Eckersley, P

Lakoma, K

Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep)

Narratives and evidence in reforms to fire and rescue services in EnglandPete EckersleyKasia LakomaNottingham Trent UniversityPolitical Studies Association annual conferenceNottingham 17 April 2019@peckersley@KatarzynaLakomaOverview of presentationIntroductionMultiple streams and narrative perspectivesResearch questionsThe case of P(F)CCs in EnglandConclusionsMultiple streams approachTaken from Jones et al 2016Limitations and evolution of MSA Criticism that it is random and unpredictable with no clear power dimension Focus largely on reactive problem-solving rather than proactive policymaking Although the streams may be analytically distinct, actors can be involved in more than one simultaneously – and policy entrepreneurs can also be endogenous to the process (Ackrill and Kay 2011) Some have combined it with narrative approaches to help explain how policymakers try to effect changeResearch questionsHow might proactive policymakers try to couple the streams and implement their preferred solutions?If policy entrepreneurs are endogenous to the policymaking processes, does this help to explain power dynamics within the MSA?Could proactive policymakers try to straddle the different streams to increase their chances of coupling them?What strategies do proactive policymakers adopt to try and open policy windows? What role might narratives and ‘evidence’ play here?The case of P(F)CCs Since 2017, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) have been able to make a case to assume responsibility for the governance of fire and rescue services within their force areas and become Police, Fire and Crime Commissioners (PFCCs) The 2017 Act requires an assessment of why this reform (i) is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or (ii) is in the interests of public safety  We examined debates around proposed governance transfer in seven force areas: Essex, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire, North Yorkshire, West Mercia, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, and HertfordshireMethodAll seven areas conducted extensive consultations, including paper-based and online surveys and local events, promoted through social media, flyers, local press, TV, radio, etc.We examined these consultation responses, along with the business cases, independent analyses, media reports, council and FRA documentsThe consultations were structured in different ways, but responses varied by force/FRA area and also by roles (e.g. staff affected, residents, local politicians, etc)PCCs are elected representatives, therefore we would expect them to be keen to use such public channels to get their arguments across Consultation responses IForce areaAgree DisagreeResidentsElected repsFRS staffPolice staffCouncils ResidentsElected repsFRS staffPolice staffCouncilsNorthants 57% 63% 92% 62% 35% 30% 4% 5%West Mercia64% 33% 37% 0 36% 67% 67% 8Cambs 53% 3 n/a n/a 0 39% 1 n/a n/a 2Herts 52% 11 n/a n/a 1 34% 0 n/a n/a 3Consultations to seek approval for PCC decision to opt for Governance model: i.e. no other options presentedConsultation responses II1 – no benefit 2 3 45 – significant benefitRepresentation 42 18 15 11 14Governance 34 8 10 18 30Single employer 45 13 15 12 15EssexStaffordshire North YorkshireElected repsFRS staffPolice staffResidents Public/VCS Overall Online ResidentsFRS staffPolice staffOverallNo change 44 60 41 49 34 50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aRepresentation 14 19 5 10 13 11 40 22 27 48 29Governance 26 12 26 23 30 22 48 61 59 27 55Single employer 16 9 28 17 23 17 12 17 14 25 15Who else supported and opposed change?024681012141618Cambridgeshire Essex Hertfordshire North Yorkshire Northamptonshire Staffordshire West MerciaStatutory consultees opposed Other councils opposed Elected mayors and MPs opposedStatutory consultees in favour Other councils in favour Elected mayors and MPs in favourCurrent state of play Two PFCCs approved without much controversy (Essex and Northamptonshire). In both cases there were clear local problems that needed to be addressed Two PFCCs approved in the teeth of local opposition (Staffordshire and North Yorkshire)  Two decisions currently under judicial review (Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and West Mercia) Hertfordshire PCC abandoned his proposal (along with seven other PCCs who considered change)So, given that there was limited public support for change, how did some PFCCs manage to introduce their reform proposals?What is the narrative/story around potential change?Finance Democracy Performance"Savings" narrative (supportive)"Cuts" narrative (opposed)"Accountability" narrative (supportive)"Power grab" narrative (opposed)"Collaboration" narrative (supportive)"Ain't broke" narrative (opposed)SettingInsufficient resourcesInsufficient resourcesLack of scrutiny and accountabilityPCC wants more powerLack of coordinationProblem 'invented' by PCCVillains Not specified Central govtCurrent governance arrangementsPCCCurrent structural arrangementsPCCVictims The public The public The public The public The public The publicHeroes PCCFront-line public servantsPCCNone: there is no problem to fixPCCNone: there is no problem to fixPlot Governance model will save moneyBetter funded public servicesElected PFCC will make services more accountable Think about who should be in charge of public servicesGovernance model will improve joint workingImproved joint workingMoral PFCCTrust your public servantsPFCCMany heads are better than onePFCCThere are more important issues facing fire and police servicesProblem narratives “There would be direct benefits from adopting this [governance] option realised through accelerating estate consolidation opportunities” (PCC for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough) “I would suggest that democracy and accountability is improved by having a directly elected Fire Commissioner rather than appointed local councillors acting as an FRA.” (PCC for West Mercia) “The change to single governance will enable new ways of working that will benefit our communities and our emergency services alike.” (PCC for West Mercia)  “More opportunities for early intervention and prevention work. Greater value coming from quicker and easier sharing of information.” (Northants)Counter-narratives “I am deeply concerned about the proposals for ‘estate rationalisation’. This clearly indicates the closure of local police stations and locating the services in Fire Stations.” (Councillor, Staffs) “Both need more money. No need to work together” (West Mercia) “Services provided by the Fire Brigade have been operating effectively. Therefore why risk this?” (Cambs) “The Commissioner’s Local Business Case does not make a compelling argument as to why it is necessary to adopt the Governance Model to address the stated shortcomings in the pace and scope of collaboration between the Police and the Fire and Rescue Service.” (Member of the public, North Yorks) “The two work together at the moment and if something is not broken why change.” (Northants)How can the MSA help to explain this? PCCs were involved in all three streams in each case: they helped to frame and broker problems that needed addressing; as endogenous policy entrepreneurs they championed a policy solution; and they were key political actors Straddling the streams in this way made it easier to couple them There was a window open in the political stream in each case However, only in Essex and Northamptonshire were windows open in the problem stream  Attempts to construct a problem in the other force areas met with opposition from other local actors. This might mean the window in the political stream closes more quicklyConclusions Policy entrepreneurs previously seen as exogenous to the process: if they are endogenous, and able to straddle all three streams, they are well-positioned to couple them The ability of policymakers to straddle the streams in this way introduces a power dynamic into MSA perspectives Coupling may be much easier if windows are open in both the problem and political streams Endogenous policy entrepreneurs can use narratives to construct and broker problems and thereby open a window in this stream – but this is not a foolproofstrategyQuestions?Peter.Eckersley@ntu.ac.ukKatarzyna.Lakoma@ntu.ac.uk

Narratives and evidence in reforms to fire and rescue services in England

http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/36389/1/13814_Eckersley.pdf

Narratives and evidence in reforms to fire and rescue services in England

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Nottingham Trent Institutional Repository (IRep)