Who to vote for on May 6, if you care about your safety and about the fire & rescue service

If you want a fire & rescue service that keeps you safe, then your vote matters on the 6th of May. Please make sure you are registered and that you use your vote in all the elections on that day. If you are already registered, make it easy to vote by applying for a postal vote, but please note that your completed application form must arrive by 20th April.

I am not a member of a political party and my vote is not guaranteed to any particular party. That is because none of them have policies that I am in full agreement with, so when I vote I consider the candidates, their policies and their performance. 

Whilst campaigning in support of our fire & rescue services I have spoken to politicians, local and national, from every political party that will listen. I have yet to decide which candidates will get my vote in May and I will not try to influence anyone else to vote for specific candidates or political parties. 

However, based on past performance, the one thing I am sure of is that I will not be voting for any Conservative candidates. That is because Conservative Government policies and Conservative County Councillors have, over the last ten years, done immense damage to our fire & rescue service. 

As a result, we are all less safe.

Policies and decisions have not only been inept, they have been arrogantly steamrollered through with dishonest claims, unsubstantiated assurances and inadequate scrutiny.

Valid public concerns have been ignored, firefighters bullied,

and opposition Councillors treated with contempt.

Remember this?

There are still just 24 operational fire stations with 11 fewer operational fire engines, but even more incidents are being attended. Conservative Councillors falsely claimed that incidents would decrease, yet they have increased every year since 2015/16.

Even more incidents attended

In 2015, after the second round of cuts to the service, Conservative Cabinet Member Lionel Barnard stepped down. Conservative Leader Louise Goldsmith said at the time that he had left the fire and rescue service "in very good shape".

Just three years later Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services began an inspection that resulted in our fire & rescue service getting the worst report of the 45 services in England. 

Of the three principal areas they reviewed, how staff were looked after was rated inadequate, and both effectiveness and efficiency were rated as requires improvement. Not one of the sub categories achieved an acceptable 'good' rating. None of this was the fault of staff in the service, the blame lies squarely with the inept Council.

The County Council's Conservative administration repeatedly ignored warnings from firefighters, from the public, and from opposition Councillors. Conservative Councillors summarily dismissed genuine concerns as 'scaremongering'. The one well informed Conservative County Councillor who voiced concerns subsequently resigned, and others who dared to ask awkward questions were disciplined.

Conservatives: "in very good shape" = 

Inspectors: "inadequate" & "requires improvement".

We were told in 2014 that planned cuts were 'improvements' that would ensure at least 30 fire engines available around the clock. Despite warnings that the cuts would make fire crew availability worse, the Conservatives stuck their heads in the sand and went ahead. The result was that during the day, less than half that number were available and on occasions as few as ten fire engines were available to cover the whole of West Sussex.

We were told that money taken from operational response, by cutting fire engines and firefighters, would be used for prevention to save more lives. In 2015/16, when the cuts took effect, there were four fire deaths in West Sussex. In the first three quarters of 2020/21 there have already been four fire deaths in West Sussex (quarter four figures have not been released). The number of fire casualties taken to hospital has increased. In 2015/16 it was 43, in 2019/20 (latest full year figures) it was fifty two, a 21% increase.

The Conservative Government is talking about taking the fire & rescue service away from County Councils and giving control to Police & Crime Commissioners. There is no justification for this PCC empire building, and it will give the public even less of a say in how their fire & rescue service is run.

The Fire & Rescue Service should be safer in County Council hands, 

but it will not be safer if those hands are Conservative Party hands.  

West Sussex County Councillors continue the Fire Control cover up

 Whitewash Report

Today, the Fire and Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee will discuss a Task and Finish Group report that was supposed to address concerns about Surrey Fire Control managing West Sussex emergencies. 

Unsurprisingly, with 3 Conservative Councillors (Lionel Barnard, David Barling, and David Edwards), and just one Liberal Democrat Councillor (Bob Smytherman) on the group, the Conservative Chairman has produced a whitewash report that simply endorses the Conservative controlled council's poor decisions. 

You may recall that Labour Councillor Michael Jones asked to attend the Task and Finish Group but Chairman Steve Waight, supported by other Conservative Councillors, refused to let him. He used the excuse of proportionality, but based that on election seats won, not on the wishes of West Sussex voters. Only 51% of all votes at the last County Council elections were for the Conservatives, yet they grabbed 75% of the places on this group.

No proper investigation of concerns, just pre-election political spin

Meeting held behind closed doors

The report, produced after just one secret meeting, claims that Members heard 'evidence' from West Sussex and Surrey Fire and Rescue Services, yet it appears that no real evidence or written reports were provided to the group. 

The report says that the Scrutiny Committee agreed to establish the task and finish group “in order to scrutinise the first year of the JFC.” Yet the minutes of that meeting say, “Resolved – that the Committee: … Notes the concerns regarding the joint control room, and reemphasised that a Task & Finish Group would examine this in further detail in January 2021.”

The report makes no mention of those concerns and instead claims that “Its purpose was to scrutinise the Joint Fire Control Centre’s work since its establishment on 4 December 2019 (JFC), specifically examining:

• Whether the JFC collaboration project had produced the project deliverables;

• Whether the JFC delivered the project to agreed cost and savings;

• What improvements the JFC collaboration has achieved in the last 12 months since;

• The improvements and benefit deliverables over the next 12 months;

• Future partnership expansion opportunity during 2021; and

• Staffing implications.

Concerns ignored

It is unclear who decided on the 'purpose', as the meeting on 30 September 2020 did not set out those specifics. It is evident that the Conservative Chairman decided to ignore the concerns raised at that meeting, and previously at the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee on 13 January 2020. That committee agreed that the new Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee should be given a detailed report on the safety critical notice, the staffing levels and the robustness of the IT systems.

That report has never been produced.

The whitewash Task & Finish Group report is simply full of unsubstantiated spin - "efficient staffing system", "modern state of the art technology", "market leading", "transformed", "more effective and efficient" etc. Yet there is no evidence at all in the report to show that the arrangement is safe, effective or reliable.

The report is so detached from reality that it even claims the Emergency Services Network (ESN) can transmit data faster than Airwave, yet the Government’s ESN project has suffered significant problems. The Public Accounts Committee was told this month that the ESN Network is delayed and taking £650m from the Treasury every year. The latest expected operational date is 2025, six years behind schedule. Of course, that assumes it does not fail completely like the technology for the Government’s regional fire control project failed.

Control Room staffing still inadequate

It seems staffing has been increased from six to eight per watch, with the minimum on duty increased from five to six. However, it does not say if this is to cater for East Sussex calls when they join the scheme, or if there will be a further increase when East Sussex join the arrangement. 

If there is no further increase that represents at least an effective 50% cut in control operators to answer and manage emergencies for Surrey, East Sussex and West Sussex. It will mean more frequent overload and delays as emergency calls are diverted to other control rooms, and will occur during less busy periods than previously.

For every incident there can be several actions that need to be taken by control staff

Just two extra staff for over three times as many incidents is irresponsible

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow previously claimed there is no delay when emergency calls cannot be answered in the Surrey control room because all operators are busy. That is untrue, there is inevitably a delay as the '999' operator has to wait for a specified time before trying Surrey's back up number and then try that number for a further specified time before transferring the caller to another control room. Critical minutes lost for anyone in danger. Exactly how long that delay will be, and which control room the call will be diverted to, has not been disclosed. The Cabinet Member was asked last December, but failed to provide a proper answer.

The concerns of firefighters and the public have been ignored and the Council continues to refuse to publish any evidence to support their claims about the dodgy deal with Surrey County Council.

The public and firefighters deserve

better from the County Council

Secrecy and inadequate scrutiny continue to blight fire service improvement

Control room cover-up continues

"Sorry, all our operators are busy. 

We don't have enough operators, but we do have flashy technology that works most of the time. 

Unfortunately, even if it is working, we still can't help you until you can speak to an operator." 

Both West Sussex and Surrey County Councils are refusing to reveal crucial details about their controversial control room arrangement. Their desperation to keep details secret is so strong they are willing to ignore the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

Both Authorities were asked to carry out internal reviews of their refusal decision.  West Sussex has failed to carry out the legally required review. Surrey County Council carried out a review, but still refuse to reveal information by misusing legal exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. Both Councils have now been referred to the Information Commissioner.

Surrey County Council blames West Sussex County Council for this ludicrous secrecy. Their review says:

"Having consulted with WSCC they do not agree to 
the information sought being released into the public domain" 

"The Council could face a breach of confidence action from WSCC". 

The idea that West Sussex County Council would waste public money on legal action against Surrey County Council, for releasing information that should be in the public domain, is ludicrous.

West Sussex has already wasted millions of pounds in their quest to replace their first-class control room with inferior versions. First with East Sussex and now with Surrey. The County Council was clearly rattled by questions and criticism about their previous inept decisions, and it appears they then decided to try and obstruct public scrutiny of this new collaboration with Surrey. Conspiring with Surrey, they added unnecessary confidentiality clauses to the collaboration agreement, and concocted a confidentiality agreement. All intended to try and evade their legal obligations to be transparent and accountable. 

They falsely claim the information is "commercially confidential", yet Councillors were previously told that this was not a commercial arrangement. They were told this was a collaboration arrangement, so there was no need to comply with the regulations that govern the commercial contracts of public bodies. 

The arrangement is made under section 16 of the Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004. Such arrangements are commonplace, especially between neighbouring authorities, and allow one fire & rescue service to provide a service on behalf of another. Unlike a commercial arrangement, there is no profit for either party. The only payment is to cover the actual cost of delivering that service. 

Both Councils have shown utter contempt for legitimate public interest. Given their desperation to avoid disclosure, it seems the flaws in this arrangement may be even worse than we first imagined.

New Scrutiny Committee fails at their first meeting

Chairman blocks questions about the fire control agreement

Last week saw the first meeting of the new Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee (FRSSC), which took over scrutiny of fire & rescue from the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee (ECFSC). Serious concerns were raised about this control arrangement at the ECFSC meeting in January and Members were told that more information would be provided at the first FRSSC meeting. None has been published.

No evidence has been provided to support claims that the technology allows reduced staffing levels. A claim that suggests a lack of understanding of how fire & rescue service control rooms work, and a failure to realise that people in trouble will wait longer for help to arrive when there are not enough control operators on duty. Technology is also of no use whatsoever when it fails, something that Assistant Chief Fire Officer Jon Lacey told Councillors can happen with any mobilising system. When it does, you immediately need control operators to do that work manually.

Changes to minimum staffing and incidents to be managed following the agreement (Incidents - 2019 figures)

When Councillor Michael Jones raised concerns about inadequate staffing in the control room, Chairman Steve Waight shut him down by saying they would be "going beyond our remit if we were to start telling officers whether the number of staff working in the control room is right or wrong". Yet Michael Jones did not suggest that, he just wanted to see some justification for staffing decisions, which is exactly what scrutiny is supposed to be about. 

Effectively, the Chairman was telling Councillors that they can only scrutinise those things he agrees can be scrutinised. An all too typical WSCC version of scrutiny that is designed to hide things they want kept secret, like Chief Executive pay offs.

It is unacceptable that Councillors were not allowed to scrutinise full details of this arrangement before Surrey took control of West Sussex emergencies. 

It is scandalous that West Sussex County Councillors, especially those who are serving on a scrutiny committee, are still being blocked from scrutinising an arrangement that increases the risks for firefighters and the public in West Sussex.

CFO wants to 'take staff with us', but Councillors do not

At the last meeting of the ECFSC, there appeared to be quite a bit of support for staff representation to be included on the new committee. Last week, Councillor Michael Jones voiced concern that this had not happened and formally proposed that a Fire Brigades Union representative should be invited to all meetings on a non-voting basis. 

Moments earlier the Chief Fire Officer had told Councillors that a vital part of making necessary improvements was "making sure that we take staff with us". She added, "staff and people have been our absolute focus". Yet all the other Councillors turned a deaf ear to the Chief Fire Officer's comments. By rejecting the proposal from Michael Jones, they effectively said, "we don't care what staff have to say."

The Chairman condescendingly said, "If there is an issue that I and the Vice Chairman believe is relevant to the unions, then we would seek the union to come along." That statement suggests that he has no intention of properly scrutinising the Fire & Rescue Service or Duncan Crow, the Cabinet Member for Fire & Rescue and Communities.

I was incredibly surprised that Councillor Bob Smytherman did not support the proposal, as Liberal Democrat Councillors had previously supported more involvement from staff representatives. 

Councillor David Edwards later said, "Being as the CFO represents the staff I am satisfied there is representation". It seems he does not understand the role of the Chief Fire Officer, which is to manage the fire & rescue service in line with West Sussex County Council's direction. The idea that the service's boss can also act as a staff representative is bonkers. No matter how concerned for staff she may be, she is not going to put proposals to the Council and then make counter arguments on behalf of her staff. It is a conflict of interest and it would be unreasonable to expect her to do so.  

Inadequate report was result of inadequate scrutiny

Councillors need to open their eyes and recognise that the poor report, received from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, was not a reflection on the service's dedicated staff. 

It was a failure of Councillors to properly scrutinise previous Chief Fire Officers and Cabinet Members. Too often they just accepted whatever they were told. Even when staff representatives and the public were able to tell them they were being misinformed and misled, they stubbornly failed to scrutinise effectively and just rubber-stamped decisions. 

Councillors must listen to staff whenever they have something to say, not just when Steve Waight and Lionel Barnard decide they want to listen. The FBU represent those on the front-line who know first-hand what challenges firefighters currently face. Their input can only improve scrutiny of the fire & rescue service.

The Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee had acknowledged, following the HMICFRS report, that they needed to work more closely with staff representatives. So it is sadly ironic that the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee, which was supposed to improve scrutiny and oversight, is reverting to WSCC's bad old ways.

If Councillors won't consider all the evidence, then scrutiny will fail and the service's efforts to improve will be undermined.

  

Councillors still refuse to admit their abject failure

Conservative leadership's damage control

Last week the County Council’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee met to discuss Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMIC&FRS) damning report on West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service. 

It was disappointing, but not surprising, that Chairman Andrew Barrett-Miles opened by trying to stifle proper discussion. He told Councillors it was "not a political debating session". In other words, the ruling Conservative Group did not want their political failings to be discussed. Councillor James Walsh correctly pointed out that he was wrong to do that, as the Council is a politically run authority that gives direction to the Council's officers.

Mr Barrett-Miles comment that “we are here to be a critical friend of the fire service”, seemed intended to pass the buck to those in the service. It became clear that those ultimately responsible for the poor report were engaged in political damage control. I have no doubt where responsibility lies.

Fire Brigades Union & Unison highlight the real failures

Antony Walker from the FBU gave a heartfelt presentation outlining where the problems were, including:

• Poor funding, with £7 million of cuts, loss of 11 fire appliances, and a 37% reduction in workforce leaving West Sussex top of the list for posts lost since 2010,
• Poor governance, lack of scrutiny and Councillors' limited understanding of the consequences of decisions taken,
• Poor, weak management with, until very recently, senior Fire & Rescue Service officers not strong enough in opposing financial reductions,
• The committee had approved the Integrated Risk Management Plan after they were told the service was under-resourced to deliver it,
• Unworkable, non-family friendly contracts and rates of pay for On Call Firefighters that do not reflect the commitment required.

He said, "Our members are asked to work under stressful and challenging conditions . . it is hard to comprehend why the fire authority, since 2010, have worsened those conditions."

FBU Brigade Secretary for West Sussex Antony Walker

Dan Sartin from Unison supported those comments and said the failures were County Council failures. He said "It is the County Council that sets the culture, framework and resourcing". He highlighted how support staff were the glue that held a service together and that significant support staff cuts had contributed to the failures.

Dan also made it clear that bullying at senior level was a problem across the County Council and that people were discouraged from submitting grievances. As I have mentioned previously, that is something I saw when I was at County Hall and something I raised with the then Chief Executive.

Unison Branch Secretary for West Sussex Dan Sartin

Cabinet Member proud to have failed

It is perhaps not surprising that the Chairman asked Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard not to make an opening statement. When Councillor Dan Purchese pressed for the Cabinet Member or Leader to make a statement, as they were responsible for the political leadership of the Council, it did not go well. Debbie Kennard told everyone she was proud and proceeded to spout inaccuracies and nonsense.

Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard

Not sure if she has been asleep, but Fire & Rescue has always had a voice on the select committee. The only change has been that, at the end of 2017, the title of the select committee was changed from Environmental and Community Services Select Committee to Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee. Including 'fire' in the select committee name made no difference whatsoever to the service's voice, or its scrutiny.

As for "the fire on the website" and "a brand", window dressing is not going to fix any of the problems identified in the report. With the worst performance information now removed from the Performance Dashboard, accountability and openness have actually gone backwards. 

Time for the Cabinet Member to admit that she and her predecessors have been on a very badly planned journey.

 A journey that has failed to support dedicated firefighters and failed to protect the public.

Disputed figures

The Acting Chief Fire Officer disagreed with the figures for job losses given by the FBU. Now to be fair to both it has been difficult to compare current and previous figures, as West Sussex County Council and Government figures seem to change the criteria from time to time. However, WSCC establishment figures for 2002 and Home Office total staff figures for 2018 do reveal a 35% cut.

More damage control

I always believed that one of the functions of the Director of Law & Assurance was to ensure that the Council's political leadership did not stray from acting lawfully and in the best interest of West Sussex residents. So it was concerning to see Director Tony Kershaw, who does not normally attend these meetings, appearing to be more concerned with protecting the Council's political leadership. 

He intervened to criticise Councillor Michael Jones for not circulating his recommendations before the meeting. Yet he made no such intervention when Councillor Dan Purchese protested that an email from HMIC&FRS, received by the Council three weeks previously, had not been shared with Councillors until that morning. 

Mr Kershaw also seemed very concerned when committee chairman Andrew Barrett-Miles was making recommendations on behalf of the committee. Despite Mr Barrett-Miles saying, "we cannot instruct the Cabinet Member, she wouldn’t let me I can tell you”, Mr Kershaw and Council Leader Louise Goldsmith were certainly giving him some hard stares. Or was it, as someone described to me, "the evil eye".

The promising outcomes

Despite efforts to restrain the Chairman, he did make some positive recommendations that were unanimously approved. They included:

• The implementation plan to be adequately resourced financially, both in the short and long term.
• That unions should be more closely involved in the implementation plan through inclusion in the project board, and in any future development of the fire service.
• The improvement board should include political leadership. 
• Consideration should be given to determining if the Chief Executive is the right person to chair that board. 
• The Cabinet Member/CFO need to lobby the inspectorate regarding risk versus demand driven. We believe strongly it should be risk driven. 
• Further work needed by the service to look at its future structure.
• That the Governance Committee should consider how additional scrutiny of the Fire & Rescue Service could be achieved by having a separate select committee.
• The Fire & Rescue Service to bring a progress report to this committee in September, and the unions to be invited to speak at that meeting.

The disappointing outcomes

Councillor Michael Jones proposed some additional supportive recommendations, but they were met with unseemly attempts to frustrate them being considered. Former Cabinet Member David Barling even resorted to the all too common Conservative response to anything they don't like of, "‘if we are playing politics with this". Yet it was Mr Barling and his Conservative colleagues who played politics by voting down all the Labour proposed, Liberal Democrat seconded recommendations. They were:

• To withdraw the cuts proposed for 2019/20, which were put on hold for one year, and prioritise the recruitment of additional firefighters to replace those cut since 2010. 
• The recruitment panel for the new Chief Fire Officer to only select people with significant fire & rescue service experience.
• Launch an anti-bullying campaign to stamp out instances of bullying and harassment.
• Take steps to increase the diversity of the workforce, particularly in respect of more female firefighters and more from the BAME communities.
• Commission an independent review to determine whether alternative governance arrangements for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service may be necessary.

Other worries

David Barling frequently refers to his "specialist knowledge" of the fire & rescue service, yet he said he "would have liked to have heard from someone from the retained today". It is quite disturbing that, as a former Cabinet Member responsible for fire & rescue, that he was unaware that the Fire Brigades Union representative sat in front of him speaks for both wholetime and retained firefighters. 

Mr Barling even had the gall, when speaking about wanting "much more detail on the retained service", to refer to the task and finish group looking at On Call (retained) firefighter recruitment and retention problems. 

A task & finish group that he refused to set up when he was Cabinet Member.

Chief Executive Nathan Elvery tried to defend the "no fire & rescue service experience required" advert for the Chief Fire Officer post by referring to "combined emergency services" in other countries. I have no idea where he got his information from, but such an arrangement is extremely rare. There are some examples of fire services that have historically provided some element of the emergency ambulance provision in some countries, but that is a long way from a combined emergency service.

He said the arrangements in other countries were "quite different", which ought to ring alarm bells, not encourage looking at candidates from other countries. It would be a nonsense to appoint a Chief Fire Officer who lacks knowledge and experience of how UK fire & rescue services operate, of UK legislation, of UK tactics and procedures, and of how UK fire & rescue services work with other emergency services and other agencies. 

Tried and tested UK arrangements for managing major incidents are radically different from those in many other countries. They are widely acknowledged to be far more effective, but that depends on the chief officer of each service intimately understanding procedures, and having extensive training and significant experience at exercises and incidents. 

A Chief Fire Officer playing catch up will not keep firefighters and residents safe.        

Arrogance, denial & hypocrisy will perpetuate failure

The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) made grim reading. I feel especially sad for the hundreds of fire & rescue service staff who will understandably, but wrongly, see this as a reflection on them. I also feel very sad for the residents of West Sussex who have, once again, been let down by the County Council.

It is the County Council's leadership that is responsible for this shocking report.

Thursday was rather hectic with the HMICFRS report to read, media coverage to monitor, and the County Council’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee meeting to watch. That is the Select Committee responsible for scrutiny and oversight of the Fire & Rescue Service and for holding the Cabinet Member and Chief Fire Officer to account.

I have now had some time to reflect on Thursday’s sad revelations. I am no less disappointed by the Inspector’s findings, but I am appalled by the arrogance, denial & hypocrisy displayed by Councillors at the Select Committee meeting. When Children’s Services were rated inadequate, the chairman of the Children and Young People’s Select Committee resigned, the Chief Executive gave interviews and even Council Leader Louise Goldsmith was quick to publicly apologise.

Yet when the Fire & Rescue Service received the worst report of the latest batch of reports, there were no apologies from the Council Leader or Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard, and no resignations. Instead, Louise Goldsmith and Debbie Kennard hid from the media and made the Acting Chief Fire Officer face the cameras.

No Apology

We had to listen to Debbie Kennard trotting out how they had spent money on equipment, and how they had found a bit of money to try and fix some of the failures identified by the Inspector. Struggling to find some positives in the report, she even had the nerve to mention road safety work, something she planned to cut! Debbie Kennard completely ignored her predecessor’s failures, which created those problems, and her failure to address problems before the inspection.

With her denial and lack of contrition, there is little hope that

Debbie Kennard can lead the service back to an acceptable grading.

Ignore the message and shoot the messenger

Unlike his colleague, who resigned as chairman of the Children and Young People’s Select Committee, this committee’s chairman, Andrew Barrett-Miles, tried to shoot the messenger. Quite irresponsibly he accused her of “hugely damaging morale” and undermining public confidence.  

What damages morale and undermines public confidence is cutting resources and staff to such an extent that the service faces an impossible task. Councillors failing to scrutinise effectively also damages morale and undermines public confidence. To make matters worse, just ahead of the report’s disclosure, three members of this committee, who were not afraid to ask challenging questions, were removed from the Select Committee. 

Their replacements are:

Lionel Barnard, the former Cabinet Member who approved the last round of major cuts to fire & rescue, despite clear evidence of risks to public safety. Cuts that their own modelling indicated could result in an extra death every two years and over £80,000 extra property damage each year.

David Barling, the former Cabinet Member who implemented those cuts and dismissed concerns about increased response times as “scaremongering”. He called on Councillors to ignore the Council's extra death and property damage figures and angrily attacked anyone, including residents, who voiced concerns. Concerns that have since proved well founded.

Roger Oakley, former Vice Chair of the Governance and Standards Committees who refused to investigate the dubious deal that saw an extra senior post created by Council officers for the benefit of a senior Council officer. He also refused to do anything about the Council’s inadequate record keeping after a Judge led tribunal criticised the County Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice.”

The timing of these changes suggest they have less to do with
ensuring proper scrutiny and more to do with damage control.

The truth about failed response times

As if to confirm those concerns, David Barling tried to play down the Inspector’s comment that the service hasn’t met their own standard for response times since 2014/15, by saying it was just one percent below last year. What he did not say was that the West Sussex standard is lower than most fire & rescue services.

Unfortunately, the Inspector’s report only quoted the West Sussex standard for very high-risk areas (first fire engine in 8 minutes and the second in 11 minutes). Yet the service says they no longer have any areas requiring that standard. I don’t know if the Inspector made an error or was misled, but I intend to ask the question.

The actual standard they are failing to achieve for response to life threatening incidents is:

Risk grading	Area covered by this grading	To arrive within (minutes)
		First fire engine	Second fire engine
High	2%	10	13
Medium	37%	12	15
Low	61%	14	17

Compared to Hampshire’s 8 minute target and Surrey’s 10 minute target for all areas, 

West Sussex’s failure to meet their generous targets is nothing to be proud of.

 Funding cuts are directly responsible for poor response times.
"Long travel distances have increased as a reason for failure, as we have four less operational fire stations in West Sussex." "The performance on the second pump is weaker than the first due to recent changes within WSFRS. This includes the removal of the second fire engine from three stations."

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service 2018-19 Quarter 3 Operational Performance Report

Heads in the sand over bullying

David Barling also questioned the Inspector’s comments on bullying, because no one had complained to him about bullying when he was Cabinet Member! I am afraid his comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about harassment and bullying. My WSCC training on the subject made it very clear that victims tend to withdraw into themselves and often won't talk about it.  If Mr Barling genuinely believes that firefighters would open up about such things to a Cabinet Member, then he is really naïve.

I have some sympathy for Neil Stocker, as he has been left holding the baby, and a sickly baby it is. However, his optimism on morale is misplaced. It is at an 'all time low', and just because he and a FBU official were unaware of harassment and bullying, is not evidence that things are OK. I accept that it is difficult to detect, but trying to downplay the report's findings is not going to improve anything.

The Chief Inspector pointed out that West Sussex had evidence of bullying 
at least two years before the inspection, but had failed to take action.

I welcome that they now say they are taking steps to address the problem with new policies and a new officer post, but will that be enough? The County Council has had policies, training and staff responsible for diversity and inclusion for many years, and that includes Fire & Rescue. I first attended WSCC/WSFRS diversity training, delivered by external specialists, over 20 years ago.

If Councillors and managers can't grasp the fundamentals of bullying and harassment,
I have serious doubts they can improve the situation.

WSCC policy in 2010

A few Councillors do support the fire & rescue service

Thankfully there were two County Councillors at the meeting who do recognise the County Council's failings and voiced their genuine support for fire & rescue service staff. Michael Jones and James Walsh have long campaigned to prevent the Council's reckless cuts and they continue to try and hold the Council to account. 

Councillor Michael Jones said that he thought the problem was not just confined to fire & rescue. He saw the link between less staff trying to cope with an impossible workload leading to stress and that sometimes resulting in bullying. A problem I witnessed when I was working with different departments at County Hall as cuts and poorly planned reorganisation took place. I raised my concerns with the then Chief Executive and my comments included:

“With less staff, people are under greater pressure, so have less time to help colleagues, and managers have less time to support staff. Training is either not given, or people do not have time to attend it. Many experienced staff have left, so we have managers who are not only less experienced, they are also less well trained. Lack of time is also stopping effective consultation.

Standards of behaviour are dropping, and people do not treat others with respect. Now some of that may be a social problem, but pressure of work and stress will also be a factor.”

The Chief Executive accepted there were problems and was clearly trying to address them, but unfortunately Louise Goldsmith decided she no longer needed a Chief Executive. When he left, things went from bad to worse.

County Council may make things worse

Councillor James Walsh also pointed out that these problems were not new and that he had spoken to staff who had told him about low morale in the service. He identified the direct link between funding cuts and failed response times, especially in rural areas.

He correctly identified that the Council is in danger of making things worse by advertising for a Chief Fire Officer who doesn't need to have fire service experience. He said, "The idea of the army being led by an accountant, or the police led by a business manager would be an anathema in those services. It is the same in terms of respect and leadership in the fire service."

He said that the message in the report is that the problems start at the top, with the political leadership of the Council, where the cost of everything is known, but the value of the service to the public is not understood.

Debbie Kennard's silence after the concerns voiced by Michael Jones and James Walsh spoke volumes. 

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service does not need an enthusiastic cheerleader, 

it needs a Cabinet Member with a grip on the problems and a determination to improve. 

Residents and firefighters need an experienced fire service professional as Chief Fire Officer. 

The County Council needs a leader who puts the safety of residents before party political ideology.

West Sussex deserves better