Shocking weakness in West Sussex/Surrey fire control deal revealed

 Diverted emergency calls cannot be actioned

West Sussex County Council has gone to great lengths to hide details of their inadequate deal for Surrey Fire & Rescue to handle West Sussex emergency calls. The reasons why are now becoming clear. 

At Friday’s Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee, thanks to determined questioning by Councillor Michael Jones, it emerged that the back-up, or 'buddy', fire control that receives West Sussex emergency calls when Surrey fire control cannot, is unable to send any help. 

When Surrey fire control is busy, those in trouble will have their calls diverted to the 'buddy' control at Merseyside Fire & Rescue. Callers will understandably think, after giving details of the emergency, that help will be on the way, but it will not. Merseyside will have to pass the details to the already busy Surrey fire control before any help is sent.

So, whenever Surrey fire control is overwhelmed with calls during periods of heavy demand, there could be lengthy delays. That is bad enough but if Surrey fire control must be evacuated, or if they suffer a serious technical failure, this unacceptable lack of resilience will mean no help is sent to emergencies in West Sussex or Surrey.

The Government paid West Sussex County Council and East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service millions of pounds to help set up the combined Sussex Fire Control Centre at Haywards Heath. Part of that funding was to provide the technology for a 'buddy' control that would receive emergency calls for Sussex and could then send local fire engines to the emergency. Work was underway for Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue to be able to do that.

Despite progress to provide that resilience, and the millions of pounds of national and local taxpayer's money spent, West Sussex County Council abandoned the Sussex Fire Control agreement just four years after it began handling West Sussex emergencies. Not only doing the dirty on East Sussex but abandoning proper resilience for the inadequate resilience of Surrey’s fire control. 

This is another example of inept and hasty decision making by WSCC's Cabinet, and inadequate scrutiny by County Councillors.

Cabinet Member’s ‘Del Boy’ reassurances

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow once again deliberately misled the meeting. He claimed that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) had said staffing levels in the Surrey Control Room were adequate. 

They did not. 

The report he referred to was not about standard staffing, it was about arrangements during the pandemic. He failed to mention that the report also said that Surrey had provided more trained staff for the control room during the pandemic. It is also doubtful that HMICFRS has the knowledge and expertise to properly assess control room staffing levels.

The Cabinet Member also decided to play politics by criticising Michael Jones for daring to ask legitimate questions about inadequate staffing levels. Levels that were clearly inadequate, as after Michael Jones first raised concerns, standard staffing levels were increased by two on each shift. He also rightly questions if this will be enough when East Sussex hand responsibility for their call handling to Surrey. Something forced on them by West Sussex County Council's hasty and ill-considered desertion from the Sussex fire control.

Mr Crow’s naïve claim that, “clearly there are always going to be the right number of staff to operate that control room”, is just unsubstantiated fantasy. Listening to his assurances is rather like listening to TV character Del Boy Trotter telling you all his products are guaranteed.

Mr. Crow has also been blinded by the false notion that new technology allows staffing levels to be reduced. Technology may simplify some operator tasks, but enough staff must be available to receive emergency calls, speak to other services, and undertake the many other actions that can only be carried out by a person, especially at busy times. 

Emergencies are random events and the need for several staff to be available to deal with sudden increases in demand cannot be replaced by technology. It is even more vital following the revelation that the Merseyside ‘buddy’ control must contact the already busy Surrey control before any help can be sent to West Sussex emergencies.

Inadequate answers

It is concerning that Assistant Chief Jon Lacey, as the control project manager, either did not know what call queuing is, or chose to avoid the question by talking about prioritising incidents. 

Call queuing is where an emergency service chooses to accept the ‘999’ call with the caller then hearing a recorded message saying the control room is busy and asking them to stay on the line. The call is not diverted to another control and the wait to speak to an operator could be lengthy.

West Sussex residents deserve a proper answer to this question.

Deputy Chief Mark Andrews suggested that slight improvements in the number of times Surrey's control alerted West Sussex stations within two minutes of receiving an emergency call was a success. 

However, he failed to mention that at no time since Surrey took over, in December 2019, has their best performance even equalled Sussex fire control's worst performance. It seems their "state of the art technology" is not as wonderful as they want us to believe.

Worse performance is not a success.

It was also disappointing that Councillor David Edwards question about moving fire engines around the county did not get a straight answer from Chief Fire Officer Dr Sabrina Cohen-Hatton. He referred to fire engines being moved to different areas, something the Chief Officer said was a regular occurrence. 

He asked if there were occasions when a fire engine was moved to another area and an emergency call is then received in the area that the fire engine had been moved from.

The straight answer is yes, on occasions, fire engines are moved further away from the location of the next call. 

That happens because the dynamic cover tool they keep referring to is not one of these:

Not available in Fire Controls

The dynamic cover tool cannot tell them where the next incident will be, fundamentally it only knows where and when previous incidents have happened. That may indicate an increased likelihood of incidents in certain locations and at certain times, but it cannot predict them. 

Moving fire engines to maintain response times in one area inevitably means increased response times in the area it came from. It is always a gamble, the odds may be slightly better but you, or more accurately the public, can still lose out. The County Council has already significantly lengthened the odds of getting a quick response by cutting a quarter of the front-line fire engines in West Sussex.

A life-threatening emergency can occur at any time and in any part of West Sussex.

A quick and effective response at any time, to any part of West Sussex is vital.

The dynamic cover tool may sound like a technological advance, but it cannot advise relocating limited resources any better than a fully trained control room operator. It may also make worse decisions, as it does not have the flexibility that a skilled control room operator has to consider all the factors in play at a particular time.

It is quite incredible that WSCC has chosen a fire control arrangement that is less resilient than arrangements 20 years ago. When West Sussex had their own control room in Chichester, an immediate evacuation would see emergency calls diverted to the East Sussex control room. Unlike Merseyside, East Sussex were able to contact West Sussex stations to ensure help was sent. 

West Sussex County Council has once again increased the risk to residents

They must urgently ensure that a fully resilient fire control back up is provided

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

County Council secrecy and dishonesty continues to damage the fire & rescue service

Worst response times to high risk areas, inaccurate statistics and cover up

It seem that West Sussex County Council is still covering up their failings with regard to the fire & rescue service. Despite some signs of improvement in parts of the service, the County Council is still arrogantly ignoring their responsibility to be transparent and accountable.

The latest example was at the October Cabinet meeting, when questions from Councillor Michael Jones, leader of the Labour group on the Council, were ignored. The minutes of the meeting not only misrepresent the questions he raised but dishonestly claim, "the Chief Fire Officer responded to his questions." She did not, Council Leader Paul Marshall, who chaired the meeting, did not invite the Chief Fire Officer to answer those questions, he ignored them and moved on. It was blatant political bias, as when Conservative Councillors asked questions he did invite the Chief Fire Officer to answer them.

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow has been claiming response time improvements, yet he ignored the serious deterioration in response times to areas classed as high risk. The figures published in the latest quarterly performance report show the worst figures for five years, with the target being missed on 20% of calls. Councillor Jones asked why they were so bad and what steps were being taken to improve them. He got no answer.

He asked about discrepancies in the incident statistics shown in the annual report for 2019/20. In one part of the report it says 9,522 incidents attended, but in another part it says 9,582. The national fire statistics, compiled from reports submitted by WSFRS, show there were 9,620 incidents, which is 98 more calls than WSFRS claim in their report. Councillor Jones asked for an explanation, but his request was again ignored.

Michael Jones also asked why details of the wholetime and on-call establishment for the new fire station at Horsham had not been provided and he asked for details. He got no answer.

Finally, he voiced concern about the failure to provide statistics in response to a freedom of information request (full details available on the WhatDoTheyKnow website). This happened to be a request I had submitted in July and it is the first year that WSFRS had refused to provide the statistics. They claimed that they were intended for publication in the Annual Statement of Assurance and Annual Report, so were exempt. This appeared to be a dubious excuse, as the details requested had never been published in that report before. 

Surprise, surprise, when the report was presented to the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee in September, the information requested was not in the report. Councillor Jones asked for an explanation and for the information to be provided to those requesting it and to himself. The question was ignored. 

I don't know if he has received the information, but I still haven't, despite being told that any statistics not in the report would be sent to me within two weeks. I have now referred the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Continuing secrecy over the Surrey Fire Control fiasco

Thanks to the Information Commissioner, a little information about this fiasco has eventually been released, but West Sussex County Council is still trying to keep other details secret. After being told the exemption they claimed was not lawfully used, they are now claiming a different and equally dubious exemption. The Commissioner is investigating.

According to WSCC, releasing details of the Surrey control room failures in December 2019 and January 2020, and the action taken to fix them, will "endanger the physical or mental health and/or safety of an individual or group". They don't explain who or why and they go on to claim that releasing the information would identify "potential vulnerabilities". Yet West Sussex County Councillors were previously told that all the problems had been fixed, which should mean there are no vulnerabilities. 

The information also suggests why they were so keen to keep it secret and why they are still trying to hide other details. It appears that West Sussex paid scant attention to the issue of adequate staffing and the agreement was approved by a manager with no training or experience of control rooms. It also appears that they did not refer to any standards, good practice guides, studies or research material when reaching the agreement with Surrey, and even ignored the essential Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure’s guidance.

It seems that West Sussex just accepted Surrey's incredibly inadequate staffing of just six per shift, which Surrey claim ensures a minimum of five control room operators on duty. That leaves very little room to cover absences for training, annual leave, sickness etc., and will inevitably see delays at busy times. When West Sussex ran their own control room they also had six per shift, but that was to ensure at least four on duty for significantly fewer incidents.

Inadequate staffing = those calling for help having to wait longer for help more frequently.  

Cabinet Member wants to fiddle the figures

At the last Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee meeting, Cabinet Member Duncan Crow told Councillors how they could improve the statistics for the time that Surrey take to answer '999' calls. They are supposed to answer all of them in less than 7 seconds, but have been failing to do so on around 5% of calls. In an adequately staffed and properly run control room '999' callers should be answered immediately, and certainly well under 7 seconds. He said that as some incidents can generate multiple calls, they should only assess the time it takes to answer the first '999' call. He said he knew that would make the figures "better".

Not only is this shabby manipulation, it suggests subsequent '999' calls are unimportant. Quickly answering repeat calls to an incident is vitally important. Subsequent calls can provide more accurate addresses, as well as critical details that can affect the safety of firefighters and the public. It is also absolutely vital, if the first call is not from the property involved, that a later call from someone trapped by the fire is answered immediately. If it is not, then the delay in the call handler giving life saving advice and obtaining information from the caller to help firefighters locate them quickly can cost lives.

Councillor Crow also seems to be disregarding the Council's legal responsibility to “make arrangements for dealing with calls for help”. That applies to all emergency calls, not just the first one. It is not the Chief Fire Officers of West Sussex or of Surrey, or Surrey County Council that are legally responsible for effective arrangements for dealing with calls for help from West Sussex residents. It is West Sussex County Council that remains legally responsible, as they are the  Fire & Rescue Authority and, as Cabinet Member, it is Councillor Crow who is answerable in law and to the public.

Every call to an incident is important and must be answered quickly, 

fiddling the figures is unacceptable.

Scrutiny Chairman wants to restrict scrutiny

At the same meeting, Chairman Steve Waight said that he wanted "to avoid us looking at any operational issues”. Yet there is no legitimate reason for preventing the committee from scrutinising operational issues. The County Council is legally responsible for all matters concerning the fire & rescue service, so Councillors should not be prevented from questioning any aspect of the service.

Now it may be that Councillor Waight is getting confused after his brief flirtation with the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, a few years back. If so, he needs to understand that there are fundamental differences, established in law, between the two services. 

Chief Constables hold office under the Crown and are directly accountable for the exercise of police powers. They are operationally independent of elected Police and Crime Commissioners and Police and Crime Panels to ensure that politicians cannot interfere with how the law is applied, including who is arrested and who is not. Legislation also places specific duties on the Chief Constable.

Chief Fire Officers do not hold office under the Crown, they are simply employees of the Fire & Rescue Authority. Legislation places no specific duties on Chief Fire Officers, the legal duty for all aspects of the service's provision and operation is placed on the Fire & Rescue Authority, which is West Sussex County Council. There is no legal justification, or need, for operational independence.

Some Chief Fire Officers in the past have given poor advice, and some will no doubt do so in the future. Now that Chief Fire Officers can be appointed without any fire service experience, the quality of that professional advice must increasingly be in doubt. West Sussex, fortunately, appointed a professional Chief Fire Officer who started out as a firefighter, but that does not relieve Councillors of their duty to scrutinise thoroughly. I also doubt that the Chief Fire Officer would want scrutiny limited, as that is not in the interest of her staff or of West Sussex residents.

If WSCC is to avoid another inadequate rating, they must stop fiddling the figures, they must be transparent, and they must scrutinise properly

 

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.

  

Surrey fire control deal puts West Sussex lives at risk

At the recent Environment, Communities and Fire Scrutiny Committee meeting at County Hall, Councillors questioned claims that the arrangement for Surrey to control the response to West Sussex emergencies was "a success". Unfortunately, the denials and assurances sounded ever so familiar.

Groundhog Day

When the West Sussex control room was closed and the Sussex control room opened, WSFRS officers assured Councillors it would be straightforward and the Cabinet Member claimed it was a success. When reports of problems were leaked, WSFRS officers and the Cabinet member dismissed them and only admitted to "teething problems" that had been "fixed".

"There is nothing that would give me or officers cause for concern"

Cabinet Member Lionel Barnard August 2014

Lionel Barnard added that staffing was satisfactory, sickness had dropped and everything is "as we would expect it." Yet, a freedom of information request revealed a very different story, and one that would get worse.

There were also strenuous efforts, in both East and West Sussex, to keep problems with the technology secret. This went on for over four years and thousands of pounds were spent trying to fix the problems. It was only after West Sussex's Chief Fire Officer Sean Ruth left that East Sussex began to admit problems, although they blamed connections to existing systems and the old chestnut, "teething problems". 

Although those who reported the original concerns believed that the problems had been fixed by 2018 and the Control Centre was working well, West Sussex decided to leave East Sussex in the lurch by abandoning the Sussex Control Centre. Rushing in to this deal with Surrey, and spending even more money, has again resulted in reports of problems with staffing and technology.

The previous assurances about the arrangements with East Sussex proved false, dishonest even,

so how can we have faith in the latest assurances about the arrangement with Surrey?

Assurances not enough, evidence is needed

Councillors, notably Michael Jones and James Walsh, rightly questioned those assurances and asked for more detail and some evidence to support them. The question is, will the details and evidence be published to allow proper scrutiny, or will they be sent to Councillors with instructions not to reveal the detail? An all too common tactic from West Sussex County Council when they wish to cover up failures.

In an effort to try and ensure information is made public, I have submitted Freedom of Information requests to both West Sussex and Surrey. Of course they may try and keep that information secret, by using exemptions in the legislation, but if they are truly open and honest they will not. It will certainly be an interesting test of WSCC's claims to be improving their culture, especially with regard to honesty and accountability. 

The meeting was told that the FBU Safety Critical Notice was just a Surrey affair and that West Sussex FBU officials had not raised any issues. That may have misled Councillors in to believing that the errors and failings had not affected West Sussex. As West Sussex firefighters had reported 'near hit' events to managers, they would have no need to report them to the FBU. That would only follow if they believed no action was being taken.

It was admitted at the meeting that there had been 'near hit' reports and a weekend system failure, but it was claimed they were not safety critical. I beg to differ. A 'near hit' report means safety was compromised, and it was only luck that meant serious consequences did not result. It is like saying a safety harness failure wasn't safety critical because the person wearing it was close to the ground and wasn't hurt.

It was disappointing to hear that some Councillors were unconcerned about these failures because "you expect teething problems". This was supposed to be a state of the art, tried and tested system, not some early stage experimental computer system. These are not "teething problems" or "bedding in" difficulties, they are failures. 

Failures of concept, of planning, of testing, of training, 

of implementation, of data validation, or all of those.

When lives depend on a system, such failures are unacceptable.

Having heard the dubious claim that less staff were needed because the system relied more on system data being updated automatically, I was astonished to then hear that the data updating was unreliable. It depended on the mobile telephone network and coverage was poor in some areas. The committee was then told that they were going to switch to the Airwave system to improve the situation, but it could take three months to get the necessary licence.

So why did they go ahead before it was in place? No explanation was given. The Committee Chairman said he knew about the licence issue last July, but the meeting was told the application had not yet been submitted. That beggars belief. The mention of Airwave raises further concerns:

• Airwave is basically a mobile telephone system that also does not have 100% coverage.
• Like other mobile telephone systems, Airwave can experience failures and overload.
• Airwave is due to be replaced by the Emergency Services Network, which is yet another mobile telephone system that has yet to be fully tested.

West Sussex residents less safe

The committee was told that ways of working had been changed "for alignment". No detail was given, but reports suggest that West Sussex has cut their levels of protection for the public to match Surrey's poor standards.

Leaving busier fire stations without a fire engine is not a 'culture change', 

it is a downgrading of the service provided to West Sussex residents.

Councillors were told that the system had a new tool for mapping risk and maintaining cover, as if that somehow made it acceptable because it is the computer that says "NO". The parameters used by the computer are determined by the supplier and should meet the requirements of the Service. If the system is as good as claimed, then it should be perfectly possible to have West Sussex standards applied, even if they are different to Surrey's. 

It was concerning to hear about dependence on 'the cloud'. Whilst it is true that this may offer some benefits, it also creates new vulnerabilities. Industry experts will admit that your data could get lost, wiped, corrupted or stolen. They will of course assure you that they take security very seriously, but we have seen many large organisations, who take security seriously, suffer significant problems including denial of service, theft of data and infected systems.

For many years fire services ensured that their control room systems were isolated and protected. 

Now they are happy to put them at risk to save a bit of money. 

I am also concerned that data obtained by West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, which they are legally obliged to protect, is now accessible to Surrey County Council and those contractors and sub contractors used to store or transmit that data. The more people that have access, the greater the risk of unauthorised, malicious or criminal access. WSFRS obtains a lot of data from individuals and businesses that is personal data under data protection legislation, or is commercially or security sensitive.

If a GP refers a patient to another part of the NHS, the GP has to have written permission to share their details. So I wonder how many West Sussex residents and businesses have been asked if they are happy for their data to be shared with, or accessible to, other public and private organisations?

Over £4 million wasted

It was also disappointing to hear the Assistant Chief Fire Officer suggest that, because the control building at Haywards Heath could be used for other purposes when East Sussex move out, money had not been wasted. Finding a use for the building is not the issue, over £2 million was spent on converting it to meet the specialist needs of a fire service control facility. In addition, another £2 million of the £3.6 million Government grant was spent on equipment and work that will now be wasted.

These joint figures were published by East Sussex in 2014, so they do not include subsequent spending by both Services to fix problems. Exactly how much has never been revealed, with some costs being hidden under other budget headings. The Surrey move means that most of the money spent at Haywards Heath has been wasted, and even more is likely to be spent on converting it back to other uses. 

Inadequate staffing levels a major threat to safety

The excuse given to Councillors for such low levels of staffing in Surrey's control was that the technology reduces the need for staff to undertake certain tasks. Yet we were also told that when the technology fails, staff can carry out those tasks. No one can predict when failures will occur, which means that when they do staffing will be hopelessly inadequate.

No matter how good the technology, it cannot replace the Control Operator's ability to gather vital information from often agitated and distressed callers and to ensure that the right help is quickly on its way. No one can predict when many callers may need that help at the same time, which means that when they do staffing will be hopelessly inadequate.

This is not a commercial call centre where staffing can be varied to match expected demand and, if demand is unexpectedly high, the only result is frustrated customers. This is a critical control room managing the fire and rescue service's response to life threatening emergencies. There is no pattern to instances of high demand, it can happen at any time of day, on any day of the week, and at any time of the year.

There are not enough staff in the Surrey Control Room to safely deal with emergencies in Surrey and West Sussex. It will be even worse when they also deal with East Sussex emergencies.

Relative workload per Operator on minimum staffing 

(last column assumes minimum increased by one, as it did when West Sussex joined)

Not enough Control Operators to answer calls for help means
people in danger wait longer for Firefighters to arrive

Bullying & dishonesty at West Sussex County Council meeting

I am afraid the debate on the fire & rescue service motion at last week’s County Council meeting brought out the worst in some Conservative County Councillors. Instead of focusing on the improvements being proposed, they resorted to political attacks and bogus facts to deflect from their failure to provide an adequate fire and rescue service.

This is the motion, from County Councillor Michael Jones:

‘This Council notes with dismay the findings of the recently published Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) Inspection report on the West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS) with a rating of “needs improvement’ for Efficiency, a rating of ‘needs improvement’ for Effectiveness and a rating of ‘inadequate’ for People. It is also the only service in the country not to get a ‘good’ rating in any category.

This Council recognises that staff in WSFRS do an excellent job in protecting people in West Sussex but that they have been let down by a failure of political leadership at the County Council, which has allowed cost-cutting and budget pressures to take priority over the maintenance of what HMICFS considers acceptable standards.

This has been exacerbated by decisions from the Cabinet that have seen fire stations closed, and second and third fire engines being removed from some remaining stations. Reports from the former Chief Fire Officer confirm they were major reasons for increased response times. Despite the Council’s extended response standard for most of the county of 14 minutes, the service has been unable to meet it, as the inspectorate notes, since 2014.

This Council also recognises that this is the second inspection in recent months that has seen a vital service, important to the welfare and safety of all West Sussex residents, being judged as insufficient to meet the required standard and it has become unsustainable for this council to have confidence in a Leader and Cabinet who have presided over such an outcome. This Council therefore expresses that it has no confidence in the Leader and Cabinet.

This Council therefore calls on the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities (or their successors, if and when they are appointed) to:

(1) Completely withdraw the cuts to WSFRS proposed for 2019/20 that were put on hold for one year, and prioritise the recruitment of additional firefighters to replace those cut since 2010.

(2) Stop prevaricating on the clearly unfair funding that WSFRS is receiving compared to other surrounding fire authorities and to finally press the Government for urgent additional funding to properly resource the very stretched service, something which the Leader and the Cabinet Member have failed to do, despite being mandated over six months ago by a full meeting of this council dated 14 December 2018.

(3) Urgently progress the updating of outdated software and communication equipment in the Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that there is a clearer picture of operational staffing levels and gaps.

(4) Ensure as soon as possible that the Fire and Rescue Service launches an anti-bullying campaign to stamp out any instances of bullying and harassment, which will finally carry out advice that was given to WSFRS following the results of a staff stress survey as long ago as 2017.

(5) Take steps to increase the diversity of the workforce, particularly in respect of more female firefighters and more from the BAME communities, and to work with councillors and other bodies across the county to reach out to local people from these minority groups to encourage them to consider becoming both wholetime and on-call firefighters.

(6) Do more to tackle shortages of on-call firefighters and the need to finally accept some of the deep rooted problems with recruitment and retention of on-call firefighters will need more than marginal changes, but a whole new approach that recognises that:

(a)   more wholetime firefighters are needed to guarantee availability in certain areas of the county; and

(b) recruiting and retaining On Call Firefighters crews can be easier in larger settlements within West Sussex, and the first step should be restoring the third fire engine and oncall firefighter crew at Crawley Fire Station.

(7) Launch a review, led by an independent person external to this Council, to determine whether alternative governance arrangements for WSFRS may be necessary, given the findings of the inspection report. The review would investigate whether it is still in the best interests of the service for current governance to continue if the County Council, squeezed by continuing Conservative national government cuts, concludes that it cannot afford to meet its duty to resource the service to the level required to protect the residents of West Sussex with acceptable levels of service and performance. The terms of reference for this review to be drawn up with all relevant parties in WSFRS, and to include their employees’ trade union representatives.’

County Councillor James Walsh proposed an amendment that added the following to the motion, which Michael Jones accepted:

'This Council also asks the Leader to publicly apologise to both the staff of the West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service and to the people of West Sussex, for the failures of this Council that have resulted in this poor inspection being received.'

Inept or deliberate misinformation?

That motion was perfectly reasonable and clearly intended to help improve our fire & rescue service. However, Jacquie Russell, new Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities, was the first to accuse others of being 'political', whilst forgetting that she is a politician and was appointed to a political position in a political Cabinet. 

She then falsely claimed the service’s budget had been increased by 6.4% since 2016/17. I don't know if she was simply inept, or was deliberately intending to deceive, but a simple check of the County Council’s annual reports on the fire & rescue service would have shown her that funding was cut from £25.9 million to £25.5 million.

West Sussex Fire and Rescue Authority Annual Report and Statement of Assurance 2016-17

West Sussex Fire and Rescue Authority Annual Statement of Assurance 2018-19

The Cabinet Member then went on to claim that the cost of providing the service in West Sussex was £21.98 per person, which is again wrong, it is £29.92 per person. Later Councillor Steve Waight said that this was not about money, as Kent got a ‘good’ rating by spending just £20.57, which is also wrong, it is £38.61. 

The figures they quoted were not how much was spent on the fire & rescue service, it was the Inspectorate’s calculation of firefighter cost per person. The Inspectorate clearly state those figures cannot be used for comparison on performance, as wholetime and on call firefighter numbers, and costs, differ significantly.

Fire & Rescue Service	Total spent	Population	Cost per head
Kent	£70.75 million	1,832,300	£38.61
West Sussex	£25.5 million	852,400	£29.92

 Source: total spent - Kent & West Sussex annual reports. Population - Home Office Fire & Rescue Service data

Too little, too late

Now Jacquie Russell did go on to tell us that Council Leader Louise Goldsmith has finally written to the Minister of State about the unfair funding that West Sussex receive for the fire & rescue service. However, she did not explain why it has taken her so long to do this. 

The FBU highlighted it last year, I notified Louise Goldsmith of the Government's unequal treatment of West Sussex in September of last year and Michael Jones raised it at a County Council meeting last December. His proposal that the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities should jointly write to the relevant Government Minister was passed by 48 votes to 6. Louise Goldsmith was even one of those who voted to do that, but inexplicably delayed for over six months.

More worrying perhaps was that the six votes against included the Cabinet Member at the time, Debbie Kennard, and the new Cabinet Member Jacquie Russell. With that sort of failure to support the service, Mrs Russell's appointment does not bode well for the future of our fire & rescue service.

David Barling blunders in with more fake news

David Barling used to be the Cabinet Member responsible for the fire & rescue service and frequently claims to understand the service better than many of his Council colleagues. So it was surprising to hear him criticise others for inaccuracies, but then use a string of fake facts himself. Presumably, because if he had used the truth there could have been no criticism of others or the motion.

David Barling claimed that the fire station closures were not to save cash and that the “the fireground had moved"! When they closed the stations they made much of the money they would save and made no mention at all of the fireground moving! They didn't of course because it would be bonkers to say “the fireground had moved". Had everyone living on Bosham's fireground magically moved closer to Chichester? Of course not.

He also said that "the stations were badly served" because not enough people came forward to be "retained firemen" and that meant the fire engines "very rarely went out.” He said that he knew that because he "listened at the time". Clearly he didn't listen very well and failed to read the reports proposing the closures.

If he had he would have seen that one of the stations they closed, Horley, was "going out" over 1,000 times a year. The station was also crewed by wholetime firefighters, not retained. 

He was also wrong about the three retained (on call) stations they closed, Bosham, Findon and Keymer. Before they closed them the three stations had enough retained firefighters to ‘go out’ on average 500 times a year. That cannot be claimed to be "very rarely went out.” 

Considering Mr Barling's frequent claims to know the fire service well, his reference to ‘firemen’ further confirms how out of touch he really is. 

West Sussex has been employing firefighters, not ‘firemen’, for over 20 years.

Failing to meet the worst response targets in the southeast

Mr Barling claimed that they were coming "within a hair's breadth of the target", but failed to mention that the West Sussex response time targets mean West Sussex residents are expected to wait longer for help to arrive than residents in neighbouring counties. He also seems content that they fail to meet the generous targets for over 20% of incidents where people need help.

He also falsely claimed that other fire & rescue service’s times didn’t start until the fire engine left the station, whilst West Sussex response times are measured from when the call was received.

Government figures clearly show that not only do all the response times start from when the call is received, they even break them down in to call handing time, time for the appliance to respond, and travel time.

To be fair to David Barling, one of his statements was correct, “we take the longest time". Perhaps that Freudian slip shows that he does know the truth, but just doesn't want to admit it. 

Council Leader shoots herself in the foot

Council Leader Louise Goldsmith, apparently desperate to find something positive, referred to figures in the Chief Fire Officer’s briefing note that showed West Sussex had less fires than many other fire & rescue services. With weather, chance, social deprivation and many other factors influencing the number of fires, how many fires a fire & rescue service receives in any one year is hardly an indicator of performance.

What Louise Goldsmith effectively told the Council was that many other fire & rescue services have to cope with more fires, but are rated adequate, whilst West Sussex, which has to deal with less fires, is not considered adequate.

Hypocrisy & Political Opportunism

The day's prize for hypocrisy must got to Councillor David Edwards. After complaining about a "tirade from a political opportunist", he launched in to his own political tirade. Why he thought an attack on Jeremy Corbyn had any relevance to the debate, or would help fix the Council's failure to run the fire and rescue service properly, escapes me. Unless of course it was intended to divert attention from those failings. 

I have no problem with him criticising Jeremy Corbyn, but it has nothing to do with the Council's failings. I am though concerned, when there are issues around bullying, about the example set by his vitriolic rant, which verged on hate speech. Sadly, if all David Edwards and his colleagues can do is sound off and politicise the fire & rescue service, I see little hope that they will be able to fix the service.

His comment about ensuring "that we continue to provide the best possible service for the residents of West Sussex and the best possible conditions for our firefighters" was little more than deluded grandstanding. Mr Edwards, you have not been providing the best possible service, you are providing an inadequate one. You are not providing the best possible conditions for our firefighters, you have made the job of firefighters much more difficult, more dangerous and morale is now at an all time low.

Independent, Labour and Liberal Democrat Councillors once again did their best for firefighters and the public but sadly the Conservatives on the Council put their Party first and defeated the motion. 

Despite all their claims, it seems they aren't really concerned 

with firefighter conditions or public safety.

If the County Council is going to fix the fire & rescue service, Councillors need to stop bullying their critics, making excuses, and using hopelessly inaccurate information.