Inspection of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service North Service Delivery Area

LA Engagement and Community Planning Arrangements

150. An effective Fire and Rescue Service will work in partnership with communities and others in the public, private and third sectors to ensure community wellbeing and to improve community safety outcomes. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s overall effectiveness within the NSDA is judged to be Good.

151. As defined by the Scottish Government in the Fire and Rescue Framework 2022, “The main purpose of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is to work in partnership with communities and others in the public, private and third sectors, on prevention, protection and response, to improve the safety and wellbeing of people throughout Scotland.” Through this inspection process we have recorded many qualified comments gathered through interviews with LA Chief Executives, Local Council elected members, LA Scrutiny Chairs and Senior Police Commanders that speak to the commitment of SFRS staff to work in partnership in a very wide range of initiatives and interventions within the communities that they serve. The NSDA’s partners commented that the SFRS was considered to be a consistent and effective partner and that their work is highly valued. However, we also received multiple comments from within the SFRS and a number from the aforementioned community partners about a reduction in engagement activity caused by the Covid pandemic which has never returned to what the pre-pandemic levels were. In this regard all partners expressed a willingness and a desire to return to the full engagement levels that were previously known, but also a concern that freeing the capacity to do so within their respective organisations would be challenging to achieve.

152. The SFRS has the duty to comply with the legislative requirements of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 for community planning partners to jointly develop a local plan aimed at improving the quality of life for the people experiencing the greatest inequality. During this inspection we found evidence across the North SDA Local Authority areas that the Service is complying with its statutory duty to work with others within the established community planning arrangements. Across the LA’s within the NSDA there were examples of SFRS officers who contributed to joint planning arrangements for the development of LOIPs with follow up community engagement work that produced, in the opinion of the Council executive officers and elected members, outcomes that tackled core themes such as the reduction of poverty within communities, e.g. hosting breakfast clubs, gathering and distributing food parcels to the community, hosting brew with the crew sessions in local fire stations etc. These examples help to put the LOIPs into practice.

153. A common issue that was mentioned across LAs was the impact that SFRS officer turnover has had on maintaining often excellent progress with CS activity in line with the LOIP. That said, we received positive comments about the regular attendance by Service officers at a wide range of community focused forums from strategic to local levels. The issue with officer turnover was that there was a need to reestablish a range of working relationships that had previously been producing positive outcomes, and this was noted as taking time during which some momentum can be lost.

LA Scrutiny and Evaluation of NSDA

154. All LAs across the NSDA commented positively about the consistency and quality of the scrutiny reports that the Service produces. These were noted as having a good mix of quantitative data and qualitative case study examples that were used by SFRS officers to bring any ongoing work to life. Service officers were also praised for the consistency of attendance at the range of scrutiny meetings.

155. It was clear from our interviews with LA partners who are responsible for the scrutiny of SFRS activity that they do not have in place any meaningful evaluation processes of the outcomes and outputs that the Service is achieving. Several commented that evaluation processes may have been in development, but that they were not effectively used at this time. We have noted in the Prevention and Protection section of this report that the SFRS does not effectively evaluate the outcomes of its own initiatives and that a suitable system should be put in place for this. Effective evaluation would allow the SFRS and the LAs in the North to tailor and improve the service that they offer to their communities.

Recommendation 27

The Service is involved in a wide range of intervention activity with LA partners. This work aligns to the aims set out in LOIPs and tackles the priorities of both the LAs and the SFRS. We would recommend that these interventions are subject to robust evaluation that quantifies the outputs and outcomes that they achieve, thus ensuring the ability to direct resources most appropriately for future joint planned activities.

Civil Contingency and Resilience Planning Arrangements

156. The SFRS has statutory responsibilities under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to work in partnership with other organisations, through the North of Scotland Regional Resilience Partnership (RRP), and to compile a Community Risk Register (CRR). The RRP has three Local Resilience Partnerships (LRP) i.e. Highlands and Islands, Grampian and Tayside. The RRP has regional workstreams that consider any emerging risks across the North as part of a cyclical North Risk Preparedness Assessment that is overseen by a Risk Capability Group which is chaired by an SFRS officer on behalf of the RRP. The Community Risk Register (CRR) is the result of risk assessments conducted by the partnership members, to identify the likely risks in the area and rate them in terms of their potential impact and likelihood of occurring. The results of these assessments are used to inform the RRP and produce agreed, and effective multi-agency plans and procedures. The CRR considers eight potential generic risks within the North, describes possible consequences from those risks, outlines what the RRP members are doing, and also what the public can do themselves to mitigate risk. The CRR is reviewed and updates at the end of each Risk Preparedness Assessment cycle to ensure that all plans remain current and up to date.

157. The SFRS provides strong support via the DACO and LSOs for the effective operation of the North RRP and its LRPs that feed into it. Two uniformed SFRS PPP officers have resilience as one of their functional references, and they are supported by support staff Civil Contingency Officers (CCO) who each have extensive knowledge in the field having previously worked within the Service or other emergency Services. LA partners consistently commented that there was strong commitment from individuals, and that working relationships with the SFRS Resilience team were very good, and that their contributions were valued. These personnel however are not manged by the LSO teams, but rather support them through their work with the RRP, LRPs and their various liaison groups as set out above. The CCOs in particular are a constant in this field with officer turnover leading to regular changes of personnel in the SC and GC PPP roles, they will often be the first point of contact for LA personnel in relation to resilience issues or queries.

158. Through our fieldwork we understand that Civil Contingencies and resilience is not a standing agenda item at LSO or SDA meetings. The PPP SC/GC is not consistently required to be at these meetings to be questioned regarding ongoing work within the field. The work that is undertaken by the CCOs is fed into the LSO teams, but there does not appear to be a feedback mechanism that confirms fully that what is ongoing has been fully considered and understood. This possible lack of feedback may have manifested itself during our interviews with operational crews in particular. It was noticeable from the comments we garnered during field work that there are many large infrastructure projects, particularly relating to renewable energy generation and transmission, ongoing within the NSDA. However, when we queried LSO personnel about horizon scanning and preparations that will be necessary for the Service to meet the operational challenges that these large energy generation and/or storage sites could present, there was no obvious training or exercising being developed for them. It is worth saying that the mandatory training and exercising for sites that are currently regulated e.g. COMAH sites, are within scope and personnel do attend these on a cyclical basis. We had confirmation that no members of the LSO teams or from TSA has engaged with the CCO team regarding potential operational considerations or training to meet the challenges that these sites could present.

Recommendation 28

The Service should strengthen the connection between LSO teams and operational staff and the Civil Contingency and resilience teams. Efforts should be made to understand the local emerging operational risks to ensure that suitable procedures can be developed for them and training can be designed to test their adequacy.

Community Asset Register

159. The SFRS maintains a register of community based assets, i.e. the CAR. The development of the CAR was an outcome of a recommendation from an independent review of water rescue capability in Scotland, conducted by Paddy Tomkins QPM in 2009. The community assets listed on the register are available on request to be used by SFRS operational commanders, in order to provide assistance at an incident. This can be particularly useful when specialist equipment which is not held by the SFRS is needed e.g. high capacity power generators, additional HVPs, specialist search and rescue personnel and their equipment, off road capable vehicles etc. We found that there was some awareness of the CAR amongst FDOs and watch based personnel, but in most cases a limited knowledge of what specific resources were available. We found evidence of limited circumstances in which the CAR had been considered at incidents and that resources had been requested. OC staff had a working knowledge of the CAR and were able to confirm that it is infrequently used.

160. When CAR assets had been used by SFRS personnel it was often on the back of local established relationships with forested, game or farming estates where there was a knowledge of the mutually beneficial outcomes that can be achieved by making available specialist resources, particularly to transport firefighters over wild terrain and allow them easier access to the scene of incidents. While the Tomkins Review set out very clear reasons for a formalising CAR, we received several comments that this would go against the culture of how these resources are mobilised and used when necessary, during operational incidents on Scotland’s island groups. People are willing to help, and do so regularly and unprompted. However, our feedback was that they would be reluctant to formally declare their assets. How the CAR operates in remote communities that have a strong ethos of self-sustaining resilience should be an area of consideration for the SFRS. On Orkney we were informed that none of the community resources that are regularly made available during weather events are registered on the CAR. We discussed this issue directly with senior Council leaders on Orkney, and they were fully aware and accepted the situation and informed us that they would not want to diminish any future (ad hoc at this time) community response during a crisis as “locals wouldn’t want the formal responsibility of being placed onto a register such as the CAR, it’s an issue that needs to be handled sensitively”. The islanders’ approach to community assistance was clearly recognised and understood by FDOs who commented that “it’s the island way, it (the help arriving) just happens”.

161. We received a number of examples where privately owned community resilience assets have mobilised on the islands to a range of incidents in a quite organic fashion and outwith the utilisation of the CAR. They clearly added value at those times in fulfilling a number of roles that neither SFRS nor the Local Council assets could not. Notwithstanding the value added on these occasions, the SFRS still has a responsibility to manage the CAR across Scotland. While we will not reiterate Recommendation 5 from the East Service Delivery Area Inspection of October 2023, the SFRS should further consider it in light of the CAR findings set out in this report.