Fit for the Future 2022

Fit for the Future is applicable to England. It has been developed in partnership between the National Employers (England), the NFCC and the LGA. All organisations recognise their separate roles in improvement in support of fire and rescue services. They also recognise the importance of working together to deliver the fire and rescue service that they seek to achieve.

Engagement by the partners will continue to regularly refine the content of Fit for the Future so it works at strategic and operational levels for FRAs and FRSs. The idea is to have common agreement about what the future needs to look like, what needs to change to improve the service and how the benefits of that improvement can be realised.

• The National Employers have strategic responsibility in every part of the UK to create an “enabling framework” that will allow local fire and rescue authorities to implement services that will reduce risk in their communities in the most effective and efficient way. To achieve this, they negotiate directly with national employee representatives, through the National Joint Councils (NJCs), to agree how employees’ roles should align to the delivery of these local services and determine national pay and terms and conditions that will support this. They also support fire and rescue authorities and fire and rescue services as they seek to implement change at local level.
• The LGA represents fire and rescue authorities who have the legal and democratic responsibility for fire and rescue services. The LGA works to support, promote, and improve fire and rescue services through policy and improvement work. This work is directed by the Fire Services Management Committee. The LGA’s Fire Commission provides a forum for all fire and rescue authorities to discuss fire issues.
• The NFCC represents senior managers who have operational responsibility to deliver the fire and rescue service in every part of the UK. The NFCC will provide evidence and advice, as appropriate, to the National Employers (England) and the LGA in support of new ways of working that will deliver a service that is fit for the future.

Fit for the Future establishes a common picture for the future of fire and rescue services in England. Its purpose is to identify what needs to change, using a sound evidence base and then identify how that change could be delivered at local and national levels, supporting its implementation across all services.

We have reviewed a wide range of sources to establish a credible picture of the future. The sources we’ve used include feedback about the current performance of the service as well as considering what might happen in the future over the next 5 to 10 years.

The partners’ approach draws upon the available information about service effectiveness and efficiency from service reviews, inspectorate reports and expert commentary. It uses this information to create the common areas of improvement and an agreed future role for the fire and rescue service that is set out in Fit for the Future. Necessary future funding, employee roles and national tools can then be aligned with that view of the future role of the fire and rescue service and its areas of improvement.

Even though the partners in their analysis have looked up to 10 years ahead, this is too long a timescale to set for the delivery of the changes identified in Fit for the Future. Our ambition is that these will be achieved within 5 years.

Wide engagement has taken place on the concept and content of Fit for the Future to ensure it reflects the views of senior managers and political leaders.

There are a number of key areas of work and oversight that will be informed by Fit for the Future, these include:

• Production of central guidance, doctrine and tools.
• Audit and inspection.
• Pay and conditions for employees.
• Standards development.

Fit for the Future is a system of evidence-based improvements, not a rigid set of static objectives that is inflexible and unresponsive. The partners will need to continually review new evidence and make changes where appropriate. Joint arrangements to do this will be put in place.

Wide engagement has taken place on the concept and content of Fit for the Future. The partners listened carefully throughout the engagement process and are clear that without adequate funding, resources and cross government support, the ambitions cannot be fully realised.

There will be demonstrable societal value and public benefits resulting from the improvements and reforms that the partners have outlined in Fit for the Future. But we know that simply setting out our ambition and then seeking funding will not be enough. Well evidenced business cases will be made to government in support of our ambitions. Flexibility will also be sought for other funding authorities and bodies to support this work. These business cases will demonstrate how we will save more lives, recognise employee contribution, and continue to deliver excellent value for money.

The funding and resourcing issues that arise from the implementation and sustained delivery of some of these elements of work are set out in the diagram below:

Fit for the Future has a range of implications for the roles of employees. The changes that may need to be agreed and the value of the benefits of those changes will be the basis of a key business case to the English government, for funding to support appropriate pay arrangements.

To support the aspirations set out in Fit for the Future in providing improved services to the public, the partners also recognise the value of good industrial relations and the role of employee representatives.

The National Employers (England) will continue to consult/negotiate on any changes in roles, pay and other terms and conditions for operational employees.

Society is changing in different parts of the country in different ways. Fire and rescue services need to be able to reshape to address societal changes, including population growth and movement, an aging society and health inequality.

FRAs and FRSs also need to be able to build upon their success in changing human behaviour through prevention and other associated issues and broaden their contribution to a safer, more prosperous society.

The pandemic has resulted in significant changes in society. There are now well-established new ways of working including using technology that can move people away from more office-based models. It has also established the practical reality of widening the scope of the service offer to the public within fire and rescue. This needs to be built upon.

There are global challenges posed by the climate warming leading to increasing risks of extreme heat, wildfires, flooding and water scarcity. Services need to take into account changes in context such as modern methods of construction, technology and innovation.

These societal and global changes are reflected in the risks that drive the activities of the fire and rescue service. Although many risks and some resultant activities are common to all fire and rescue services, no one service is identical to another. Through consistent and robust Community Risk Management Planning (CRMP) local risks need to be properly assessed to inform the deployment of local services. Proposals for service delivery need to be carefully developed, and local communities fully engaged, to ensure that service delivery reflects their expectations, and the impact of services is known and understood.

All fire and rescue services and authorities need to continue to strive for excellence in their core functions and to meet their statutory duties. This includes preventing fires and other emergencies, protecting people from the effects of incidents that do happen and providing a timely, effective response to the highest standards of quality.

Fire and rescue services need to ensure that their responses are resilient and can respond in collaboration with others to large scale events such as wildfires and major flooding. The threat of terrorism is a sad reality that needs to be prepared for and the ability to respond, in line with civil contingencies and with partner agencies, is vital.

Recent tragic events have challenged fire and rescue services and placed their operations under intense scrutiny. Both the Grenfell Tower fire and Manchester Arena bombings demonstrated to the public that although all fire and rescue services do respond to major incidents, they are organisations that need to continually learn, reflect on their actions, and implement change so that they can improve the services they deliver to the public.

We must all make sure that we take time to learn from events and incidents and acknowledge that implementing real change, which will have a positive impact, will take time.

Recommendations for change, and for improvement should be considered in the wider context of an evolving fire and rescue service. Improvement needs to be considered from a wide variety of sources and the response needs to be joined up and co-ordinated to best effect.

All these issues are reflected in Fit for the Future, and to improve the service we need:

• Clarity of the future service delivery role of fire and rescue services.
• Organisations with an inclusive culture and employees with a broad range of skills.
• National infrastructure and support to enable authorities and services to deliver improvement.
• Appropriate funding in recognition of the societal value and public benefits delivered.

The evidence considered within Fit for the Future identified 12 improvement objectives, which have been divided into three themes:

• Service Delivery – the role of the Fire and Rescue Service
• Leadership, People, and Culture
• National Infrastructure and Support

These areas are all underpinned by a verified and extensive evidence base.

Alignment between the improvement objectives and the themes are set out below.

Our ambition is that within five years’ …

• FRAs/FRSs will produce consistent, high-quality Community Risk Management Plans (CRMP) to protect each local community from a range of risks¹. Each service will work with partners to understand and respond to local risks within diverse communities, as appropriate.
• A high quality, timely, safe, and effective response will continue to be a key feature of each CRMP, able to manage all foreseeable risks.
• Each FRS/FRA will work with partners to develop local joint plans to make local communities resilient to the risks that face them. The response of the fire and rescue service will be flexible and agile, able to put highly trained, competent people into any stage of a crisis 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
• Depending on the assessment of the risks within the local CRMP, wider areas of consideration for each fire and rescue service in support of health, social care and ambulance colleagues could include:
  • Focusing on the people in local communities who are most at risk.
  • Preventing accidents by identifying and explaining how people are at risk and helping them if an accident happens.
  • Responding to urgent medical emergencies, such as heart attacks, in advance of the ambulance service.
  • Supporting the ambulance service when demand is high, where fire service capacity and capability allows.
• Prevention work will be centred on the people in communities who are most at risk from harm from accident and injury. Services will learn from incidents that do happen to inform future prevention activity.
• Each fire and rescue service will have proactively implemented the new national regulatory system, provide information and guidance, and enforce the Fire Safety Order in their areas working with councils to promote fire and building safety.
• Fire and rescue services will continue to make the best use of public money. They will measure and quantify the benefits of their work to be clear about how they are making their communities safer. This will further establish the value of fire and rescue service work to the public.

_{¹ “Community Risk Management Plans” will be made in a way that is consistent with preventing what might happen (risk) and seeks to provide the right people, systems, and equipment (resources) to deal with what does or could happen}

What does this mean? 

Each fire and rescue service will develop and implement a high quality, evidence-based community risk management plan based on an assessment of risks within their area and the best way to address them. Each service will balance the deployment of its resources to match its plan and the local risks identified.

It must be recognised that public funding and resources are finite and must be used in the most effective and efficient way possible. The current evidence suggests that there is inconsistency across England in the way these plans are produced and that the services provided, and the resources deployed to deliver them could be optimised making the public safer whilst using of available funding to greater effect.

How will we improve it?  

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Produce plans that are accessible to the public and reflect their expectations.
• Ensure plans give equality of access to services for all in our diverse communities.
• Show how local resources will be used efficiently to deliver the service required.
• Develop their plans in a consistent way that makes them more easily comparable across FRAs.
• Achieve the Fire Standard(s) set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• A consistent approach to the development of CRMPs across the country and make them accessible to FRAs and FRSs
• A common methodology that leads to a clearer understanding of the relationship between risks and resources.
• A strong evidence base for activity using a wide range of data sources and analytical techniques.
• Good practice in the development of working patterns that support risk management, balanced against the needs of employees.
• Good practice guidance and case studies to support improvement in this area.
• Evidence and guidance to support improving access to services for diverse community group.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• Community Risk Management Planning (CRMP) will continue to be the way that the deployment and delivery of services is planned by each fire authority for every fire and rescue service.
• CRMPs need to be soundly based on evidence and data.
• CRMPs need to be developed through engagement with all sections of local communities and reflect their diverse needs.
• There has been considerable inconsistency between CRMPs in different authorities, good practice is not well shared.
• Some CRMPs need to be better balanced with a clearly established relationship between risk and resource deployment.
• Fire and rescue service resources could be deployed more efficiently through an improved understanding of risk and the application of a more consistent methodology.
• CRMPs need to be able to reflect changing risk in a responsive and agile way.
• Employee working patterns need to be balanced between the need to support CRMPs and achieving a healthy and attractive work/like balance.
• CRMPs should reflect the expectations of the Fire Standards in this area.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows :

1. The origins of the requirement for fire and rescue services to have risk management plans lie in the 2002 Bain Report. One of the recommendations stated, “Government should instruct each fire authority to develop a Risk Management Plan that will save more lives and provide better value for money”. It went on to recommend that the plans should be consulted on, and that Chief Fire Officers should be empowered to implement their authority’s plan. This replaced a system of national standards of fire cover that had been in place since the 1930s.
2. The requirement for risk management plans does not appear directly in primary legislation, instead it is contained within the HM Government’s Fire and Rescue National Framework. The 2004 Fire and Rescue Services Act mandates that the Secretary of State prepares a Fire and Rescue National Framework. This sets out the “priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities in connection with the discharge of their functions“. Fire and Rescue Authorities must have regard to the Framework in carrying out their functions.
3. Since 2004 there have been several National Fire Frameworks. The current Fire and Rescue National Framework for England was published in May 2018. It says that each fire and rescue authority is required to produce an Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP). It then lists out the attributes of the IRMP which include up-to-date risk analysis, how prevention, protection and response activities will be used and how resources will be allocated. Covering at least a three-year time span, the IRMP must be consulted on publicly and when finalised easily accessible.
4. Since the first draft IRMPs were created in 2004, fire and rescue authorities have developed their own styles, approaches, and content for plans to reflect local risks and approaches to allocating resources. With the closure of His Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate (HMFSI) around the same time, scrutiny of IRMPs beyond the local population via the periodic consultation exercise, fell to the Audit Commission. It published several reports into fire and rescue service modernisation and the practice of risk management planning. Once that was abolished by the Government in March 2015 there was no national inspection. However, the Local Government Association (LGA) created a peer review process, to support sector led improvement.
5. Identifying the lack of national inspection as a problem, the Government in 2017 extended the powers of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to take on fire and rescue service inspection. Mandated through the Policing and Crime Act 2017, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) now inspects fire and rescue services and looks at IRMPs as part of this process. The first fire inspections took place during 2018/19.
6. HMICFRS’s inspections have taken place in three tranches for each round. In tranche 1 of round 1, HMICFRS published a single summary report recognising that all fire and rescue services had published an IRMP but, “The quality, quantity and timeliness of the information contained within them varies significantly”. This was also the report that made a recommendation about standardising a definition of risk. The report went on to say there was little consistency in the way IRMPs were developed, and the evidence on which they were based made it difficult for comparison between fire and rescue services. Later in the HMICFRS inspections 2018/19 – summary of findings from tranche 2 report, HMICFRS reference the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC)’s Community Risk Programme and how that should assist in creating guidance to ensure greater consistency in the future.  The report said, “There should be more consistency, for example, in how fire and rescue services define risk and calculate and communicate response standards to the public. More consistency will make it easier for the public to understand how their service is performing, and also help services understand more about where they need to improve.”
7. The LGA’s “Fire Vision, 2024“ identifies the issue in a disparity between different definitions of risk. It says, “A clear definition of risk would allow communities to hold the performance of their fire and rescue service to account. However, it is currently difficult to benchmark and compare performance between fire and rescue services, given their different approaches to risk management. Working with services to ensure that community risk assessments align to a national definition of risk will allow a consistent approach to community risk management planning and enable services to focus resources on activities where they will have the greatest impact on reducing risk and vulnerability.”
8. In January 2020 HMICFRS published their first State of Fire and Rescue: The annual assessment of fire and rescue services in England 2019 report, which looked at the results of all three tranches of the first round of inspection and provided four recommendations for improvement, alongside the two recommendations included within the earlier summary report of the Tranche 2 inspections. One of the six recommendations urged the Home Office, NFCC and LGA to establish a programme of work “to result in consistency, including identifying and determining risk as part of the IRMP process.” This forms part of the NFCC’s Community Risk Programme and work on risk is well advanced. This and other recommendations appeared again in the following two editions of State of Fire (2020 and 2021).
9. Business continuity planning for fire and rescue services is highlighted in the NFCC’s 2020 COVID-19 report. It recommends that “organisational transformation and productivity needs to be considered if fire and rescue services are to be effective over a protracted period.”
10. HMICFRS’s COVID-19 report highlighted the need for fire and rescue services to have a pandemic plan and to then evolve it as circumstances changed. The report focuses on the resilience of control room staff in particular.
11. The HMICFRS report responding to the pandemic: The fire and rescue service’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 also said that “more could have been done by services to consider if their risk profile changed as a result of the pandemic“. HMICFRS felt that services should have looked in more detail at who was most vulnerable and made adjustments where the evidence required them.
12. In May 2021 a CRMP Fire Standard was published that sets out requirements for Community Risk Management Planning (CRMP). The Fire Standard sets out the steps that should be taken in creating an effective CRMP.

What does this mean?

The fire and rescue service will continue to reduce risks in communities through a wide range of prevention work. We will further develop our work with key stakeholders and partners where appropriate, educating communities to adopt safer behaviours, improve their safety, health and wellbeing.  We will ensure such work is accessible to all parts of diverse communities, focusing where the risk is greatest.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Raise the profile of prevention within CRMPs.
• Identify the people who are most at risk in communities and target their prevention activities, ensuring equality of access for all.
• Evaluate prevention activity to demonstrate the financial and public value it brings to inform allocation of resources.
• Achieve the Fire Standard(s) set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹ we will:

• Identify and develop new innovative prevention activities, in collaboration with other stakeholders that meet the needs of diverse communities, mindful of any potential contractual impact on employees.
• Provide a person-centred framework with a range of supporting tools, that places the individual and the community at the core of prevention activity.
• Provide research to give greater insight into early intervention and prevention.
• Provide information, methodologies, and evidence-base for evaluating the effectiveness and reach of prevention activities, supported by central data collection.
• Continually improve prevention products and activities.
• Include prevention in the development of competence frameworks for all fire and rescue services.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• The fire and rescue service wants to build on an excellent track record in prevention.
• The fire and rescue service is seeking to improve the safety, health and wellbeing of communities leading to a reduction in incidents, serious injuries, and fatalities.
• There is a need to identify who is at risk and targeting direct safety advice to them.
• The fire and rescue service should continue to explore ways to reduce fires, alongside other social risks, for certain groups.
• The potential of the fire and rescue service to help to tackle health inequalities should be acted upon.
• Collaboration with other local services is key, with all investing in each other’s agenda so that the overall outcome is achieved for all.
• The lack of cohesive, standard data combined with the issue of establishing the cause for the absence of something is making prevention activity very difficult to evaluate.
• The flexibility to work in partnership on a broader agenda needs to be firmly established.
• The workforce should be flexible enough to participate in all appropriate work activities to support safety in local communities, ensuring that the justification for such work is rooted in evidence and based on local risk; that what is asked of employees is reasonable within their roles, skills and training and appropriate equipment is provided. Fit for the Future will progress the business case to secure necessary funding to support remuneration as appropriate.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. In 2004 the Fire and Rescue Services Act made fire prevention a statutory duty. This built on the conclusion of the Bain Report, which said, “The new approach based on risk gives the Fire Service the opportunity to re-position itself within the community. The emphasis must be on engaging with the community by education and preventative measures to prevent fire occurring, rather than concentrating on dealing with fire after it happens. Resources should be re-deployed accordingly. The result should be a reduction in the risk of fire and the incidence of fire“.
2. In the same year, the government provided fire and rescue services with additional funding to introduce Home Fire Safety Checks, whereby firefighters visited people’s homes and provided advice and smoke alarms. Subsequent evaluation of that grant estimated that the c. 2.4 million alarms installed had saved 53 lives per year. Since then, smoke alarm ownership has risen to 95 per cent and the messaging has changed to checking rather than owning a smoke alarm.
3. On behalf of the Government, Sir Ken Knight published “Facing the Future” in 2013 (“Knight Report”). His recommendations included many references about the need to develop best practice in data sharing by fire and rescue services to improve targeting of fire prevention activity. He points to the need for national approaches to facilitate data sharing with, for example, government departments.
4. In 2015, National Health Service (NHS) England, Public Health England (PHE), the Local Government Association, the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) and Age UK signed a Consensus Statement on Improving Health and Wellbeing. This was a major milestone in recognising the value of the fire and rescue service as a preventative service working hand in hand with the health service in England, seeking to help reduce pressures.
5. The evolution of the Safe and Well visit¹ from the well-established Home Fire Safety Check recognises the value of the partnership fire and rescue services have with health and other local providers. The NFCC Prevention Strategy is driving its Prevention Programme.
6. The COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on prevention work by fire and rescue services, with much of it ceasing altogether; HMICFRS recognised this in the 2020 edition of State of Fire. The report said, “The way services maintained statutory prevention and protection functions varied, and some did less than expected.” The NFCC commissioned research into how fire and rescue services responded to the pandemic and found that it was a spur to innovation in using online tools to continue some level of prevention activity.
7. In the State of Fire and Rescue: The annual assessment of fire and rescue services in England 2021 report, HMICFRS noted on prevention that: “In many cases, we found a clear disconnection between what is in public-facing service plans and what is actually being done by public-facing staff.”
8. The Fire Prevention Fire Standard was published in July 2021. It sets out the expectation that fire and rescue services will educate communities to adopt safe behaviours and identify community related risks in its community risk management plan. Fire and rescue services should also deliver targeted prevention activities, sharing and learning from others and adopting a nationally consistent approach.

_{¹ A safe and well visit includes a Home Fire Safety Check, but can go further, looking at the environment in which a potentially vulnerable person is living in order to identify and address other hazards to them.}

What does this mean?

Fire and rescue services are a key part of the overall regulatory system that ensures the built environment is safe. They need to influence and work with partners and stakeholders, including central government, to ensure that the regulatory system is fit for purpose and that the fire and rescue service role in it is clear.

Each fire and rescue service will assess the risk to life that buildings pose across their areas, prioritise inspection resources and focus on the buildings that represent the most significant danger to the public.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Identify and inspect the buildings that represent the most significant risks in their area as part of a community risk management plan.
• Influence and support those organisations and bodies who have a role in fire safety in their areas to fulfil their responsibilities.
• Engage with Government’s remediation partnership programme and councils
• Work with building safety regulator to deliver the new building safety regime
• Embed competence requirements and provide training for fire protection employees
• Allocate appropriate resources alongside improving ways of working to increase capacity and productivity.
• Achieve the Fire Standard(s) set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Continue to advise government about the regulatory regime, ensuring it is effective and the FRS role is clear.
• Influence national organisations responsible for elements of the fire safety system to effectively play their part in delivering a culture of safety.
• Develop a consistent system for fire and rescue services to use that identifies the buildings that represent the greatest risk in their area.
• Identify the competence requirements for protection, both for front line employees and specialists.
• Develop a retention strategy for specialist employees to ensure sufficient capability and capacity is kept within the fire and rescue service.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• The building safety system in England has been strongly criticised. Widespread cultural change within it has been called for.
• The fire and rescue service plays a key part within a wide-ranging system, involving statutory frameworks, standards, testing regimes, regulators, local authorities, and inspectors.
• Fire and rescue service interactions with all other organisations, individuals and authorities should be conducted in a way to drive a culture of professionalism and care for fire safety.
• Fire and rescue authorities having statutory responsibility to promote fire safety, provide information and guidance, and the enforcement of the Fire Safety Order in their areas.
• The volume of inspection work that is likely to be needed to support the ongoing review of building safety is going to be significant.
• Fire services are going to need to gather intelligence about the risks in their area and identify the priorities for inspection and, potentially, enforcement action in a new regulatory environment.
• Each service will need to put a programme of inspections in place, aligned with clear priorities.
• The changing demographic must be recognised that flows from an ageing population, deprivation, healthcare, and social care challenges, recognising there are also increases in numbers of vulnerable people living in care homes, specialised housing, and House in Multiple Occupation (HMO)s.
• Fire protection is a statutory duty for each fire and rescue authority and is a core element of the firefighter’s role. There is a need to explore and build upon existing Fire Rescue Authority (FRA) capacity and workforce capabilities.
• The degree of professional complexity associated with fire protection matters and the need for technically competent people with a full and detailed understanding when dealing with regulation and enforcement issues.
• There are significant issues in retaining such highly qualified, specialist employees to work in Fire Protection. Such people are in high demand in the private sector, and the remuneration being offered to them is leading to a steady loss of highly skilled and trained people.
• New technology and data management needs to be exploited to address the issue of building safety.
• Data about building risks needs to be standardised and inspection processes digitised.
• The Fire Standard in this area needs to be implemented in all fire and rescue services.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. The duties relating to fire safety in non-domestic buildings for fire and rescue services are laid out in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Fire and rescue service employees became enforcers of fire safety in non-domestic buildings, and the Responsible Person carries out the risk assessment and ensures that necessary mitigation measures are in place.
2. The Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 placed fire protection firmly under the spotlight. Dame Judith Hackitt was asked by the government to look at the whole system of fire safety in buildings and her final report published in May 2018 provides evidence of the need to change the role of the fire and rescue service as well as the building safety industry. The existing system whereby the Responsible Person should have a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment also comes under scrutiny in Dame Judith’s report. The government accepted all the recommendations in Dame Judith’s report, and work continues to implement these through a combination of legislative and policy changes.
3. In October 2019 Sir Martin Moore-Bick published his phase one report into the Grenfell Tower fire. The issues of competence for fire and rescue service employees are covered above. The report went much further and set out what the owners and managers of buildings should be required to do and the impact that has on fire and rescue services. The report has implications far beyond the London Fire Brigade, and it encouraged a national response to the recommendations.
4. At the same time as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry was collecting evidence, HMICFRS was also looking at how fire and rescue services were carrying out fire protection work. In the first edition of State of Fire in 2019 they found that many fire and rescue services had run down their fire safety inspection teams as a consequence of austerity. Most protection teams interviewed by HMICFRS described themselves as under-resourced. The number of qualified employees working in fire and rescue services is low, and HMICFRS was of the view that the amount of resource allocated to both proactive inspection and reactive response in terms of enforcement does not fit the risk.
5. In the State of Fire 2019 report, HMICFRS recommended that the Home Office, NFCC and LGA should establish a programme of work that would lead to defining what high-risk premises are for the purposes of fire protection and set out an expectation for how frequently high-risk premises should be inspected.
6. Fire and rescue services carried out a Building Risk Review to establish how many buildings over 18 metres in height had cladding. This work was completed, in the main, by the end of 2021.
7. Legislation, for example the Fire Safety Act 2021, provides the basis on which changes to the Fire Safety Order can be made. The Act makes good a long-standing issue about who is responsible for the fire safety of communal doors, external walls and anything attached, such as balconies.
8. The COVID-19 pandemic required fire and rescue services to rethink the way that they carried out their fire protection duties, as accessing people and premises was prohibited during periods of national lockdown. The NFCC’s COVID-19 report indicated that fire and rescue services were able to adopt new virtual ways of working and to prioritise visits to premises, based on highest risk, during the periods when the restraints on access were lifted. However, HMICFRS said in its COVID-19 report that the way that fire and rescue services maintained their protection functions varied and some did less than expected.
9. The Protection Fire Standard was published in September 2021. It set out the expectation that a fire and rescue service improves the safety of its communities by reducing risks and incidents in the built environment, targeting a competent workforce on activities based on risk management plans underpinned by data and intelligence.

What are we going to improve?

What does this mean?

The fire and rescue service has been very successful in reducing a range of risks in communities. But there is a need to become much better at establishing the value of activities that are planned and undertaken. In particular, every service needs to be clear about the benefit that different activities bring to the public and how they are being measured and demonstrated. Creating a clear link between what is done and what benefits it brings will support better funding and resource allocation decisions.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Have made significant progress in evaluating the benefits of their activities.
• Draw on central evaluation techniques to improve local evaluations.
• Use the outputs of evaluation to inform risk planning and learning.
• Achieve any Fire Standard(s) set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Develop a model that demonstrates the economic value of the service that all stakeholders can use.
• Clearly identify the benefits to be achieved in improvement projects and programmes and how they are being measured.
• Improve the specification of data requirements, collection protocols and analysis to support evaluation and to make service plans and performance more comparable across FRAs and FRSs.
• Develop and implement good practice guidance on evaluation and benefits realisation for use in all fire and rescue services.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• Despite a recent upturn, the likelihood of incurring a loss from a fire has reduced very significantly in the last twelve years.
• There is a correlation between the effort expended by the fire and rescue service and the reduction that has been achieved.
• It is challenging, by the nature of prevention, to make a direct causal link between fire prevention and protection activity and incidents that did not occur.
• The way that prevention and protection activities are provided and their effectiveness in delivering value to the public needs to be more rigorously examined.
• The fire and rescue service needs to be able to more actively demonstrate the evidence that lies behind the value of its work.
• Innovation is apparent in fire and rescue services, resulting in partnerships with other organisations and ways to reach different at-risk parts of communities. The value of these interventions is not always supported by data or sufficiently robust evidence that suggests the use of resources is appropriate.
• Consistent data can be absent or inadequate, making it impossible to make meaningful comparisons and establish benchmarks to determine improvements over time.
• Choices and priorities need to be based on established benefits to determine the value of activities undertaken.
• Consistent national evaluation models and data sets are needed.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. The National Fire Framework sets the Government’s expectations regarding the evaluation of some fire and rescue service activity.
2. The National Fire Framework states:  “In all their prevention and protection activities, fire and rescue authorities should assess what they are aiming to achieve through the activity, what type of intervention is most likely to achieve the aims and how best to measure and evaluate outcomes. Fire and rescue authorities should share details of their interventions to support each other to understand and improve the evidence base of what works best and what is most cost-effective.”
3. While the National Fire Framework considers evaluation through the lens of prevention and protection activity, the Thomas Review looked at the evaluation of technologies used by fire and rescue services. He described a system whereby services carried out evaluation of potential equipment even though they had already been evaluated and then implemented elsewhere. He argued for a centralised testing facility to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
4. HMICFRS’s tranche one report, in 2019 found that nearly half of fire and rescue services had no formal review process for collaboration. The inspectorate said, “Services need to evaluate the collaborations to identify what worked. Evaluation will also help them better understand the feasibility of to future projects”. In 2021, HMCIFRS’s State of Fire report indicated that not much had changed: “We found that nearly half of the services we inspected were not fully evaluating their collaboration activities”.
5. In terms of prevention, the inspectorate noted that very few services evaluated prevention activity properly and had a limited understanding of the benefits it could provide to the public. The State of Fire and Rescue report: The annual assessment of fire and rescue services in England 2021 expressed disappointment that services hadn’t made enough progress to address improvement in evaluating fire prevention activity; “More needs to be done and more urgently”.
6. Criticism was also levelled at the protection activities, where HMICFRS suggested that fire and rescue services would benefit from evaluating the effectiveness of the activities to assist prioritisation of work to focus on those at greatest risk.
7. Operational activities include post incident debriefing. In 2018/19 the first round of HMICFRS inspections, 61% of reports for individual fire and rescue services made reference to debriefing being confined to the immediate crew attending the incident rather than being shared more widely. Another area that is mentioned is operational discretion, which is used to varying degrees across the country, and the inspectors made the link between good recording and evaluation of operational discretion and how well managers learn from its use at incidents. In the 2021 State of Fire report, the inspectors found that more than half of fire and rescue services needed to “improve the way they debrief and learn from routine emergency incidents”.

Our ambition is that within five years’ ….

• Everyone working within the fire and rescue service will be clear about how their role contributes to making local communities and their colleagues safer, and how that is reflected in their local Community Risk Management Plan.
• All employees’ terms and conditions and working patterns will reflect the adaptability and flexibility needed to reduce the identified risks in their communities.
• Employees will be able to switch between different aspects of their role, as required, calling on different skills as they do so.
• Employees will have the ability to respond to any anticipated incident, safely and effectively, which will be reflected in the expectations, training, and leadership of employees.
• Employees will be selected, trained, and managed to achieve their full potential. There will be a consistent approach to maintaining and improving their knowledge and skills within every role in the service, with clear expectations set in an open culture of performance review and development.
• Employees will consistently support and demonstrate the behaviours envisaged in the Core Code of Ethics.
• Employees will be supported with high quality equipment, relevant and focused training and be well led by highly professional managers to provide the best possible outcomes to those affected.
• All employees will have working patterns, which are based on the best way to serve the local community, together with the need to ensure they are safe, attractive to employees and secure a healthy and work/life balance.
• Employees that work either wholetime or part-time will have attractive duty systems, pay, and terms and conditions that also meet the needs of their fire and rescue service.
• High expectations of the public will need to be reflected in the right pay and terms and conditions for employees, and Fit for the Future will be utilised to underpin a business case seeking additional funding.
• Fire and rescue services will be workplaces that are inclusive and welcoming of diversity and are attractive to people from across all sections of the community. They will have a culture based on delivering excellent public service, making all that they do accessible to all, in line with the fire and rescue service’s Core Code of Ethics and supporting Code of Ethics Fire Standard.
• The importance of leadership will be recognisable in every aspect of the fire and rescue service and in every role. Potential leaders will be actively recruited and developed. Every employee should display leadership behaviours appropriate for their role and can expect to be led by a qualified, competent leader in all aspects of their work.

What does this mean?

The fire and rescue service is enormously proud of its employees. It is right for us to focus on how we can make sure we continue to recruit and retain the best people, train, and develop them to the highest standards and then support them to make sure they safely perform to the best of their ability.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Have a clear and effective strategy for workforce development and competence, mindful of any impact on pay, terms and conditions.
• Expect employees to perform to any relevant competence standards for the fire and rescue service.
• Develop and implement working patterns that address the risks in their communities, whilst being mindful of the impact on employees.
• Achieve any related Fire Standard(s) set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Analyse the functions of a modern fire and rescue service and set outcome-based standards in each area.
• Develop a competence framework that covers all roles and functions within an FRS that is agile to the changing landscape and flexible to meet local FRS needs, mindful of any implications for pay, terms and conditions.
• Provide tools that align selection of employees with the values, behaviours, skills, and abilities needed to perform these functions competently.
• Review training and development approaches, including apprenticeships, to support the highest standards of professionalism in all aspects of the service.
• Streamline assessment and development protocols to focus on performance and nurturing talent.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• There is no clear shared national strategy for the recruitment, development, and performance management of employees across the fire and rescue service.
• There is considerable inconsistency across fire and rescue services in how employee competence is approached and managed.
• There is a need to develop national standards of competence that fire and rescue services can work to collaboratively.
• The balance between service delivery aspirations and the roles of employees needs to be understood.
• There is a need to establish the current revised expectations of employees sought following publication of Fit for the Future and for the National Employers (England) to engage with employee representatives to establish the national expectations sought of employees and review any need for increased remuneration.
• Central support for the development of employees, including managers, needs to be established and be appropriately funded.
• Central guidance, including National Operational Guidance, needs to be further developed and fully implemented.
• The approach to selection, training and development and performance management of all employees needs to be more consistent.
• Employees need to be able to apply learning in a complex, rapidly developing and dangerous environment in partnership with other organisations.
• The issue is wider than just operational response, it applies equally to work on protection, risk management, data, and prevention.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. The issue of competence emerged as a key finding in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report and in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report into fire safety in buildings.
2. The Bain report referred to the Integrated Personal Development System (IPDS) which Bain believed would “have a profound and beneficial effect on the jobs of fire staff, their training, management and career prospects”. It originated in 1992 after the deaths of two firefighters highlighted that there were no occupational standards of performance. This was supported by Fire Rescue Authorities (FRAs) and Fire and Rescue Services (FRSs) and IPDS was subsequently introduced through national negotiation. In more recent years, some fire and rescue services have moved away from IPDS.
3. With the advent of the National Operational Guidance Programme in 2012, the issue of competence was front and centre of work to develop peer reviewed, modern operational guidance for all fire and rescue services to use. By 2018, the Programme was complete and fire and rescue services across the UK looked, in various ways, to implement national guidance at a local level.
4. Sir Martin Moore-Bick made 46 recommendations in his 2019 Grenfell Inquiry phase 1 report, some of which relate to the competence of firefighters when dealing with high rise buildings, both in terms of response to incidents but also in preventative work carried out on a day-to-day basis through inspections.
5. Dame Judith Hackitt published the Building a Safer Future: Independent review of building regulations and fire safety (interim report) in December 2017 and Building a Safer Future: Independent review of building regulations and fire safety (final report) in May 2018. To assist the process, several working groups were established, one of which was focused on competence. The issue of competence went far beyond that of the firefighter and embraced all who are involved in the life cycle of a building.
6. The government responded to Dame Judith’s report in the second quarterly report on progress towards meeting the recommendations on competences in Dame Judith Hackitt’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, with substantial legislation to change the building safety regime in England; the Building Safety Bill went through its legislative stages during 2021/22 (since enacted in April 2022; The Building Safety Act). The British Standards Institute (BSI) consulted on three draft PAS setting out the competence required for three new duty holders set out on the face of the Bill.
7. Across all the inspection reports published so far, there have been criticisms of some fire and rescue services for conducting fewer fire protection activities, suggesting not enough competent staff are in place to meet the demands of inspecting at risk buildings in their areas. HMICFRS found in the first round of inspections, in tranche 2 that “better performance and talent management is needed”. It went on to say, “All effective organisations need robust performance and talent management processes. Too many services are poor at this, with low completion rates for performance appraisals. The perception from staff across several services is that these appraisals are only relevant to those seeking promotion. This shouldn’t be the case. Many on-call firefighters were simply included as part of a group appraisal, so they weren’t given individual feedback on their performance, or on how they could improve and develop.”
8. Later versions of State of Fire in 2020 and 2021 did make reference to an increase in resources in fire protection, both in terms of number of staff employed and their training and competence. In the light of the needs in this area, it is clear that more work needs to be done.

What are we going to improve?

What does this mean?

The fire and rescue service needs to broaden the base from which it can recruit. This will enhance the range of experience, skills and diversity of thought that can enter it.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Promote the fire and rescue service as a welcoming and inclusive workplace.
• Make the diversity of opportunities within the fire and rescue service clear to maximise access to talent from the broadest possible base.
• Take positive action when needed to recruit from under-represented groups.
• Achieve the Fire Standard(s) set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Provide good practice tools, guidance, and support to fire and rescue services in nurturing a welcoming, inclusive culture that celebrates equality and diversity.
• Use robust evidence, analysis, and data to better understand where we are now, the barriers to and measurement of progress.
• Assess the impact of all aspects of central work, adopt and champion inclusive practices and diverse talent, and promote this practice within all fire and rescue services.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• The costs of fire and rescue services are dominated by the need to employ skilled and highly trained employees. Attracting the right people is a key element in service improvement.
• The diversity profile of employees in fire and rescue services can be improved, reflecting the need to deliver local services in the best and most appropriate way.
• There are significant public stereotypes about the role of the service and of its employees that are outdated and negatively affect perceptions of potential applicants.
• Previous efforts to improve diversity have been only partially successful.
• Attracting the right people must be coupled with an inclusive workplace culture (Improvement Objective 7 – Retaining Employees).
• The Fire Standards in this area should be implemented.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. In 2008 the government published its ten-year Fire and rescue service equality and diversity strategy (2008-2018). It cited two success factors for recruitment:
   1. Recruitment of minority ethnic employees is at the same percentage or higher than the representation in the working age population
   2. Recruitment of women in the operational sector is at least 15 per cent and rising
2. Government support for the strategy was not maintained, and currently there is no national Government strategy focused on equality and diversity in the fire and rescue service.
3. According to the 2021 Home Office statistics in England, women made up 7.5 per cent of firefighters in England, although the number of firefighters had dropped from just under 45,000 in 2008 to 35,147 in March 2021 (employees within the scope of the NJC for Local Authority Fire and Rescue Services (Grey Book))¹.
4. Women made up 76 per cent of fire control staff in 2021 according to the Home Office statistics data shared in ‘FIRE1103: Staff headcount by gender, fire and rescue authority and role’ in 2021. The 2011 census, which is the latest data, indicated that women and girls made up 51% of the population of England and Wales².
5. Women made up 54.8 percent of support staff in 2021.
6. The proportion of firefighters (Grey Book) from an ethnic minority group was 3.5 per cent in 2011 compared with 13 per cent of the English and Welsh population in the 2011 Census (the latest data). Since then, the percentage of firefighters from ethnic minority groups rose to 4.7 per cent in 2021.
7. The proportion of control staff from an ethnic minority group³ was 2.3 percent in 2011 compared with 13 per cent of the English and Welsh population in the 2011 census (latest data)⁴. Since then, the percentage of control staff from ethnic minority groups rose to 3.0 percent in 2021.
8. The proportion of support staff from an ethnic minority group was 6.7 percent in 2011 compared with 13 per cent of the English and Welsh population in the 2011 census (latest data). The percentage of support staff from ethnic minority groups rose to 8.1 percent in 2021.
9. The LGA published its Fire Vision 2024 in February 2018, which contained an ambition that, by 2024/5, 30 per cent of new firefighter recruits nationally should be female. The Vision also stated that in each fire and rescue service, all staff “should reflect the ethnic diversity of the community they serve.”  The data points towards this still being a long way from being achieved.
10. Fire and rescue services have increased recruitment of wholetime firefighters in recent years. This follows a period of up to ten years where there was little or no recruitment by services across the country. The proportion of new firefighters who were women was 13.4 per cent in financial year 2020 to 2021. The proportion of all new staff that were women was 24.9 per cent in financial year 2020 to 2021. The proportion of all new staff that were from an ethnic minority was 8.2 per cent in financial year 2020 to 2021. The proportion of new firefighters from an ethnic minority was 8.3 per cent in financial year 2020 to 2021⁵.
11. On call Retained Duty System (RDS) recruitment has been historically difficult, particularly in rural areas. A government on-call recruitment campaign, informed by the views of interested parties such as the NFCC and the NJC-led Inclusive Fire Service Group, provided local services with national assets to create modern imagery in social media environments to reach people who may never have considered the fire and rescue service before.
12. In the 2020 NFCC COVID-19 report, there was a recommendation “to take a fresh look at the recruitment of on-call staff” both in terms of tapping into groups who have moved to working from home and employers who may be able to rethink the interaction between their employees and the on-call role.
13. The 2019 State of Fire report concluded that there was a regrettable lack of diversity in fire and rescue services, calling it “woeful”. In 2020, the criticism was elevated: “Lack of diversity and equality is a conspicuous failure of fairness that shames the sector.”  By 2021, the inspectors said that there were “good intentions to promote diversity and inclusion”, but they hadn’t resulted in tangible improvements. In 2021’s report, inspectors continued to describe performance in this area as “woeful”. The 2021 State of Fire report also said that more work had to be done to bring diversity into the leadership cadre of fire and rescue services by recruiting from outside the sector.

• _{¹ FIRE1103: Staff headcount by gender, fire and rescue authority and role}
• _{² Male and female populations – GOV.UK Ethnicity facts and figures}
• _{³ FIRE1104: Staff headcount by ethnicity, fire and rescue authority and role}
• _{⁴ HM Government Ethnicity facts and figures}
• _{⁵ Fire and rescue workforce and pensions statistics: England, April 2020 to March 2021}

What are we going to improve?

What does this mean?

Creating an inclusive, positive, and supportive professional culture is a key part of ensuring that employees remain happy and valued within their roles.

To support work in this area, the Core Code of Ethics has been developed and published by the LGA, NFCC and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC). It is underpinned by a Code of Ethics Fire Standard. All fire and rescue services are expected to adopt the Core Code of Ethics, which may be supplemented by local codes of behaviour and conduct.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Adopt the Core Code of Ethics.
• Fully embed the principles within the Core Code of Ethics in all aspects of their work, including behavioural and service delivery expectations.
• Ensure that unacceptable behaviours are able to be and are challenged within the workplace and individuals work together effectively within a healthy, positive culture.
• Actively manage their organisational culture, by upskilling everyone on inclusive behaviours and an awareness of unique differences.
• Foster direct engagement with the workforce to ensure ownership at every level of a positive culture.
• Have proactive senior leadership.
• Achieve the Fire Standard(s) set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Promote the Core Code of Ethics.
• Continue to develop guidance and tools that support the adoption of the Core Code of Ethics and different aspects of a positive organisational culture.
• Explore the most effective ways of benchmarking and testing cultural performance to assess aspects of culture, such as ability to learn as an organisation.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• Studies indicate that some employees feel they are experiencing bullying and harassment in the workplace. This can happen anywhere, but can be a greater issue on isolated shifts in small, fixed teams.
• Employees working on the Retained Duty System (RDS), sometimes referred to as “on-call”, can face very similar issues due to the isolated nature of their work and can bring with them the dynamics, good and bad, from their local communities.
• There are several areas where fire and rescue services could improve culture, creating a welcoming place to work. Activities to achieve this are wide-ranging and include actions such as providing better accessibility for neurodiverse individuals through to supporting mental health, recognising people’s needs change over time, through to addressing issues faced by women going through the menopause amongst others.
• Issues of inclusion still exist within fire and rescue services. Creating an environment where everyone is valued is vital. Contributions that reflect the diversity of view, experience and talent from every employee need to be welcome, even if they challenge current cultural norms.
• Our ambition needs to be to widen the diversity of backgrounds and cultures and ensure that the contribution of all employees can be fully made.
• Leadership needs to be strengthened across all fire and rescue services, supported by the Core Code of Ethics and clear service values, ensuring behaviour that is contrary to a positive and inclusive culture is unacceptable.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. The Government’s 2008 Fire and rescue service equality and diversity strategy (2008-2018) set out its goals around understanding and respecting difference, valuing diversity, and treating everyone with dignity and respect and not tolerating bullying, harassment, unfair discrimination or unacceptable behaviour.
2. The LGA published several reports about inclusion and an MOU on equality, diversity, behaviours and organisational culture in the fire and rescue service, published in 2017 and co-signed¹ by many organisations in the fire sector and beyond.
3. The NJC-led Inclusive Fire Service Group is independently chaired by Professor Lynette Harris. It is unique in that it brings together employer, senior management, and employee interests. It comprises employer and employee representation from the National Joint Council and representation from the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Fire Officer’s Association and the Fire and Rescue Services Association. It has carried out a substantial amount of work, including directly with FRSs, local union representatives and employees (through surveys and focus groups). It developed a number of widely welcomed evidence-based improvement strategies, the commitment to which it continues to monitor. While results show that improvement is happening, it is not at the pace desired.
4. The Bain and Thomas reviews also referred to the need for improvement. Responding to publication of the Thomas Review, in 2017 at the Fire Minister’s speech to Reform, Fire Minister Brandon Lewis said, “A culture shift is needed. Action is needed on career progression, inclusive working practices and recruitment. Progression through the service has to improve.”
5. The NFCC Fire and Rescue People Strategy (2017/2022) sets out equality, diversity, and inclusion principles. The strategy has been used to inform the work of the NFCC People Programme over this period.
6. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged fire and rescue services to work in different ways, and the impact on employees who worked from home is described in the NFCC’s report into how fire and rescue services responded to the pandemic. It recommended that “…the NFCC should, as part of its People Programme, understand the impact of working from home on staff’s health and well-being. This data should inform the development of national guidance in this area.“
7. HMICFRS looked at culture and found considerable problems despite all the efforts and strategies of the past twenty years or more. In the 2019 State of Fire report, HMICFRS wrote: “Most worryingly, we saw some examples of toxic culture that have gone unchecked and should not be part of any 21st century public service.”
8. In the State of Fire 2020 report, HMICFRS said “All public sector organisations have a legal obligation to deal effectively with bullying, harassment and discrimination: as far as possible to prevent it, and to tackle it properly when it happens. This includes fostering good relations between those who have protected characteristics (as defined in the Equality Act 2010) and those who don’t. Fire and rescue services are no different.”
9. In the State of Fire 2021 report, HMICFRS said, “… staff didn’t properly understand these values and there were many instances of poor behaviour. We were particularly concerned to find outdated practices that prevented some staff members from getting the formal help they needed. In several services, we also found evidence of cultures so toxic that bullying, harassment, and discrimination were commonplace and unchallenged. This included use of inappropriate language, overly autocratic management styles and, most worryingly, staff finding amusement in the poor treatment of colleagues.”
10. In July 2022, the HMICFRS 2021/22 tranche 2 of round 2 report made reference to toxic behaviour, stating “…it was troubling to find problems relating to values and culture in 8 of the 15 services we inspected. We found poor behaviours in these services – sometimes in small parts of the service, and other times across large sections. In two services, these cultures were toxic. Some staff members told us these cultures have had a negative impact on their physical and mental wellbeing. In our first round of inspections, we issued four causes of concern about values and culture.”
11. In the State of Fire report for 2020, HMICFRS recommended that the “NFCC with the LGA should produce a code of ethics for fire and rescue services”. A Core Code of Ethics, developed also in partnership with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, was published in May 2021. A Code of Ethics Fire Standard has also been issued.
12. HMICFRS cited evidence in their ‘Responding to the pandemic’ report of how fire and rescue services developed their wellbeing offer during the COVID-19 pandemic, with some elements of tailoring to specific risks. “Some services were quick to expand their wellbeing provision during the pandemic. Work is underway in most services to consider the long-term effects of COVID-19 on staff wellbeing.”

_{¹ According to the 21 May 2018 Fire Commission report “The MoU was co-signed by the Asian Fire Service Association (AFSA), National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), Fire Brigades Union (FBU), Fire Officer’s Association, GMB, quiltbag, Retained Firefighters Union (RFU), Stonewall, Unison and Women in the Fire Service.”}

What are we going to improve?

What does this mean?

Delivering improvement relies upon the unified, coordinated, and sustained effort of leaders at every level across political and officer roles locally and centrally. Achieving unity around what needs to improve, as outlined in Fit for the Future, will act as a compelling vision and starting point to build on.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Recognise the investment needed to develop and support leaders within their organisations through selection, training and development.
• Create and adopt a strategy to manage and develop leadership talent within their organisations.
• Diversify the candidate base for leaders at all levels.
• Ensure leaders understand the need to be inclusive, deriving maximum benefit for their employees and their organisation.
• Adopt and promote the Core Code of Ethics as a vital element of setting the expectations of employees and leaders.
• Achieve the Fire Standard(s) set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Continue at national level to work in partnership across the National Employers (England), the LGA and the NFCC to lead the delivery of Fit for the Future.
• Create and deliver a strategy for leadership development, including developmental pathways tailored to the needs of all leaders in the fire and rescue service to support inclusive leadership.
• Provide tools and guidance to support leadership strategy, including appropriate scrutiny and performance management protocols to hold all leaders to account.
• Implement national leadership programmes to support the development of the leaders of the future.
• Complete the development of Fire Standards for leadership and the supporting national guidance and tools.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• There needs to be active support to leaders at a national level and within all fire and rescue services.
• Fit for the Future sets out LGA, National Employers (England) and NFCC ambitions for the next five years. Leaders need to be engaged in it, enthused by it, and drive its implementation.
• The contribution of leaders in the service is vital to achieve both its operational and cultural goals. The example set by the behaviour of leaders is vital in addressing the issues of inclusion and cultural change identified in Improvement Objective 7.
• The expectations of leaders in the service at all levels need to be defined and used as a basis of their selection, training, development and advancement.
• Fire and rescue services need to seek out and create talented and inspiring people from the broadest, most diverse elements of society and empower them to take the service forward.
• The selection and development of leaders in the service must be rooted in the expectations of the Core Code of Ethics for the service.
• All employees are expected to act as leaders in actively demonstrating the ethics, values and behaviours expected within the service.
• Identifying and developing leadership talent is vital in every fire and rescue service and should be considered a key issue for them to act upon.
• In support of local fire and rescue services, a clear strategic approach to recruit and develop talented leaders needs to be developed at national level.
• The Leadership Framework developed by the NFCC needs to undergo further engagement and consultation, including with employer interests.
• The creation and endorsement of Government for a common framework would be welcomed and fit well with the current National Framework for England that says each fire and rescue authority should have in place a people strategy, one element of which is professionalism, skills, and leadership.
• Any leadership framework cannot be allowed to be an academic exercise that people in the service know about and can recite. It must be a genuine driver for service values, culture, and behaviour.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. Every report into the fire and rescue service talks about the need to improve leadership. Sir George Bain wrote in the Executive Summary to his 2002 report. “There has been a lack of leadership throughout the service at the political, institutional and operational levels. This problem has persisted for years.”
2. The Knight report made the distinction between political leadership and sector leadership. Linking learning and leadership, Sir Ken also wrote, “Greater sector leadership is needed to drive through a culture of learning from good practice and challenging services to rise to the level of the best”.
3. There were 36 references to leadership in the Thomas Review. It contained a recommendation for fire and rescue services and authorities: – “To create and maintain (in the face of decreasing numbers) a cadre of managers capable of becoming future fire and rescue service leaders, a standardised industry-wide approach to leadership development should be adopted.”
4. HMICFRS focuses on leadership and capability under the People pillar of its inspection framework. In the 2019 HMICFRS reports, it referred to a “leadership drain”, with the tranche 2 report highlighting the large numbers of senior managers retiring from the fire and rescue service over the next two years and the impact it will have.
5. The 2020 State of Fire report asserted: “Strong leadership is needed to implement reforms and make improvements, to overcome resistance and shape the future of the service.” This topic is reprised in the 2021 State of Fire report, where HMICFRS wrote about lack of succession planning and linked it to diversity and: “…a reluctance in the sector to open up the most senior jobs to people other than those who have worked their way up from firefighter.”

What are we going to improve?

What does this mean?

Findings from the inspections by HMICFRS, and other previous reports, have highlighted issues with inconsistent approaches and some other performance concerns, many of which are being addressed within Fit for the Future. There is a clear need for central resources to coordinate improvement support in an efficient and effective way. This needs to be supported by accessible resources that fire and rescue services can use to meet their own local needs. The development of nationally recognised Fire Standards will continue through the Fire Standards Board.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Contribute and collaborate with national bodies in the central development of materials, which can provide efficiencies for all fire and rescue services.
• Feedback on the effectiveness of all standards, tools, and guidance so they can be continuously improved.
• Achieve the Fire Standard(s) and where appropriate make use of any supporting guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Work together across the partner organisations to develop a joint portfolio of work in support of the improvements set out in Fit for the Future.
• Create a joint partnership group to coordinate support and resources supporting implementation of improvement across all Fire and Rescue Services.
• Continue the development of Fire Standards, tools, and guidance to meet service needs and drive key improvements.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• Since 2004 very little standardisation or central support has been available to support fire and rescue services.
• The Chief Inspector from HMICFRS has for 3 years now made comment and set an objective relating to the development of national functions to support improvement. This was fully recognised and supported by all the partners to Fit for the Future.
• Supported in part by Home Office funding, there is now a wide range of products, ranging from National Operational Guidance and National Operational Learning, Leadership Frameworks, a national Core Code of Ethics, guidance to support Community Risk Management Planning, Prevention and Protection services.
• An independently chaired Fire Standards Board has been established, Fire Standards are being produced supported by a team housed within the NFCC. At the time Fit for the Future was agreed in June 2022, nine Fire Standards had been published and a wide range of supporting guidance and tools, and five more were due for publication later in 2022.
• A portfolio of ongoing programmes of improvement have been created within the NFCC, supported by an implementation team. Fit for the Future contains a commitment to create an implementation team to provide support specific to the ambitions set out in Fit for the Future, subject to appropriate funding.
• Investment in central implementation support needs to continue and be measured to show the value of the investment being made.
• Implementation of the improvement objectives will be further defined to support improvement initiatives by both fire and rescues services and the central partners.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. Prior to the 2004 Fire and Rescue Services Act, there were national standards of fire cover, which determined what appliances were sent to properties and the time they should arrive. With their origins in the 1930s, these standards were based on the characteristics of a property rather than the broader risk in an area. The Bain report looked at this arrangement and recommended that standards of fire cover should be replaced by a risk-based approach to fire cover “as a matter of urgency.” Today, most IRMP/CRMPs include pre-determined attendance times for different incident types.
2. Nearly ten years later, the Knight report for government mentions standards 14 times, looking at them in terms of equipment specification, occupational standards related to role and about the benefits of standardisation for collaboration. He also links the creation of standards to efficiencies. His report came out in 2013 while the National Operational Guidance Programme was in its infancy.
3. At a Reform event in London, in 2016, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May spoke about the need for professional standards. “I welcome the Chief Fire Officers’ Association’s proposals to develop a coherent and comprehensive set of professional standards, building on the work of the National Operational Guidance Programme. There are many legitimate reasons why collaboration can fail – competing aims, conflicts of leadership, differing financial positions – but a lack of consistent professional standards is not one of them.”
4. Later in 2017, the then Fire Minister, Brandon Lewis announced “I will be establishing a new professional standards body for everyone in fire and rescue which will build a comprehensive professional framework of standards for the service.”
5. The May 2018 National Fire Framework states, “All fire and rescue authorities must implement the standards approved through this work and the inspectorate will have regard to these standards as part of their inspections”.
6. The Fire Standards Board started its work in 2019. Fire Standards have been published for prevention, protection, and response as well as more specialist areas of work like driver standards.
7. The HMICFRS tranche 1 summary report of the inspections in 2018/19 noted, “This problem (the lack of consistent data) combined with the absence of existing national standards, has resulted in local variations in almost every aspect of what each fire and rescue service does. The public can’t always be sure they will receive the same quality of support from fire and rescue services, or understand the justification for variations between areas. This situation needs to improve.” This appeared in Recommendation 1 of the 2020 State of Fire report: “identifying and measuring emergency response standards and approaches”.

What are we going to improve?

What does this mean?

There is a sound basis for improving collaboration and partnership with other organisations across all fire and rescue services. Many organisations locally serve the public, and often the same members of the community become affected by different risks, managed by different agencies. Working together to address these issues, at every level, is key to efficient management of risk in communities.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Have analysed all potential partner organisations with which they could interact with to deliver their services in the best way that provides good value for the public.
• Establish working relationships and where appropriate common objectives with each partner.
• When working with partners, develop common ways of working, data sets and evaluation protocols when appropriate.
• Achieve any Fire Standard(s) and where appropriate make use of any supporting guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Where relevant and helpful, include collaboration in Fire Standards.
• Identify partners at a national level to support efficient local delivery.
• Develop data sets and shared objectives with national partners to support all fire and rescue services.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• Fire and rescue services do not work in isolation. Collaboration is key to efficient and effective delivery of the full range of services they provide.
• The full range of potential partnerships and collaboration opportunities needs to be assessed by every fire and rescue service and progressed whenever it is efficient or effective to do so.
• The relationship between fire, police and ambulance on the incident ground is well established and was significantly boosted by the creation of a programme in 2012 to develop the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP).
• Alongside JESIP the publication of the Joint Doctrine: the interoperability framework provides a standard approach to multi-agency working, along with training and awareness products for responding agencies to train their staff.
• Reports into recent incidents, including the Grenfell Tower Fire and Manchester Arena Bombing, indicate a need for considerable further work to ensure the Joint Doctrine is effective in practice.
• Changes in training and policy will need to be reflected in the continuing evolution of the Joint Doctrine as a tool used at a local level.
• The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 provides for joint working in the context of local resilience forums and in responding to major incidents.
• Fire and rescue services are now able to use National Operational Guidance on Major Incidents to help them plan for and respond appropriately within a multi-agency setting.
• Working with others is not exclusive to the incident ground and there is a long history of fire and rescue services working with partners from the wider public sector, the third sector and the commercial world where they share the same goals.
• Evaluation of such interventions needs to evidence the benefits of such work. A rigorous evaluation approach needs to be applied consistently across all fire and rescue services.
• The 2017 Policing and Crime Act requires that “the relevant service(s) must keep under consideration whether entering into a collaboration agreement with one or more other relevant emergency services in England could be in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness”
• Community Safety Partnerships are an example of where older legislation compelled closer joint working in certain areas.
• Fire and rescue services have worked with local organisations to focus on fire setting behaviour. This has involved working with vulnerable children and young people, including schools and local youth offending teams. This type of activity can also bring great reputational rewards.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. Fire and rescue services have traditionally worked closely with other emergency services to respond to incidents, in training and other activities. In addition to this they work at a local level through Community Safety Partnerships (formerly known as Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships), local resilience forums, local health services and other organisations. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 cites fire and rescue as a Category 1 responder with specific responsibilities.
2. The National Fire Framework makes reference to the Policing and Crime Act 2017 stating that an efficient fire and rescue service should actively explore collaboration where it lines up with the priorities in its IRMP/CRMP.  Fire and Rescue Authorities must,
   • “keep collaboration opportunities under review;
   • notify other emergency services of proposed collaborations that could be in the interests of their mutual efficiency or effectiveness; and 
   • give effect to a proposed collaboration where the proposed parties agree that it would be in the interests of their efficiency or effectiveness and that it does not have an adverse effect on public safety.”
3. The government invested in a programme to create the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP). This provides a basis on which the emergency services work together. The Joint Doctrine (Interoperability Framework) which was updated in October 2021, includes guidance to support and enhance interoperability between emergency response organisations when responding to multi-agency incidents.
4. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 1 report highlighted a concern about the failure of the emergency services to co-ordinate with each other. Sir Martin Moore Bick was critical of the Joint Doctrine as well as the responders’ use of the principles within it on the incident ground. He said that “the Category 1 Responders (i.e. the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service), the LAS (London Ambulance Service) and the RBKC (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) in addition to the LFB (London Fire Brigade), did not fully adhere to the principles contained in the Joint Doctrine… common to all, was poor communication. The consequence of this was organisations “working in isolation and in ignorance of what others were doing.”
5. Earlier in 2017, the Manchester Arena terrorist bombing had resulted in the deaths of 22 people. Lord Kerslake led a review into the emergency services’ response. He wrote in his final recommendation for fire and rescue, “The response to the Arena attack provided an extraordinary validation of the ongoing work within the UK civil protection sector to embed the JESIP Interoperability Framework in practice”. He praised responders where the principles of JESIP held good but went on to say, “Where unforeseen limitations in guidance, protocol and circumstance collided to block such collaboration, the response of the organisation affected was paralysed for a crucial period.”
6. Both Grenfell and the Manchester Arena bombing are major incidents where interoperability and joint co-ordination of response are critical. There is National Operational Guidance on Major Incidents to assist fire and rescue services in preparing for and responding in an effective way. This needs to be embedded and implemented to improve these areas on the ground, at incidents.
7. Police, fire, and ambulance are under a statutory duty to consider collaboration. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced the concept of collaboration agreements and compelled the duty holders to keep under consideration opportunities to collaborate, where it is in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness.
8. HMICFRS has found that nearly all fire and rescue services have a positive attitude towards collaboration. Its reports cite wide-ranging examples of collaboration across all aspects of fire and rescue service business; the 2019 State of Fire report said that “some collaborations don’t go far enough. There are opportunities to do more, not least in seeking that greater economies of scale and engaging in joint procurement” as well as with “sharing estates, equipment and control rooms and work” with other blue light services. The issue is evaluation and providing the evidence that the collaboration is necessary and impactful, this is reiterated in the 2021 State of Fire report.
9. In Facing the Future, Sir Ken Knight said that fire and rescue services should foster “a culture of partnership working with the fire industry to support innovation”. He thought that services should work together by sharing agreed output specifications and agreed evaluation data when procuring new services.
10. During the COVID-19 pandemic and the national lockdown that began in March 2020, fire and rescue services worked with partners in their local communities under the direction of the Local Resilience Forum (LRF). This was supported by a number of agreements between the Fire Brigades Union, National Employers and the NFCC. The NFCC commissioned a report in December 2020 into the pandemic experience and found evidence of effective working with local partners, often in leadership roles in both strategic co-ordination groups and tactical groups. It recommended that “…fire and rescue services should reaffirm (with internal and external stakeholders) their roles, responsibilities and statutory duties as Category 1 Responders during any nationally significant event.”
11. The COVID-19 National Foresight Group with support from Nottingham Trent University and the Hydra Foundation conducted a Local Resilience Forum (LRF) Learning: Sharing ideas from a local interim operational review of one LRF, making 22 recommendations that will support all LRFs. This reaffirmed what was found in the NFCC report above and enhanced it with a further recommendation to keep a register of competence to help fill roles during an emergency.

What are we going to improve?

What does this mean?

Across all the areas of improvement identified in Fit for the Future there is a need for current accurate data to further support change. This will help drive improvements in the way the service is deployed, managed and evaluated. This needs to be supported by better use of digital and technology solutions to ensure maximum benefit can be achieved in delivering the service to the public. Using data to better understand the needs of the workforce and to direct resources where they are needed to provide the best development and support to them.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Collaborate with each other and with partner organisations to pool and analyse data to achieve maximum benefit.
• Achieve the Fire Standard(s) and where appropriate make use of any supporting guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Work with central government to replace the current Incident Recording System with a modern National Fire Data Collection System (NFDCS) that meets the needs of the service.
• Develop a national data analytics capability that will serve the needs of all Fire and Rescue Services.
• Create a longer-term plan for investment and development in developing data and digital capabilities that supports better service delivery to the public.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• The evidence and external commentary are clear that current systems for the collection, collation and management of data are underdeveloped.
• Leaders within the service consistently highlight concerns with the availability and quality of data and see it as an area of much-needed improvement.
• Central government is investing in the development of a data collection system to replace the current Incident Recording System (IRS). With the development of the service into other areas, including emphasis on Prevention and Protection as well as to drive efficiency and effectiveness measures, the current system is no longer fit for purpose.
• Alongside the need to manage data is the service’s maturity in terms of the exploitation and use of digital technology, both in management of the service and service delivery.
• Across all the improvement objectives identified in Fit for the Future there are references to the need to plan, evaluate, measure, and monitor progress. The need for accurate and current data to support all these areas is vital.
• Further investment is needed in this area to match progress with ambition.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. Fire and rescue services use data to help understand risk in their local communities. The Incident Recording System (IRS) is managed by the Home Office and contains data provided by fire and rescue services using a standard data input; this in turn is used to create national operational fire statistics. Fire and rescue services provide other data to inform national fire statistics regarding workforce, pensions etc.
2. In the Knight report from 2013, he provided a case study about the data-driven approach taken by a fire and rescue service to calculate risk and how this helped this service to prioritise areas for prevention and protection work. In another case study, he showed a service using data to underpin changes to crewing arrangements. He goes on later in his report to discuss how services were sharing data with local delivery partners to help target fire prevention activity.
3. The NFCC’s People Strategy 2017–22 sets out drivers for change and included the need to create joint technological solutions with other services and partners: “…so that we can integrate data and work together on projects in our communities.” It also highlights the need for good data skills and to use data to monitor and provide benchmarks and understand change.
4. The then Home Secretary, Theresa May, spoke about the fire and rescue service at an event hosted by the think tank Reform in 2016. She said: “By working in partnership with other local services and using data more systematically, fire and rescue services have developed a deep understanding of the needs and risks of the communities they serve.”
5. In 2018, the LGA published its Fire Vision 2024 which said, “We want to create a culture and environment where new technologies and data can add value to the activities of the sector and partners, provide improved services and accountability to the community…”. The LGA said that its ambition for the service would be to share information and data effectively to improve targeted interventions in its prevention work. It also emphasised the need for local communities to feel that they owned their local fire and rescue services, and to do so would require data transparency. This is underpinned by the National Framework, which says that fire and rescue services must make communities aware of how they can access information about performance.
6. The National Fire Framework published by the government in 2018 built on the themes in the Home Secretary’s speech in 2016. The Framework encouraged reform by: “Increasing the transparency of services with the publication of greater performance data and the creation of a new national fire website”. It includes references to effective information, intelligence and data sharing as key tenets of interoperability both between fire and rescue services and with other organisations.
7. There were many references to the need to use data in Dame Judith Hackitt’s 2018 report on building fire safety; this is in the context of systems, decision-making, assurance and review. The need for data to ensure the digital golden thread is robust throughout the lifecycle of a building. This is reinforced in the government’s response to Dame Judith’s report, where Building a Safer Future also sets out additional local authority funding for the collection of data about private sector residential buildings over 18 metres with ACM cladding. The government continues to publish regular data returns on this matter. Fire and rescue services will need to meet the requirements of the Building Safety Act, which addresses many of the recommendations in Dame Judith’s report and how the data requirements will be met.
8. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report contained 46 recommendations and while they do not specifically include references to data, many of them require data solutions as part of their implementation. For example, there is a recommendation for owners of high-rise buildings to provide information to fire and rescue services about the design of external walls and that requires a standard approach to data capture, transfer and storage. There are also recommendations to share plans and results of lift inspections, all of which require the same approach to data management.
9. HMICFRS provides substantial evidence about the use of data in fire and rescue services. In its first State of Fire report in 2019, it said that “The sector (fire and rescue services) were missing opportunities to use data and technology effectively”. It goes on to say, “How services use data varies hugely, with no overall national strategy to bring consistency and promote innovation.” By not combining data on risk into one place, it limited services’ ability to co-ordinate and prioritise prevention, protection, and response activity. The report also stated that “Services needed better financial data… to be able to manage budgets and use resources efficiently and effectively.”
10. In the 2021 State of Fire report, HMICFRS recognised the increased use of data sharing that was a consequence of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it indicated there was too much variation in the data used by fire and rescue services to build risk profiles and that there were datasets which would be common to all. It recognised the work of the NFCC’s Community Risk Programme, which was working on creating a definition of risk to be used by all fire and rescue services. The evidence for how fire and rescue services used risk data was described in the 2019 Nottingham Trent University report and has also influenced the NFCC’s programme of work.
11. The NFCC’s 2020 “Fire and rescue service response to COVID-19: Report for the NFCC COVID-19 Committee” report of how fire and rescue services responded to COVID-19 contains a specific recommendation about the use of data to support decision-making during times of crisis. It suggests that services should provide data once to a central repository that is then accessible to all; that all aspects of data management should be built into business continuity planning and there should be pragmatic approaches to data sharing with partners. This would be subject to legal requirements.

What are we going to improve?

What does this mean?

The partner organisations see organisational learning as the consideration of notable practice and where improvement is needed at a national or local level. This informs improvement action within Fire and Rescue Services. It is not limited to learning from responding to incidents, although this is clearly an aspect of it. A jointly owned partnership group to support implementation of improvement at local level will be put in place.

How will we improve it?

FRAs/FRSs will:

• Openly promote a learning culture where lessons are shared.
• Follow the good practice guide for operational learning, feeding learning into the National Operational Learning and Joint Organisational Learning systems as appropriate.
• Draw upon central support for local implementation where required.
• Achieve any Fire Standard set in this area using the underpinning national guidance and tools.

Centrally¹, we will:

• Set up a jointly owned partnership implementation group to promote the Fit for the Future improvement objectives and to support delivery of such change at local level, drawing in relevant expertise from the partner organisations.
• Continue the partnership approach to setting national improvement objectives based on the best available information and data.
• Create a good practice guide for Organisational Learning in support of this objective.
• Identify and access all the key information and data to inform organisational learning.
• Create and maintain a national database and system for analysis of learning material to inform decision-making.

_{¹ “Centrally, we will” – In each of the improvement objectives we say “centrally, we will:”. This describes the ambition of the partner organisations to provide support to fire and rescue services for improvement. Each element of that ambition will be supported by one or more of the partners, as appropriate. Each partner organisation retains responsibility in its own area and will work together wherever it is appropriate to do so.}

The overall key issues drawn from the evidence and engagement with the sector are:

• The improvement objectives identified within Fit for the Future represent the most accurate picture that can be presented at this time of the need for improvement, based on the information and data currently available.
• Only by working together, coordinating their different responsibilities, can the partners to Fit for the Future fully achieve the improvements set out.
• Many of the improvements identified, once implemented, will serve to create a clearer picture of the need for ongoing service change.
• As new data and evidence become available, this will need to be fed into considerations about future improvement. In this way, new information can be seen in the context of that which already exists.
• Organisational learning does not end with the identification of an issue. The loop needs to be closed – learning has only taken place once something has changed as a result.
• The National Operational Learning (NOL) system has now been in operation since October 2018 and has been successful in identifying and sharing lessons from incidents across services.
• The components of the wider system also need to include:
  • Input to the Joint Organisational Learning System (JOL) for JESIP related matters.
  • The Protection Virtual Learning Environment for protection-based learning.
  • Prevention learning (including Fire Investigation).
  • The Strategic Improvement Model (SIM) examining external commentary and recommendations.

Analysis of the evidence that supports this improvement objective is summarised as follows:

1. The Knight report contained a section on driving efficiency. Sir Ken Knight focused on learning as one of his key findings. “Greater sector leadership is needed to drive through a culture of learning from good practice and challenging services to rise to the level of the best.”
2. After major incidents like Grenfell or going further back to the Kings Cross fire in 1987, there are always lessons to be learned. Sir Desmond Fennell, Chair of the Inquiry into the Kings Cross fire, recommended in his 1988 report that there ought to be joint exercises between the emergency services: “Because I am satisfied that if such joint exercises had taken place, communications would have been better and some of the problems which presented themselves would not have proved as difficult as they did on the night”.
3. The need for learning from incidents comes also from coroners’ prevention of deaths reports. For example, the tragic death of Firefighter Stephen Hunt (which took place on Oldham Street in Manchester in July 2013), and the report written by the Coroner, Nigel Meadows in 2016. “It is suggested that consideration is given to being able to mobilise a national and consistent approach to sharing the learning and testing so that it can be shown to be received, understood, actioned and embedded.”
4. Partly in response to Nigel Meadows report, in 2015 the NFCC set up a project to create a National Operational Learning system in order to have a national and consistent way of capturing learning not only from major incidents but from day-to-day activity. By categorising learning based on the controls and hazards contained in National Operational Guidance, the analysis can provide decision makers with evidence of whether change needs to be made to policy, guidance, training, or other areas. The current system launched in October 2018, although much remains to do for it to be fully populated with data.
5. Separately, a Joint Organisational Learning model was established with other responders in August 2015 and is managed under the auspices of JESIP. Both systems have been in operation since 2018, but further work is needed to ensure that all the appropriate information and evidence is captured and that the outputs of these learning systems are acted upon and embedded.
6. Learning is also derived from non-operational aspects of fire and rescue service business. At national level, the NFCC is looking at how to widen out the principles contained in the National Operational Learning approach to see if it can be extended to Organisational Learning.
7. In the 2019 State of Fire report, HMICFRS wrote that operational response was strong, but there was “little evaluation of whether an incident had been resolved efficiently and effectively with the learning disseminated” to other fire and rescue services. In the State of Fire 2021 report, HMICFRS was more optimistic: “We are pleased that services are learning from significant emergencies and that they are disseminating what they have learned widely.” This indicates some progress being made, but with much more work to be done.
8. The Fire Standards Board published the Operational Learning Fire Standard in February 2021. This set out the expectation that a fire and rescue service would develop a learning culture, acting on learning from both operational and non-operational experience to improve operational response. It also expects services to embed management of learning into all areas of its business and be able to share it with other fire and rescue services and with the wider sector if appropriate.
9. One of the recommendations of the COVID-19 Foresight Group review from 2021 is for Local Resilience Forums to carry out a learning needs analysis to inform a training and exercising programme. It says in recommendation1.3 “The underpinning LRF Training and Exercise Programme should be informed by a Learning Needs Analysis. The Learning Needs Analysis should be informed by the National Security Risk Assessment and the new and emerging structures and ways of working developed during the pandemic, as well as being informed by the personal experiences of those involved in the multi-agency response.”

This is the bibliography of references used as the evidence base for Fit for the Future. References to the evidence used are made within each improvement objective.

_{¹ His Majesty’s} 

_{² His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services}

_{³ Local Government Association}

_{⁴ National Fire Chiefs Council}

Fit for the Future (FfF) has been developed in partnership between the NFCC, the LGA and the National Employers (England). It has been subject to wide engagement jointly by the partnership as well as within each organisation as it has been developed.

At the latest series of engagement workshops which ran in late 2021 and early 2022, a number of key issues were raised, which have influenced the final revised structure and content of Fit for the Future (June 2022).

Those issues are set out in the table below (as You Said…), along with an explanation of how they were considered and incorporated into Fit for the Future (as We Did…).

Funding

Timescale

Relationship with Government

Enablers

Agility

Changes in risk

Flexible workforce

Learning Organisation

Developing the brand

Structure

Data and Digital

Overall