the Emergency Service Collaboration Board had been in existence for some time and that it met at least quarterly.

5.14       A member sought clarification as to what collaboration looked like on a day-to-day basis, whether it differed on a weekend, and what the threshold was for SWASFT to seek support from GFRS.

5.15       Jane Whichello, Head of Volunteering and Community Services at SWASFT, delivered a presentation to the Committee on SWASFT and GFRS collaboration activities.

5.16       Members were informed that there were two types of fire co-responders operating in Gloucestershire. The first covered retained firefighters operating from 10 co-responding stations in Gloucestershire. They would be required to respond to Category 1 calls in either a SWASFT or GFRS vehicle if SWASFT resources were not immediately available and they would be able to respond more quickly. The second type were cardiac care fire co-responders who were fulltime firefighters and responded to cardiac arrests in a fire appliance if they were not required at a fire incident.

5.17       It was noted that GFRS had attended incidents on behalf of SWASFT almost 600 times in the last 12 months, and that co-responders from Coleford, Tetbury and Lydney attended 60 percent of incidents.

5.18       In an update on what was going well with collaboration between SWASFT and GFRS, members were informed of the good working relationship SWASFT had with Mike Lovegrove at GFRS. It was noted that vehicles owned by SWASFT for co-responding were now being maintained by teams based at Staverton, rather than by clinical staff. Additionally, GFRS and SWASFT were working to understand modelling which looked at the impact of each station on Category 1 response times in order to maximise contribution.

5.19       Moving forwards, members were advised that a memorandum of understanding was being developed with all five fire and rescues services within the SWASFT region in order to achieve consistency in terms of the level of training, the types of incidents attended and the kit and equipment that was carried by co-responders.

5.20       Consideration was also being given to the use of the National Mobilisation App to improve the process for despatching co-responders.

5.21       A member highlighted their concern regarding the time it took for co-responders to be despatched to an incident where SWASFT did not have the resources to immediately attend, and sought clarification on the process. In response, Jane Whichello explained that as soon as a call was answered by the ambulance control centre, officers would be looking at the resources available to despatch from either SWASFT or the fire service. 

5.22       A member queried why there were no co-responders operating from Chipping Campden fire station and asked what was being done to address this, as well as to address the problems with co-responding at Newent. In response, the CFO reminded members that firefighters volunteered as co-responders, and that he had no duty to direct them to take on this role. The need for clinical governance for co-responding was highlighted in order to ensure that the emergency medical care being provided by firefighters was of the appropriate standard. The CFO also explained that resources needed to be available to deal with any fire incidents as a priority over co-responding.

5.23       A member asked how firefighters were accepting this additional role, raising a concern that it was based on the good will of firefighters. In response, the CFO explained that co-responding was an emotive issue that was often raised by the fire trade unions. All firefighters put the community first, and some were prepared to put the fire unions’ stance on co-responding to one side to volunteer. However, others felt that co-responding should be recognised in the role map of a firefighter, and that they should be paid for the role before undertaking it. Jane Whichello added that SWASFT did pay GFRS on a not-for-profit basis for the attendance of firefighters at incidents, and firefighters that volunteered also had the opportunity to develop the skills and experience that they could then apply in their day-to-day role.

5.24       A member commented on the value of firefighters co-responding in terms of helping to save lives. They expressed the view that generally co-responding benefitted GFRS as firefighters developed their emergency response skills, as long as it did not affect response times to fire incidents.

5.25       Cllr Dave Norman, Cabinet Member for Fire, Community Safety and Libraries, informed members that co-responding on a voluntary basis had existed for many years. He recognised the benefit of more firefighters volunteering, however reminded members that it would not be appropriate for the CFO to pressurise firefighters to undertake a role that they were not required to do. He added that on-call firefighters were reliant on their primary employers releasing them for co-responding.

5.26       A member suggested it would be of value for all emergency services to listen into an emergency call at the same time so that incidents were responded to quickly. In response, it was explained that control rooms worked together to ensure a quick and appropriate response to an incident.

5.27       A further member asked for clarification as to what constituted a co-responding team. It was noted that co-responders attended incidents either in pairs or singularly if they were confident to do so, in either a SWASFT or GFRS vehicle that was based at the co-responding station.

5.28       The Committee thanked officers for their presentations.