Self deception or deceiving the public?

The response time deception

This week I watched Conservative Cabinet Members congratulating their colleague Duncan Crow on this annual report. Unfortunately, they glossed over matters that should be of real concern and misrepresented others.

Councillor Steve Waight made one pertinent comment:

"The public tell me the most important thing is when you phone them, they come."

However, he then spoilt it by claiming the targets that were being met were tough ones. 

The target for the first fire engine to arrive at critical fires in Hampshire & Isle of Wight within 8 minutes may be considered a tough one. 

The target of 10 minutes in Surrey may be considered a reasonable one. 

Yet, the Cabinet's target for two thirds of West Sussex of 14 minutes, and 12 minutes for the other third, are most definitely not tough targets. 

Especially so as the target allows them to take longer at 11% of critical fires.

The improved performance deception

I was astonished to hear Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton say that she had compared performance with several years ago and was 'absolutely delighted with the way the service has responded.'

I don't know what performance she compared, but it surely can't be to do with the public's primary expectation of a quick and effective response.

The County Council has reduced standard crewing on fire engines by 20%, which makes every crew less effective.

They have closed four fire stations and removed a quarter of frontline fire engines, which inevitably increases response times and reduces the service's effectiveness.

There are now 28% fewer firefighters in West Sussex, and the minimum number on duty in Crawley Borough has been cut by 60%.

Despite County Council claims that cuts would reduce fire deaths by diverting resources to prevention, they have increased.

Source: Home Office Fire & Rescue Service data

The shocking failure to ensure fire engines are crewed

During the day, two thirds of frontline fire engines depend on retained (on call) firefighters. At night, three quarters of frontline fire engines depend on them. Yet the latest figures show that they are unavailable more often than they are available.

Not only is this a serious County Council failure, they secretly dropped the availability target for fire engines crewed by retained firefighters from 88% to 75%.

Source - West Sussex County Council reports

Conservative failure, nationally and locally

The reduction in the service's effectiveness is the result of Conservative policies locally and nationally. With the general election this week there is a chance for people to show that they have had enough, but in West Sussex voters will need to vote tactically to defeat the Tories.

Unfortunately, the recommendations on tactical voting sites are very misleading, because they fail to take account of local differences. They rely on a small sample of national polling, no pollsters survey more than 0.1% of voters, and then try to model voting intentions at constituency level without examining local variations. Some do also look at local voting at previous general elections, but with the boundaries being changed, in some cases significantly, they are still unreliable.

I am not a member of any political party, but have followed politics locally for over 50 years. I have looked at the support shown for different political parties in recent local elections, and the performance of current candidates. My conclusion is that if you want to help remove Conservative MPs from West Sussex, then vote for the following candidates:

Definitely best tactical voting option

Chichester - Liberal Democrat

Crawley - Labour

East Worthing and Shoreham - Labour

Horsham - Liberal Democrat

Mid Sussex - Liberal Democrat

West Worthing - Labour

Less certain best tactical voting option

Arundel and South Downs - Green Party

Bognor Regis and Littlehampton - Labour

East Grinstead and Uckfield - Liberal Democrat

The most important thing is that you actually vote

People want change, but it won't happen unless people get out and vote. There are many excuses used by those who do not vote, but the reality is that they simply help those they complain about stay in power. 

The Reform UK Party deception

One final thought, please don't fall for the lies of the undemocratic and disruptive Reform Party. Not everyone who has fallen under their spell is a racist, xenophobe, Russian apologist, conspiracy theorist, or violent, but too many of their members and several candidates are. 

Not only is their 'contract' mostly unaffordable and unworkable, some of their candidates have some really odd views. Just one example, the Chichester Reform candidate told voters that people who do not run a business do not know what people need, and that policemen who are less than 6 feet tall are no good!

Latest figures show Conservative claims of improvement are false

Response standard failures increase

Paul Marshall, Conservative Leader of West Sussex County Council, says he feels "significant improvements" have been made to the fire & rescue service. Yet the latest figures, released following a freedom of information request, show his claim to be false.

The number of occasions our inadequately resourced fire & rescue service has failed to meet the very generous response times, set by the Conservative run County Council, has nearly doubled in five years. This is not every delayed response either, the figures just cover the first two fire engines arriving at the most serious fires, and the first fire engine arriving at serious non-fire emergencies such as road traffic collisions.

The response said that figures for 2020-21 were unavailable as they "are currently working through the raw data".

Fire deaths on the rise

This latest evidence that the service provided to the public is not improving comes after a recent increase in fire deaths. In the last ten years the Conservatives have cut frontline response resources by a quarter. They claimed it was justified as they would save more lives with prevention work. Final figures for 2020-21 have yet to be confirmed, but four fire deaths have so far been reported to County Councillors. Sadly there are unconfirmed reports that the final figure for 2020-21 may be six.

The chart shows confirmed figures

The Conservatives have failed to properly protect West Sussex residents, yet instead of apologising for their failures they continue to mislead voters by claiming things are improving. Staff in the fire & rescue service have been working their socks off to try and improve performance, but the continued lack of resources makes it an impossible task.

There has been no indication that the Conservatives will stop their arrogant  misrepresentation, improve performance, or even ensure proper scrutiny and accountability. 

It was only last year that Conservative Cabinet Member Duncan Crow's answer to poor call handling times in the Surrey Fire Control, which handles West Sussex calls, was to suggest excluding the worst times from the statistics. 

Conservative Steve Waight, who is supposed to ensure that the performance of the fire & rescue service is properly scrutinised, repeatedly tries to stop discussion of serious concerns by claiming they are 'operational matters'. These 'operational matters' are fundamental to the service's performance and it is essential that they are discussed. 

Incidents are also increasing

Remember when the Conservatives told you that the number of emergencies attended was falling and would continue to fall?

The Conservatives cannot be trusted

with our Fire & Rescue Service

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.

  

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.