MP highlights inadequate West Sussex resources

It was good to see Chichester's MP raise this issue in Parliament last week. Not only are most of the service's off road vehicles 26 or 27 years old, but the previous County Council cut the service's vital Water Carrier capability by 40%.

Whilst the MP's comments, shown below, focus on wildfires, the problems apply equally to all the incidents the service attends. With severe storms and flooding probable later this year, the service will be under even greater pressure.

Not enough firefighters is the most serious deficiency

This Summer's drought and the resulting increase in wildfires has highlighted how inadequately resourced West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is now. Many have likened the recent situation to 1976, but there are significant differences. Not least is the serious reduction in the number of firefighters available. 

Source WSCC and WSFRS reports

In 1976 there were, on duty and on call, over 200 firefighters available in West Sussex, around the clock. Today there can be less than 60 at times! Several of the major wildfires in the UK needed more than 100 firefighters at one time, with many more needed to relieve them over several days.  

National Resilience or National Desperation?

Chief Fire Officers have been suggesting that fire crews travelling hundreds of miles to other parts of the country, as part of the so called 'National Resilience' scheme, is a success. The reality is rather different. It shows that UK fire & rescue services are not only poorly resourced, they have no resilience.

If the service was resilient, it would not be necessary to desperately rob one fire & rescue service of resources to bale out another distant service. The UK is the only country in Europe that does not have true fire service resilience. Each European nation has, in addition to well resourced fire services, a reserve of vehicles, equipment, and personnel, mostly volunteer, that can be called on for major emergencies.  

Normal mutual aid, where neighbouring services help each other out, is fine, but the increasing use of resources from distant fire & rescue services is a clear indication that services are under resourced. It also shows that residents are not being properly protected, which puts lives and property in greater danger.

The summer has highlighted the lack of resilience, and with storms and flooding very probable later in the year, this weakness will become serious. The County Council's failure to maintain an effective fire & rescue service is staggering: 

Source WSCC and WSFRS reports

Inadequate resources puts lives and property in serious danger

Need for Fire & Rescue Service is increasing

There are those who would have you believe that emergencies are decreasing, they aren't. The County Council has cut the incidents attended total by not sending firefighters to most calls originating from automatic fire detection systems. Whilst many of those calls turn out to be false alarms, the Council is also delaying the response to those where a fire is detected. That puts lives and property in danger.

Not only is this gambling with public safety, it has hidden the increase in emergencies that need a quick and effective response. This chart, which excludes false alarms, clearly shows that the trend for emergency incidents is increasing. The 3 year average ten years ago was under 4,000 calls per annum. The latest 3 year average is 4,744 per annum.

Source - National Fire Statistics Monitor 

Honesty & Transparency must be improved

I had hoped that with a new administration at County Hall we would begin to see more honesty and transparency. Sadly, it was not evident at the last Scrutiny Committee, with Councillors still being misled.

The Chief Officer claimed that the service had achieved a 6% improvement in on-call appliance availability in quarter 4. That claim is very misleading as quarter 4 availability figures are always better than quarter 3, so the claim is an illusion. 

Full year figures reveal the true position - they are getting worse 

There has been a continuing decline in on-call appliance availability over the last 15 years, from 86% to just 41.6% in 2025/26.

Source: WSCC Scrutiny reports

Increasing response times covered up

This decline means that more and more fire engines are not crewed, which is resulting in ever longer response times. This puts lives and property in greater danger. Instead of fixing the problem, the previous administration lowered response standards to hide the scale of their failure. 

The previous standard required a fire appliance to arrive, according to risk category, within 8 to 14 minutes. If it did not, then that was classed as a response failure and it was investigated. Now, if it takes longer than 16 minutes for the first fire engine to arrive at up to 10% of calls, those responses will not be classed as failures. 

So, instead of a 15 minute response being a failure that is investigated, for more than 800 emergencies each year they can now take 20, 30, 40, 60 minutes or more to arrive. None will be classed as failures and worryingly they won’t be investigated.

West Sussex residents need to be very concerned by longer response times, as the Chief Officer's report accurately says, “evidence shows fires are now burning hotter and quicker than they did”. 

If the service is genuinely responding to risk, then improving response times must be a priority. 

I appreciate that the Cabinet Member and the Members on the Scrutiny Committee are all newly elected to the County Council, but they cannot let this misinformation and secrecy continue. 

Improving response times and ensuring transparency must be urgent priorities for all County Councillors

As the wildfire threat increases, Cabinet Member admits Fire Service less effective

West Sussex is inadequately resourced for wildfires

The Chief Fire Officer has rightly warned of the increased risk of wildfires, but the County Council has left the service inadequately prepared and our countryside at risk.

Nearly all of the fire service's specialist off road vehicles, which are essential for tackling wildfires, are around 25 years old. Reliability is an increasing issue and, as they are built on a chassis that is no longer produced, spare parts are difficult to obtain. 

Wildfires often require large numbers of firefighters over long periods of time. The work is physically demanding and exhausting in hot weather, so fresh crews need to be brought in regularly. In addition, more firefighters need to be kept available to deal with other fires and emergencies.  

West Sussex only just managed to cope with the many wildfires during the drought of 1976. Yet at that time they had 46 frontline fire engines and crewing levels would see them providing a total of between 230 and 260 firefighters. 

Today there are just 35 fire engines, but crewing cuts would see them only providing 140 firefighters. However, as they are rarely all have crews, there can be as few as a dozen fire engines available, which would provide as few as 48 firefighters!

48 firefighters cannot do the work that used to require over 200 firefighters

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service less effective because of County Council cuts

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow, who is responsible for fire & rescue, recently wrote to County Councillors hoping to justify inaccurate comments he made at a County Council meeting. Incredibly, he blames the deteriorating performance on having fewer fire stations and fire engines. All the result of cuts made by the Conservative controlled County Council since 2010.

The council was warned that closing four fire stations and removing eleven frontline fire engines would seriously damage the service's effectiveness, but they blundered on. Latest figures for the most recent five years show that there has been a 37% increase in neighbouring fire & rescue services having to attend incidents in West Sussex. In the same period, the assistance given to them by West Sussex has fallen by 33%.

37% increase in other fire & rescue services attending West Sussex incidents 

= the County Council failing to properly protect residents

Sadly, Councillor Crow can't even get his facts right on this point. He says the criticism used data from 2004 when it very clearly stated that it was comparing the latest figures with 2018-19 figures. He cites three fire station closures when there were actually four, and he refers to 'retained appliances' no longer operating, when the eleven fire engines they cut included two that were crewed by wholetime firefighters. 

Councillor Crow continues to incorrectly claim that response times are improving. Home Office figures very clearly show that the trend is that they are getting worse.

Average response times to Primary Fires – Home Office data table FIRE1001

Councillor Crow claims that the retained crewing model dates from after the Second World War, but by then it had been in continuous operation for over 100 years. He blames the drop in retained firefighter availability on work and lifestyle changes, whilst ignoring the adverse impact that County Council decisions have had on recruitment and retention.

Councillor Crow cites changes following the pandemic, yet that has seen more people working from home, which should improve availability. Instead of making excuses, it is high time that Councillor Crow persuaded his Conservative colleagues to do more to improve availability. 

The County Council still refuses to adopt a policy of supporting staff to become retained firefighters by giving them time for training and response to emergencies. There are well over 5,000 people employed in other council departments, yet the council refuses to support them to become retained firefighters. 

Instead of leading by example, the County Council shamefully leaves it to other employers to make staff available to be retained firefighters. 

Councillors, Government & Inspectors Fail Firefighters & The Public

A recent meeting of West Sussex County Council's Cabinet, and the latest report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), highlight a continuing lack of support for firefighters and inadequate protection for the public.

Hollow praise before stabbing firefighters in the back

The Cabinet met the day after the UK saw the worst spate of serious wildfires for many years. Councillors, including Cabinet Member Duncan Crow, praised firefighters for their work, but then went on to support Government proposals that threaten firefighter pay, conditions and safety. There has been no condemnation of the 2% pay insult that, in real terms, is a significant pay cut for firefighters, and one which follows several years of real terms pay cuts.

This shows the net effect of firefighter pay awards after price increases have been taken into account

(2022 figure based 2% pay offer and estimates of 9% price increases - it may be worse)

The Council's response also strongly disagreed that the current pay negotiation arrangements are appropriate. Once again, stabbing firefighters in the back by supporting Government plans to undo national pay negotiation arrangements that have served the public and firefighters well for decades. The only occasions when it has not worked well is when Government has interfered with the negotiations between employers and employees.

Only Councillor Caroline Baxter spoke up for firefighters but, because of undemocratic rules, she was only allowed to speak for 3 minutes. She had also only been given a few days to consider the implications of the Cabinet's response to the Government's consultation, together with all the other Cabinet business for that day.

It seems that only council officers and Cabinet Members were given adequate time to consider the Fire Reform White Paper, with opposition councillors kept in the dark until the last minute. Cabinet manipulation also prevented the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee from discussing the council's response, despite them meeting less than two weeks earlier. 

A pat on the back does not pay for energy, food or housing

West Sussex's lucky escape amid Council complacency

The Cabinet meeting was told that on the day before the meeting (hottest day of the year) West Sussex crews were deployed into neighbouring service areas. They were also told there was a six and a half hour busy period dealing with incidents in West Sussex. 

Just one of several severe wildfires on 19 July 2022

However, they were not told how many crews were left in West Sussex to deal with incidents if they occurred on the scale seen in other areas. With ongoing crew shortages it is quite likely that West Sussex was left seriously exposed. There are numerous commons, farmland, woodland, and nature reserves that could have posed a very significant demand on resources. As we saw elsewhere, even gardens and adjacent buildings fell victim to the wildfires.

Joint Fire Control & Merseyside 'buddy' fire control unable to cope

Chief Fire Officer, Dr Sabrina Cohen-Hatton, also seemed to mislead the Cabinet by playing down the pressure on Joint Fire Control. She told them that it wasn't necessary to use Operation Willow Beck, which is instigated by a fire & rescue service when their fire control is receiving too many '999' calls for them to cope with.

Yet, it later emerged that Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service were receiving '999' calls for incidents in Joint Fire Control's area, and they subsequently confirmed that this followed Surrey's activation of Operation Willow Beck. Why JFC and their designated back up at Merseyside Fire Control were unable to cope is unexplained, but it casts serious doubt on repeated assurances that JFC, and the much smaller control at Merseyside Fire & Rescue, have sufficient staff.

It was only luck that meant West Sussex escaped whilst other areas suffered. 

It was worrying to hear the Chief Fire Officer tell the Cabinet that resourcing to meet the additional threats from climate change had been addressed in the Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP). Well, I read it again and can see nothing about improving resources to deal with more frequent and challenging wildfires, flooding, storms and other risks related to climate change.

Compared to the protection afforded to West Sussex residents in 1976, today's protection is woeful. Crews then were stretched, so there is no way today's service could cope with a repeat. In 1976 there were 46 frontline fire engines with most crewed by 5 or 6 firefighters. Today, at best, there are 35 fire engines each crewed by just 4 firefighters. Yet, in the recent past, only 10 to 15 of those fire engines have been available during the day. 

Wildfires are very labour intensive, so the lack of firefighters could have catastrophic consequences. Not only major destruction to the environment, homes and businesses, but also a risk to the lives of firefighters and the public. Common sense tells us that around 50 firefighters cannot begin to replicate the work of over 200. Sadly, common sense seems to be missing from the Council's Cabinet.

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is dangerously under resourced

Was the HMICFRS Inspector misled, politically motivated, or just dim?

He said the service consistently meets its response standards, yet seems to base this claim solely on 2020-21 figures. Did he not realise there was a pandemic on and that furlough and working from home meant retained (on call) firefighters were more available than normal, so response times improved temporarily? 

The response standards are set by the County Council and are lower standards than many other fire & rescue services. Yet, when considering the effectiveness of the service, the Inspector completely failed to consider if the standard itself was adequate. Perhaps he thinks fires burn slower in West Sussex, so it is acceptable for victims to wait longer for help to arrive.

He was rightly critical of the service for not meeting the target for the availability of on call fire engines, but simply accepts the service's claim that proposals in the CRMP will address this. At best they will see a slight improvement at weekends, but there will be no significant improvement overall.

Since the Inspector's visit, availability has dropped from 69.1% to 53.8%

Bullying, harassment and discrimination indicate serious management failure

Reports of bullying, harassment and discrimination are disturbing, but the Chief Fire Officer revealing that, "there have been dismissals at various levels throughout the service" is also concerning. If management is competent, from top to bottom, it should not be necessary to resort to formal disciplinary procedure and dismissals to deal with inappropriate behaviour. 

I abhor bullying, harassment and discrimination, but the Chief Fire Officer saying there is a "zero tolerance approach" raises concerns. It makes it far too easy for anyone with malicious intentions, or someone misreading behaviour, to initiate action that will result in dismissal. It is also very likely to create an unhealthy atmosphere where staff feel unable to say anything for fear of repercussions. 

Firefighting is a stressful occupation and the close working environment can, just as it can within families, create tensions. Under stress and tension people are more likely to say and do things that do not represent their core values. I find it incredible that behaviour in the service has supposedly deteriorated so much in recent years that several dismissals were necessary. It is also very difficult to accept the Chief Fire Officer's claim, that bullying, harassment and discrimination 'was widespread', as an accurate portrayal.      

It should be remembered that stress and trauma can trigger negative behaviours, so it is important to help victims, not punish them. 

In such instances there are two victims, the one on the receiving end of inappropriate behaviour and the instigator of it. Both need help, but zero tolerance does not suggest that any support will be considered for an instigator suffering from stress or trauma. It also suggests that the disciplinary procedures will be unjust, as the dismissal outcome is predetermined. A zero tolerance policy is effectively a threat, and consequently the harassment of staff by the council. 

Dismissal is a waste of the public funds invested in staff training and it results in the loss of valuable experience, so it must always be a last resort. Significant public funds can be wasted if procedural and fairness failures result in the case being referred to an Employment Tribunal.

All allegations must be investigated, but that must be done impartially, without preconceptions, and with the objectives of supporting staff and improving behaviour.

The Inspector talks about a generational gap between older and younger members of staff, as if this is something unique to fire & rescue. Of course there is a generational gap, but that does not stop older staff passing on their extensive experience, knowledge, and training to younger ones. It also won't stop younger staff disrespecting older staff by naïvely thinking they know it all when they return from training school. 

The generational gap should be seen as an advantage, not as an obstacle.

Worryingly, the Inspector also appeared to accept claims that the culture wouldn’t change until the older generation retires. Given that most of the older generation in the service are male, heterosexual and would describe themselves as white British, that appears to be discrimination in several unacceptable areas.

There is a serious lack of published data on disciplinary matters, both locally and nationally. With no details of how many people have been disciplined and dismissed for bullying, harassment or discrimination, and no detail of the behaviours involved, it is impossible to judge if action has been appropriate. 

Of course serious and repeated inappropriate behaviour must be dealt with firmly, and dismissal used when all else fails. However, it must always be based on solid evidence, not just hearsay.

Education, good example and competent management are the right tools to address poor behaviour. That must be the focus, not jumping to formal disciplinary procedures and automatic dismissals. 

I accept that it is not easy and takes time, but it will achieve the best outcome for the individuals, the service and the community.

Dismissal is a lazy way to deal with poor behaviour