Home Secretary Priti Patel claims “there is a compelling case for reform of our fire and rescue services.” The claim is utterly false. This is a politically driven attack on both firefighters and local democracy. Her aim is to bulldoze through changes that will make us all less safe by removing the ability of staff, Councillors, and the public to effectively oppose dangerous cuts.
She uses reports from the former HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services as 'evidence'. Yet these reports have misunderstood the service, misrepresented issues, and failed to identify the root causes of problems that are undermining the service’s performance. In almost all cases the root cause is Government policy, ranging from funding cuts and deregulation, to weakened requirements for senior posts and increasing demand on the service without providing resources to meet that demand.
The former Chief Inspector and his inspectors had no knowledge or experience of the fire & rescue service, and they carried out inspections as if they were inspecting the police. In doing so they completely failed to recognise that the function of the fire & rescue service, the way it must operate to be effective, the variety of demands on the service, the resource requirements, training needs etc., are all radically different to those of the police. It is also evident that his reports were not independent. Facts were ignored or misrepresented by the Chief Inspector to suit Government agendas.
Government falsehoods to cover up their own failures is unacceptable.
Disrespectfully, Ms Patel cynically misuses the Manchester Arena bombing to support her deception. She dishonestly implies the delayed attendance of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service was their fault. It was not, they properly followed agreed inter-agency procedures. The delay arose from the failure of the police, who have primacy for terror incidents, to follow those nationally agreed procedures. Had they given the fire & rescue service the correct information at the right time, the response would have followed immediately.
Priti Patel should apologise to the survivors and bereaved from both these tragedies for trying to shift the blame from Government onto firefighters.
Fire Minister ignorant of the service’s needs
The Fire Minister is either badly informed or simply conniving in this political attempt to weaken our fire & rescue services. Given his controversial political career it is probably both, with the emphasis on the latter. He has also, like the Chief Inspector, completely failed to understand the unique and critical differences between the police and fire & rescue.
Far from the reforms achieving the improvements he claims, the outcome will inevitably be the opposite. He might not understand the role of fire and rescue services and of the firefighter, but the public and firefighters already do. The public want firefighters to arrive at their fire or other emergency quickly, and with the right resources to help them. Firefighters conscientiously fulfil that role every day. The only hindrance they face is inadequate Government funding and inept Government tinkering.
Far from increasing professionalism, the proposals will see a significant decrease in professionalism, especially at senior levels. Similarly for governance, the proposals will weaken, not strengthen accountability, scrutiny, and transparency.
The White Paper will seriously weaken professionalism and accountability.
Building on Success – What Success?
The last twelve years has seen more Government damage to fire & rescue services than in the previous seventy plus years. Not only drastic cuts to the resources needed to effectively respond to fires and other emergencies, but a seriously weakened regulatory regime that is failing to keep people safe from fire in their homes, at work, at school, and when enjoying their leisure time.
The serious dangers of operational independence
The proposal to grant chief fire officers operational independence will enable flexibility, but it will not improve the service to the public. It will effectively create tin pot dictators with the flexibility to not crew fire stations and fire engines properly, the flexibility to divert staff from response duties to pet projects, and the flexibility to introduce unsafe procedures that put firefighters at unnecessary risk. Flexibility will remove all the safeguards intended to stop hasty, ill considered, and flawed decisions.
It is unacceptable to have any public post free to make decisions without approval or challenge from the public they serve through their elected representatives. The only justification for the exception of operational independence for chief constables is to ensure that politicians cannot interfere with who is investigated and who is arrested. There is no justification for such an exemption for chief fire officers.
Fully trained and experienced chief fire officers can make poor decisions, none are infallible. There must be opportunities to stop or reverse their mistakes, but these proposals remove those opportunities. With reforms enabling the appointment of more chief officers with little or no professional fire service training and experience, such poor decisions will become all too common.
The public expect chief fire officers to have joined the service as firefighters and to have worked their way up. They expect them to have acquired in depth knowledge, after many years of training and study, plus significant experience of dealing with fires and other emergencies.
Operational independence will be a dangerous free pass for incompetent, cavalier, or bullying Chief Fire Officers
The sinister Fire and Rescue Service Oath
This really verges on the laughable until you consider the real reason behind it. There is absolutely no evidence that this will improve adherence to any statutory code. Police officers have always had to take an oath, yet it has not stopped unacceptable, abhorrent, and even criminal behaviour by a few.
Latest figures show that in England & Wales, in 2020/21, there were over 250 police officers dismissed, or would have been dismissed if they had not resigned or retired. If it does not work for the police, there is no reason to believe it would achieve what they claim for the fire & rescue service. In any case, there are already adequate measures in place to deal with inappropriate behaviour in the service.
The proposal is very insulting, as firefighters show their commitment, determination, and courage, without fear or favour, every day. With the current difficulties in recruiting retained firefighters it is also foolish to introduce another requirement that may deter some applicants.
So, is it just window dressing or does something more sinister lie behind it? I believe the real motive is to make it easier to intimidate anyone who dares speak out about unacceptable behaviour, dishonest claims, and dangerous decisions from chief fire officers or the executive leader.
It is a devious attempt to protect inept chief fire officers
and incompetent executive leaders from whistle blowers.
Fire funding deception
The real funding issue is not councils having to balance resource allocation between fire & rescue and other services, it is inadequate Government funding. These problems have only arisen since Government stopped providing sufficient funds to carry out all the duties placed on councils by Government. Poor council decision making may play a part in some services being rated inadequate, but the root cause is inadequate funding.
The only funding issue has been created by Government funding cuts.
Power grab by Chief Fire Officers
The National Fire Chiefs Council has been shamelessly pushing for many of the White Paper changes simply to increase their power, and to loosen the reigns of legitimate accountability. Their motivation has nothing to do with service improvement, it is simply self-interest.
They may well find it frustrating that they must account to Councillors and the public for what they do, but that does not justify evading it. It is right and proper that they should demonstrate to Councillors, who represent the public, that proposals for change have been fully evaluated. It is right and proper that they should be questioned about performance failures. It is right and proper that they are held to account when their claims prove to be without foundation. It is also right and proper that they should use persuasion, not intimidation, to convince staff that changes at work are fair, safe, and reasonable.
The White Paper is about leaving them free to bypass things that are in place to stop poor decisions and remedy poor outcomes. Chief Fire Officers are betraying their staff and the public they are supposed to serve.
And how long before Chief Fire Officers claim a pay increase for extra responsibility?
Power grab by Police & Crime Commissioners
It is also a power grab by Police & Crime Commissioners (PCCs), the majority of whom are Conservative politicians. The Association of Police & Crime Commissioners want to increase their power, extend Conservative Party control of public services, and remove effective local accountability.
Research has already shown that some PCCs are "ill equipped and ill prepared" and can be manipulated by the Chief Constable. Unsurprising when a small group in a political party selects the candidate with party political agendas more important than competency. Once elected, little can be done to hold them to account. The public must wait up to four years for an opportunity to vote them out.
There is every possibility that chief fire officers will conspire with Chief Constables to intimidate all but the strongest and most able PCCs. Combine a strong but untrained chief fire officer, who has no fire service experience, with a weak PCC and you have a recipe for disaster.
No doubt Police & Crime Commissioners will jump on the bandwagon and claim they deserve extra pay!
Sadly, this Government views its responsibility to protect the public as an inconvenience. Consequently they lack the intellect to see that proper investment in the fire & rescue has long term benefits for the nation’s welfare, security, and economy.
How to respond
If you care about the service, or if you simply want to be sure firefighters arrive quickly when you need them, please respond to the consultation. Make it perfectly clear there is no case for reform, and that you don't support the proposals in the White Paper.
Response deadline - 11:59pm on 26 July 2022
Online response: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-our-fire-and-rescue-service
Email response: firereformconsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk;
Paper response: Fire Reform Consultation, Fire Strategy & Reform Unit, 4th Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
