County Council failing residents once again

 County Councillors blocked from discussing Government plans for fire & rescue

In May, the Government launched a consultation on changes to the fire & rescue service. They include proposals that could see West Sussex County Council no longer being the fire & rescue authority, with the service handed over to the Police & Crime Commissioner.

Previously, the Council unanimously opposed any such change and agreed to fight any proposals. Yet, not only have County Councillors not seen the Council's response to the consultation, the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee is today being blocked from scrutinising that response.

When I raised my concerns with the Chairman of the committee, Kevin Boram, he told me that they can't scrutinise this important matter, because it "is for the Governance Committee and the Cabinet to lead and scrutiny to contribute in due course".

With the consultation closing on 26 July, it is patently obvious that there will be no scrutiny, as the committee won't meet again until it is too late. The Governance Committee met in June but did not consider the Government White Paper and won't meet again until after the closing date. The Cabinet has also failed to consider the White Paper and even cancelled their June meeting, because "there is no substantive business or decisions required".  

The whole point of having a Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee is to scrutinise all actions and decisions that affect the delivery of the fire & rescue service. That must include the actions and decisions of the Cabinet Member and the Cabinet, as they materially affect the ability of the fire & rescue service to deliver an effective service.

It seems that Councillor Boram has been fobbed off and that Cabinet Member Duncan Crow does not want any Councillors to comment on the Council's response. The question is why, is he reneging on the Council's previous assurances and supporting the Government's plans? 

Councillors should demand answers and insist on the Council's consultation response being published in full.

Performance still inadequate

The reports for today's meeting continue to show that West Sussex residents are being failed by the fire & rescue service. That is not the fault of staff in the service, but the failure of West Sussex County Council to properly resource the service.

Surrey County Council still failing to meet their commitment

Despite all the previous assurances that steps are being taken to improve the time it takes the Surrey County Council run joint fire control to answer emergency calls, performance has dropped by 6.4% this quarter to just 91.1% of them answered in time. After they lowered the performance standard to make it easier to achieve the target, this is especially concerning. Staff in fire control always do their best, so this is either a problem of inadequate numbers of staff, poor technology, or inadequate procedures.

Response times continue to disappoint

It is disturbing to see slight response time improvements in quarter four of 2021/22, compared to last quarter, hailed as a 'particular success'. Failing to meet the response target for the arrival of the first fire engine, of 12 to 14 minutes, at 11% of critical fires can hardly be called a success. Especially when compared to neighbouring services with a target of 8 to 10 minutes. 

It is also notable that the figure for the whole of 2021/22 is worse than the previous year.

Failing to meet targets for the the arrival of the second fire engine at critical fires, and the first fire engine at critical special services (e.g., road traffic collisions with people trapped) at one in five incidents is again not a 'particular success'.

I have no doubt that everyone in the service is doing their best, but they cannot achieve an acceptable performance if they are not given the right resources. You can't expect a motor sport team to win Formula One races, if management only provides them with Go Karts. West Sussex County Council continue to ignore the reality that removing a quarter of frontline fire engines and crews is the principal reason why residents are not getting a proper service.

Crucial retained firefighter availability still in decline

The report also shows that the Council is still failing to reliably crew the remaining frontline fire engines. 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. Looking at the figures for previous years, it is clear that the improvement in the availability during the last two years was purely the effect of the pandemic. With many retained firefighters furloughed from their fulltime jobs, or working from home, they were available more often for response to emergencies. 

The chart shows that the general trend for availability is continuing to deteriorate.

Source - WSFRS performance reports

Although Councillors have been reviewing this problem, the solutions they have come up with are unlikely to halt this decline. Radical measures are required, more funding allocated, and Government must be persuaded to improve pay and conditions for firefighters, both retained and wholetime.

Councillors must stop excusing these failures as 'national problems' and act to properly protect West Sussex residents

 

County Councillors again fail West Sussex residents

Committee Chairman Cllr. Kevin Boram and Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton

At the recent meeting of the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee, Councillors failed to insist that Surrey County Council honour their agreement to meet specified performance standards in their fire control. Instead of answering all '999' calls within 7 seconds, they have dropped the standard to let them take longer than 10 seconds to answer one in twenty emergency calls. The standard for the time taken to notify fire crews of emergencies was also cut.

No justification was given for this performance cut, just a misleading link to a target figure in a working agreement between all the emergency services and British Telecom. It was claimed that now the fire control is handling emergency calls for three authorities, they need to align West Sussex with East Sussex and Surrey Fire & Rescue Services. Sadly, that is simply an excuse to drop adequate West Sussex standards to suit the inadequate standards of others. This is not about fire control personnel not performing well, they do, it is a senior management and Cabinet Member failure.

West Sussex residents deserve high standards, not Surrey's low standards.

Consultation results withheld from Scrutiny Committee

The committee was told that the results of the public consultation on the Community Risk Management Plan had been discussed by the Chairman, the Cabinet Member, and the Chief Fire Officer. Yet no explanation was given for not publishing the results, or for not providing them to the Scrutiny Committee. Keeping the committee in the dark stops them doing their job properly. 

Consultation results should be published now.

Rural areas are not low risk

There was a worrying contradiction with the Chief Fire Officer talking about rural areas being 'low risk', but also referring to the problem of fire deaths in rural areas. She claimed the trend was for victims to be deceased before the alarm is raised, yet no evidence has been produced to substantiate that. Of course, sometimes, that is the case but there are also instances where it is not, which makes a quick response from fire crews vital if lives are to be saved.

She is quite right that it is better to stop fires starting with the use of prevention activities, but the reality is they cannot stop every life-threatening fire. Research has shown that the optimum response time, to save lives and to confine the fire to the room of origin, is between 5 and 10 minutes. Opportunities to do that diminish rapidly over 10 minutes, yet County Councillors have only made provision to arrive within 10 minutes for just 2% of the County. For 37% of West Sussex, it is 12 minutes, and for 61% it is a staggering 14 minutes. 

Yet, in the last quarter, they failed to arrive within these lengthy times at over 13% of critical fires.

Examples of risks found in rural West Sussex

Just a few examples of the many risks in rural areas - historic buildings, nursing homes, boarding schools, business and industrial parks, food production centres, hotels, and million pound plus homes. There are also many more modest family homes, caravans, both holiday and residential, properties occupied by those who are vulnerable, including those who cannot escape a fire without assistance, areas of deprivation, fuel depots, chemical storage, firework manufacturing, farms, heathland, woodland, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and sites of special scientific interest. All are in danger when fire breaks out. 

West Midlands

West Sussex

A 14 minute target is far too long, failing that target is unacceptable.

Why rural lives, business, property, and environment don't get a quick and effective response

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service's ability to provide a quick and effective response continues to diminish, and that is fundamentally the fault of County Council cuts to frontline resources. In addition to the removal of eleven frontline fire engines and crews, they fail to ensure the remaining 35 fire engines, at 24 fire stations, can be crewed all the time. This map overlay shows the only 10 fire engines, at 8 fire stations, that have had crews available for more than 95% of the time. The other 25 fire engines only had crews available  for between 15% and 91% of the time. 

It really should be no surprise that rural response has become so poor.

Based on four year average to 2019/20

When the Chief Fire Officer talks about 'low risk', she is really referring to areas that have fewer fires. However, they pose no less of a risk to those who live and work there than fires in urban areas. The actual risk to lives and property may depend on a building's construction, occupancy, and fire safety measures, but it does not depend on geographic location. However, once a fire does break out, in any part of West Sussex, the speed of response can significantly alter the risk to lives and property.

The danger increases for every extra minute it takes firefighters to arrive. 

A little good news

It appears that with the budget now set, additional wholetime personnel will be recruited to extend cover from 5 days to 7 days a week at Day Crewed fire stations and on the Crewing Optimisation Group (they help fill crewing deficiencies on Retained fire stations). This will obviously bring some improvement to response times, particularly in the Adur and Mid Sussex district areas, but it will not reverse all the damage caused by County Council cuts.

More firefighters are needed to properly protect West Sussex residents

Chief Fire Officer unaware of pandemic severity

I really don't understand why the Chief Fire Officer said that nobody could have predicted the scale of the impact of the pandemic. Whilst the public were unaware, those in senior positions in the emergency services should all have been fully aware. Government has known this for over fifteen years, which is why pandemic continued to be shown as the potentially most damaging threat on the National Risk Register. 

As for the scale of the impact, as far back as 2010, pandemic planning assumptions had identified that a pandemic could result in between 50,000 and 750,000 additional deaths, and cause significant disruption to us all:

National Risk Register 2010 version

Government has kept Responder Organisations (NHS, emergency services, utilities etc.) fully informed on these threats and the likely consequences. Despite the terrible harm that the Covid pandemic has caused, the reality is that the scale was far from the worst that should have been planned for. It thankfully appears that WSFRS reacted and coped well with the impact of the pandemic, but it is unclear how much of that was the result of effective pre-planning and how much was improvised response to a crisis, something the service is traditionally very good at. 

To those who have had experience of Government pandemic planning, it is painfully obvious that this Government's preparation and response was inadequate. So, it is no surprise that they would like the public to believe it could not be predicted. It was predicted, the harm was predicted, and all Responder Organisations should have been prepared. It would be unwise for the Chief Fire Officer to support the fiction being promoted by the Government ahead of the public inquiry. It certainly won't help when the Government attempt to pass the buck to Responder Organisations, and others, for the failures to prepare and to respond effectively.

Pandemic consequences were predicted 

All Chief Officers should have been aware

A victory for the public's right to know about fire control failures

Tribunal overturns Information Commissioner's decision

Some will recall the serious failures when Surrey's fire control took over the handling of West Sussex emergencies. To learn more, I submitted Freedom of Information requests in January 2020, but both County Councils went into overdrive to keep information secret. Information was refused on spurious grounds and, unfortunately, the Information Commissioner supported their refusals. 

However, this week I have heard that the Information Commissioner's decision on Surrey's FOIA request has been overturned by the Information Rights Tribunal on five out of seven parts. Surrey County Council has been given 35 days to disclose the following information in relation to the fire control deal:

1. Copies of any documents (reports, emails, memos etc) relating to the assessment of staffing levels required to deliver that additional service.

2. Details of the control room training and experience of the people carrying out that assessment, and of the person who approved staffing levels.

3. Details of the standards, good practice guides, studies and any research material used to inform the assessment process.

4. Copies of risk assessments relating to the operational impact when staffing is at, or falls below, your determined minimum level.

5. Copies of risk assessments that include the issue of stress for control room staff.

The two parts of the appeal that were unsuccessful were:

6. Copies of reports submitted, since 3 December 2019, by your own staff or by West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service that relate to occurrences that resulted or could have resulted in a delay to the service’s attendance at incidents in Surrey or West Sussex.

7. Details of action taken by Surrey Fire & Rescue Service to address those occurrences.

This was only because the tribunal accepted Surrey's claim that they did not hold the information at the time. They accepted it was held by West Sussex. West Sussex County Council refused a similar Freedom of Information request on this subject with various excuses. Eventually they claimed it was too onerous, which the Information Commissioner accepted. Unfortunately, other commitments and illness prevented me from appealing that decision in time.

West Sussex now has no lawful excuse to continue secrecy

The crucial information about failures that delayed, or could have delayed, the response to West Sussex incidents should now be disclosed. So too should details of what was done to prevent further failures. 

That alone cannot be considered onerous, and it is now very clear that the Council's other excuses, of commercial sensitivity and confidentiality have been ruled to be outweighed by the public's right to know.

The tribunal specifically mentioned a West Sussex spreadsheet on these failures that fell within the scope of the information request. They also made it very clear that there is a "strong and significant public interest in disclosure" and that "public interest outweighed any issues of confidentiality".

('The Framework' refers to the The Fire and Rescue National Framework for England, which is statutory guidance)

The Tribunal also said:

"The public interest in disclosure is increased, in our view, by the potential impact of such safety critical issues."

Latest figures for the first three quarters of 2021/22 show that Surrey is still not delivering the standard agreed.

West Sussex Cabinet Member colludes with Surrey County Council

Yet, instead of fighting for West Sussex residents, Cabinet Member Duncan Crow is colluding with Surrey by agreeing to cut performance standards. West Sussex residents deserve the standard of service they were promised and are paying for.

Councillor Crow is legally responsible for fire & rescue service transparency in West Sussex, so he must ensure that information about these failures, including the spreadsheet identified by the Tribunal, are made available to West Sussex residents. 

County Councillors must insist that agreed standards are maintained and that information on the failures is published.

Inaccurate information at Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee

No response from Committee Chairman

It is over two weeks since I emailed the Chairman of the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee, regarding my concerns that his committee was incorrectly told that there is a national performance standard for answering '999' calls. This inaccurate claim was being used to justify abandoning the standard of answering 98% of '999' calls within 7 seconds. 

The originally agreed performance standard was 100% of '999' calls within 7 seconds, so there has already been a mysterious cut.

Key Performance Indicators in the legal agreement between Surrey and West Sussex County Councils

We are not talking about dealing with the call, just the time taken to accept the call from the '999' operator. Simply, the time it takes for a control operator to raise a hand and touch the '999' line on the computer screen. In any properly staffed, equipped and managed fire control, most '999' calls should be accepted in less than two seconds, so the seven second standard can be considered generous. 

Cutting the standard from 100% in 7 seconds to 95% in 10 seconds is unjustified

It is not a national performance standard, it is just an agreement by all the emergency services to try and ease the pressure on British Telecom, who operate the '999' service. An agreement that acknowledges that much busier police control rooms, which are also subjected to more regular spikes in demand, would struggle to meet a higher target.

Had there been a genuine national performance standard for the fire & rescue service, which my research had not uncovered, then I would have expected Councillor Boram, or the Chief Fire Officer, to have informed me of it by now. However, I have heard nothing. As I believe it is a matter of public concern, I have shown the full content of my email at the end of this post.

Legitimate Concerns

The performance standard they wish to lower is not measuring staff performance, it is measuring delivery of the service. Poor performance statistics, and plans to drop performance standards, show that my concerns about Joint Fire Control are justified. However, that should not be misinterpreted as criticism of the staff working there. The performance standard depends on many other factors, including the number of staff on duty, the workload, equipment, policies, procedures, training, and local knowledge. Even the best control operators cannot make up for deficiencies in those areas.

That the average last year showed 5.8% of calls were not answered within 7 seconds indicates all is not well. 

Another indication that all is not well is that Joint Fire Control only managed to alert West Sussex fire stations, within 2 minutes of the '999' call being received, for just 84% of incidents last year (2020/21 Statement of Assurance). 

This standard has also been mysteriously cut from 100% to 98%.

Key Performance Indicators in the legal agreement between Surrey and West Sussex County Councils

This also does not compare favourably with the performance of the Sussex Fire Control, which handled West Sussex calls before this arrangement with Surrey. In the months before the changeover, despite using what was described as equipment well overdue for upgrading, Sussex Fire Control was alerting fire stations within 2 minutes for 94% of incidents. 

Source: WSFRS Performance Report 2020-21 Quarter 3 (Changeover of Controls date added)

Surrey County Council, which manages the Joint Fire Control, committed to these performance standards. On behalf of residents, West Sussex County Council should insist on them being achieved.

Lowering standards is not the answer, the failure to achieve them should be investigated and action taken to improve performance

Unfair Accusations

Whilst sorting through old documents, I came across a unique group photo of West Sussex fire control staff from 1983. I thought it would be of interest to those on a Facebook group for serving and former West Sussex staff. Numerous favourable comments show it was well received, yet one serving officer chose to link it to the current fire control problems.

I have steadfastly avoided any reference to current problems on that group, as it is a non-political group for sharing memories and news of retirements etc. When I posted the photo I simply said, "When West Sussex operated its own fire control, which supported crews and served the public so very efficiently." The officer chose to comment, "As our Fire control continues to do to this day Tony Morris". 

I have never criticised fire control staff for the current problems, so I responded with "Did I say otherwise? I did not, as I thought we wanted to keep political comment out of this group." Incredibly, he then said that the "implication is clear". It is disturbing that he decided to ignore what was actually written and decided to invent implications that were not there. He is a group administrator and deleted my reasonable reply, alleging it violated the group rule to "be kind and courteous."

He also messaged me and suggested I was trying to turn everything into part of a "bitter vendetta". It was distressing that he sees my campaigning for a properly funded and resourced fire & rescue service, which properly supports the public and staff, as a "bitter vendetta". I asked him to explain what I am supposed to be bitter about, but I have had no response. 

I have always supported the service and have only ever wanted what is best for the public and for those who work in the service. My public campaigning could only begin once I was no longer employed by West Sussex County Council, and that coincided with Council plans to reduce the capability and effectiveness of the service even further. I was particularly concerned that the cuts were being dishonestly touted as 'improvements', so I explained why they were not improvements and why they would be damaging. Deteriorating service performance since then has shown that those concerns were justified. 

It was disappointing at the time, but not surprising, to learn that certain senior officers, who have now left, told Councillors I was a 'disgruntled former employee'. A shabby and dishonest tactic to deflect attention from the issues. It also appears the tactic was employed to mislead serving personnel. Fortunately, those who know me saw it for the dirty trick it was and have been very supportive of my efforts.

So, let me be clear, I have nothing to be bitter about regarding West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service or West Sussex County Council. There is no vendetta, just legitimate criticism of changes that my professional experience tells me are not in the best interest of the public or of fire & rescue service staff. 

I am not critical of dedicated staff in the service.

My criticism is of politicans who have damaged the service, of inadequate political scrutiny, and of poor decisions by some former principal officers.

Email to Kevin Boram, Chairman of the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee

25 January 2022

Dear Councillor Boram,

   It was disappointing to hear your committee being misinformed with the inaccurate claim that answering 95% of 999 calls in 10 seconds is a national performance standard. There are no common standards set for emergency service control rooms, as each service has different requirements, procedures, demands, and information requirements. Were national standards to be set for fire & rescue service control rooms, then they would be set by the Home Office.

The Public Emergency Call Service (PECS) code of practice referred to is produced by the 999/112 Liaison Committee, which is a consultative committee that discusses matters arising from the provision of the 999/112 emergency call service. The setting of performance standards is not included in their terms of reference (see below), as it would be inappropriate for a consultative committee that includes commercial telecommunication providers to set standards for public emergency services.

 

Past research has shown that fire service control rooms can answer and process emergency calls more quickly than ambulance and police control rooms. This is not because ambulance and police call handlers are inefficient, but because they have different demands and information requirements that are specific to their services. This includes those services receiving significantly more 999 calls than fire & rescue, the nature of those calls often requires call handlers to spend more time on each call, and they are subjected to many more spikes in demand than fire & rescue. Despite this, the NHS target for ambulance services was set, just a few years ago, at 95% of 999 calls to be answered within 5 seconds.

 

The PECS figure, of answering 95% of 999 calls in 10 seconds, represents an earlier police target and was included in the PECS document to acknowledge the greater demands made on the police service. If the Joint Fire Control is properly staffed, equipped and run, then there is no reason why the standard originally agreed with Surrey, of 98% within 7 seconds, should not be met. 

It should be noted that Ofcom require BT plc, which operates the 999 call handling centres, to answer 95% of 999 calls within 5 seconds. They achieve that with just 6 call centres handling over 30 million 999 calls a year, so it is reasonable to expect Joint Fire Control to exceed, not just meet, the original agreed standard for just 30,000 incidents a year.

 

I should add that I am not suggesting that your committee was misinformed intentionally, but I believe the Chief Fire Officer has also been misinformed or misunderstands the status of the PECS code of practice.

 

It should surely be the role of scrutiny committees to keep performance standards high to ensure the best service to the public. Lowering standards can only result in a loss of motivation to strive for good performance. Seconds count when lives are at stake, and it is the public who suffer as a result of low standards.

I would urge you to require the original standard, 98% within 7 seconds, to be restored. I also hope the committee will get to the bottom of why Joint Fire Control has been failing to meet this agreed standard and to then require improvements.

Yours sincerely,

 

Tony Morris

999/112 Liaison Committee Terms of Reference

 

The Committee provides a forum to discuss operational and technical matters arising from the provision of the 999/112 emergency call service. Its main concern is the effective handling of emergency telephone calls between the public, call handling agents and the emergency authorities.

 

The Committee seeks to ensure that:

■ each interest group has an understanding of the needs of the others;

■ problems are identified and resolved;

■ call handling is efficient and effective;

■ there are agreed protocols for the management of calls;

■ technical and other developments, including European requirements, are identified and actioned in a timely manner;

■ the wider requirements of UK and European law are satisfied;

■ opportunities for the development of future emergency call processes or systems are considered and/or identified, and where appropriate these are highlighted to the 999/112 Strategic Group;

■ changes to public use of the 999/112 infrastructure are considered, whether that be as a result of technological changes or changing habits, to ensure that the best possible service can continue to be provided;

■ advice is provided to the 999/112 Strategic Group on technical or operational matters as necessary.

West Sussex County Councillors continue the Fire Control cover up

 Whitewash Report

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

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

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

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

Meeting held behind closed doors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Future partnership expansion opportunity during 2021; and

• Staffing implications.

Concerns ignored

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

That report has never been produced.

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

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

Control Room staffing still inadequate

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

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

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

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

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

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

The public and firefighters deserve

better from the County Council

Secrecy and inadequate scrutiny continue to blight fire service improvement

Control room cover-up continues

"Sorry, all our operators are busy. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Scrutiny Committee fails at their first meeting

Chairman blocks questions about the fire control agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inadequate report was result of inadequate scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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