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.        

No wonder things go wrong when WSCC don't care about experience for vital top jobs

Following yesterday's disturbing news, I now learn that the Chief Fire Officer's job has been advertised with an advert that includes this ludicrous sentence:

"Fire service experience would be helpful, it is not essential for this leadership role." 

The idea, so often expounded by management 'experts' and consultants, that managers do not need to know the organisation or business they are managing in detail, is fundamentally flawed. You only have to look at the civil service and the numerous failed Government projects to understand why that philosophy is so flawed. 

Local government is not much better, with senior managers flitting from one section to another after yet another reorganisation. That often leaves one crisis behind, as they create another in the new post. There are also many businesses that have failed after someone is put in charge who has no experience of the specific challenges and requirements of that business.

I grew up in a family business and had other relatives running successful businesses, so learnt about the challenges from an early age. Each of them knew exactly how every part of those businesses worked and were able to carry out any function in that business. That is why they prospered whilst others failed.

Several years ago the fire service experimented with an accelerated promotion scheme where, after a special course, a person could skip several ranks. It was an unmitigated disaster and was dropped. Why, because many of those officers missed out on vital sharp end experience and that undermined their ability to make the right decisions, especially under pressure.  

West Sussex County Council will no doubt say that Chief Fire Officers don't often attend incidents, but when they do, or when they attend the inter-agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group for major incidents, it is vital that they fully understand the consequences of their decisions. There is no better way of understanding the hazards and challenges facing firefighters you are directing, than having been in that situation yourself. That experience also makes your day to day decisions on procedures, resources, staffing, training etc properly informed. 

There are enough challenges in running a fire & rescue service 

without adding the challenge of having no fire service experience

To compound the Council's stupidity, I understand they are using a private consulting company to manage the recruitment process, and they haven't advertised the job throughout the fire & rescue service. You really have to wonder how much more money West Sussex County Council will waste on consultants, especially when consultants have been involved in so many of the Council's failures.

Unsurprisingly, this appears to have the fingerprints of Louise Goldsmith and Nathan Elvery all over it. No consultation, no scrutiny, just do what they want and to hell with the consequences. If, by some chance it is not their doing, then they must surely get the advert changed and ensure the job is advertised widely in other fire & rescue services.

In a service where morale is already low, this is just another 
kick in the teeth for loyal and courageous firefighters

I hope sensible Councillors, who are genuinely concerned about public safety, will make it clear that they want a proper, experienced Chief Fire Officer. I see that County Councillor Michael Jones has already made that clear and I trust many more will follow his common sense approach.

If a business fails livelihoods are lost, but if a Chief Fire Officer fails lives are lost

More bad news for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, as County Council makes changes behind closed doors

It seems that Chief Fire Officer Gavin Watts is to retire early, after just 29 years’ service, and Nicola Bulbeck’s post of Executive Director of Communities and Public Protection seems to have vanished from a new structure dreamt up by one of “Private Eye’s” favourites, West Sussex County Council Chief Executive Nathan Elvery. 

From "Inside Croydon" earlier this year

It is particularly surprising, because it was Nathan Elvery who brought Nicola Bulbeck in to the Council after the dodgy deal involving Sean Ruth was exposed.

The deal that would have allowed Sean Ruth to give up being Chief Fire Officer but continue as Executive Director Communities and Public Protection on the same salary. A deal that was costly, as it meant two highly paid posts were needed to replace one. Despite Sean Ruth deciding, or being told to walk away, Nathan Elvery went ahead with the extra post at an additional cost of around £180,000 a year.

So, what part has Council Leader Louise Goldsmith played? Well we know that the County Council told the Information Commissioner that Councillors were not involved in the dodgy deal and that there were no records of who came up with the deal, who approved it or why the decision was taken. However, as Nathan Elvery was the only council officer senior to Sean Ruth, he must be a strong suspect.

Louise Goldsmith & Sean Ruth

Now, if Council Leader Louise Goldsmith and Cabinet Members were really not involved, then why is it that they are refusing to investigate to see if the decision breached regulations or standing orders? Even after a Judge led tribunal was highly critical of the County Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice”, they refused to review the adequacy of those regulations and standards.

Coming after their shocking admissions of failure regarding Children’s Services, it is difficult to have any confidence in changes orchestrated by Nathan Elvery and approved by Louise Goldsmith. Especially when they were responsible for earlier changes that they now seem to be undoing!

BBC News

We don’t know why Gavin Watts is leaving now and we may never know the real reason, but it does raise worrying questions, including:

• Is it anything to do with inadequate funding, or the failure of Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard to get answers about unfair Government funding?

• Is it to do with the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, which is due soon? I could quite understand that he would not want to be the fall guy for failings that result from his predecessor’s decisions and the failings of local and national politicians.

• Is it to do with the imposition of the new management structure and the loss of wider public protection responsibilities?

• Is it because the County Council has diverted money, which should be going to fire & rescue, to prop up other services?

• Is it because fire & rescue is going to face even bigger cuts to fund the measures needed to fix the problems in Children’s Services?

• Did the Chief Executive pressure the Chief Fire Officer to leave?

Or might it be all of those things?

As for Nicola Bulbeck’s post vanishing, it seems to be confirmation of what campaigners said at the time, that it was an unnecessary post and a waste of money. As for Nicola herself, there is no news. If she has in fact been purged, I assume it will once again cost taxpayers a lot of money. 

"The Times" 14 June 2018

Less Safe & Weaker Communities

We were told that fire & rescue, community development and regulatory services were brought together "to help build safer and stronger communities”. Yet Mr Elvery is now removing responsibility for other public protection departments, such as Trading Standards and the Resilience & Emergencies Team, from the Chief Fire Officer. 

Is he really trying to build less safe and weaker communities, or were we lied to before?

Public protection is strangely being added to the Director of Environment's already significant responsibilities, and the new Chief Fire Officer is going to be required to report direct to the Chief Executive. 

Or is something else being plotted? Perhaps fire & rescue is being separated from other WSCC departments to allow for more than just fire control to be taken over by "inadequate" Surrey County Council?

None of these changes will improve the safety of West Sussex residents

and continuing secrecy and lack of scrutiny is an insult to residents