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.

Councillors still refuse to admit their abject failure

Conservative leadership's damage control

Last week the County Council’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee met to discuss Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMIC&FRS) damning report on West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service. 

It was disappointing, but not surprising, that Chairman Andrew Barrett-Miles opened by trying to stifle proper discussion. He told Councillors it was "not a political debating session". In other words, the ruling Conservative Group did not want their political failings to be discussed. Councillor James Walsh correctly pointed out that he was wrong to do that, as the Council is a politically run authority that gives direction to the Council's officers.

Mr Barrett-Miles comment that “we are here to be a critical friend of the fire service”, seemed intended to pass the buck to those in the service. It became clear that those ultimately responsible for the poor report were engaged in political damage control. I have no doubt where responsibility lies.

Fire Brigades Union & Unison highlight the real failures

Antony Walker from the FBU gave a heartfelt presentation outlining where the problems were, including:

• Poor funding, with £7 million of cuts, loss of 11 fire appliances, and a 37% reduction in workforce leaving West Sussex top of the list for posts lost since 2010,
• Poor governance, lack of scrutiny and Councillors' limited understanding of the consequences of decisions taken,
• Poor, weak management with, until very recently, senior Fire & Rescue Service officers not strong enough in opposing financial reductions,
• The committee had approved the Integrated Risk Management Plan after they were told the service was under-resourced to deliver it,
• Unworkable, non-family friendly contracts and rates of pay for On Call Firefighters that do not reflect the commitment required.

He said, "Our members are asked to work under stressful and challenging conditions . . it is hard to comprehend why the fire authority, since 2010, have worsened those conditions."

FBU Brigade Secretary for West Sussex Antony Walker

Dan Sartin from Unison supported those comments and said the failures were County Council failures. He said "It is the County Council that sets the culture, framework and resourcing". He highlighted how support staff were the glue that held a service together and that significant support staff cuts had contributed to the failures.

Dan also made it clear that bullying at senior level was a problem across the County Council and that people were discouraged from submitting grievances. As I have mentioned previously, that is something I saw when I was at County Hall and something I raised with the then Chief Executive.

Unison Branch Secretary for West Sussex Dan Sartin

Cabinet Member proud to have failed

It is perhaps not surprising that the Chairman asked Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard not to make an opening statement. When Councillor Dan Purchese pressed for the Cabinet Member or Leader to make a statement, as they were responsible for the political leadership of the Council, it did not go well. Debbie Kennard told everyone she was proud and proceeded to spout inaccuracies and nonsense.

Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard

Not sure if she has been asleep, but Fire & Rescue has always had a voice on the select committee. The only change has been that, at the end of 2017, the title of the select committee was changed from Environmental and Community Services Select Committee to Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee. Including 'fire' in the select committee name made no difference whatsoever to the service's voice, or its scrutiny.

As for "the fire on the website" and "a brand", window dressing is not going to fix any of the problems identified in the report. With the worst performance information now removed from the Performance Dashboard, accountability and openness have actually gone backwards. 

Time for the Cabinet Member to admit that she and her predecessors have been on a very badly planned journey.

 A journey that has failed to support dedicated firefighters and failed to protect the public.

Disputed figures

The Acting Chief Fire Officer disagreed with the figures for job losses given by the FBU. Now to be fair to both it has been difficult to compare current and previous figures, as West Sussex County Council and Government figures seem to change the criteria from time to time. However, WSCC establishment figures for 2002 and Home Office total staff figures for 2018 do reveal a 35% cut.

More damage control

I always believed that one of the functions of the Director of Law & Assurance was to ensure that the Council's political leadership did not stray from acting lawfully and in the best interest of West Sussex residents. So it was concerning to see Director Tony Kershaw, who does not normally attend these meetings, appearing to be more concerned with protecting the Council's political leadership. 

He intervened to criticise Councillor Michael Jones for not circulating his recommendations before the meeting. Yet he made no such intervention when Councillor Dan Purchese protested that an email from HMIC&FRS, received by the Council three weeks previously, had not been shared with Councillors until that morning. 

Mr Kershaw also seemed very concerned when committee chairman Andrew Barrett-Miles was making recommendations on behalf of the committee. Despite Mr Barrett-Miles saying, "we cannot instruct the Cabinet Member, she wouldn’t let me I can tell you”, Mr Kershaw and Council Leader Louise Goldsmith were certainly giving him some hard stares. Or was it, as someone described to me, "the evil eye".

The promising outcomes

Despite efforts to restrain the Chairman, he did make some positive recommendations that were unanimously approved. They included:

• The implementation plan to be adequately resourced financially, both in the short and long term.
• That unions should be more closely involved in the implementation plan through inclusion in the project board, and in any future development of the fire service.
• The improvement board should include political leadership. 
• Consideration should be given to determining if the Chief Executive is the right person to chair that board. 
• The Cabinet Member/CFO need to lobby the inspectorate regarding risk versus demand driven. We believe strongly it should be risk driven. 
• Further work needed by the service to look at its future structure.
• That the Governance Committee should consider how additional scrutiny of the Fire & Rescue Service could be achieved by having a separate select committee.
• The Fire & Rescue Service to bring a progress report to this committee in September, and the unions to be invited to speak at that meeting.

The disappointing outcomes

Councillor Michael Jones proposed some additional supportive recommendations, but they were met with unseemly attempts to frustrate them being considered. Former Cabinet Member David Barling even resorted to the all too common Conservative response to anything they don't like of, "‘if we are playing politics with this". Yet it was Mr Barling and his Conservative colleagues who played politics by voting down all the Labour proposed, Liberal Democrat seconded recommendations. They were:

• To withdraw the cuts proposed for 2019/20, which were put on hold for one year, and prioritise the recruitment of additional firefighters to replace those cut since 2010. 
• The recruitment panel for the new Chief Fire Officer to only select people with significant fire & rescue service experience.
• Launch an anti-bullying campaign to stamp out instances of bullying and harassment.
• Take steps to increase the diversity of the workforce, particularly in respect of more female firefighters and more from the BAME communities.
• Commission an independent review to determine whether alternative governance arrangements for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service may be necessary.

Other worries

David Barling frequently refers to his "specialist knowledge" of the fire & rescue service, yet he said he "would have liked to have heard from someone from the retained today". It is quite disturbing that, as a former Cabinet Member responsible for fire & rescue, that he was unaware that the Fire Brigades Union representative sat in front of him speaks for both wholetime and retained firefighters. 

Mr Barling even had the gall, when speaking about wanting "much more detail on the retained service", to refer to the task and finish group looking at On Call (retained) firefighter recruitment and retention problems. 

A task & finish group that he refused to set up when he was Cabinet Member.

Chief Executive Nathan Elvery tried to defend the "no fire & rescue service experience required" advert for the Chief Fire Officer post by referring to "combined emergency services" in other countries. I have no idea where he got his information from, but such an arrangement is extremely rare. There are some examples of fire services that have historically provided some element of the emergency ambulance provision in some countries, but that is a long way from a combined emergency service.

He said the arrangements in other countries were "quite different", which ought to ring alarm bells, not encourage looking at candidates from other countries. It would be a nonsense to appoint a Chief Fire Officer who lacks knowledge and experience of how UK fire & rescue services operate, of UK legislation, of UK tactics and procedures, and of how UK fire & rescue services work with other emergency services and other agencies. 

Tried and tested UK arrangements for managing major incidents are radically different from those in many other countries. They are widely acknowledged to be far more effective, but that depends on the chief officer of each service intimately understanding procedures, and having extensive training and significant experience at exercises and incidents. 

A Chief Fire Officer playing catch up will not keep firefighters and residents safe.        

Arrogance, denial & hypocrisy will perpetuate failure

The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) made grim reading. I feel especially sad for the hundreds of fire & rescue service staff who will understandably, but wrongly, see this as a reflection on them. I also feel very sad for the residents of West Sussex who have, once again, been let down by the County Council.

It is the County Council's leadership that is responsible for this shocking report.

Thursday was rather hectic with the HMICFRS report to read, media coverage to monitor, and the County Council’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee meeting to watch. That is the Select Committee responsible for scrutiny and oversight of the Fire & Rescue Service and for holding the Cabinet Member and Chief Fire Officer to account.

I have now had some time to reflect on Thursday’s sad revelations. I am no less disappointed by the Inspector’s findings, but I am appalled by the arrogance, denial & hypocrisy displayed by Councillors at the Select Committee meeting. When Children’s Services were rated inadequate, the chairman of the Children and Young People’s Select Committee resigned, the Chief Executive gave interviews and even Council Leader Louise Goldsmith was quick to publicly apologise.

Yet when the Fire & Rescue Service received the worst report of the latest batch of reports, there were no apologies from the Council Leader or Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard, and no resignations. Instead, Louise Goldsmith and Debbie Kennard hid from the media and made the Acting Chief Fire Officer face the cameras.

No Apology

We had to listen to Debbie Kennard trotting out how they had spent money on equipment, and how they had found a bit of money to try and fix some of the failures identified by the Inspector. Struggling to find some positives in the report, she even had the nerve to mention road safety work, something she planned to cut! Debbie Kennard completely ignored her predecessor’s failures, which created those problems, and her failure to address problems before the inspection.

With her denial and lack of contrition, there is little hope that

Debbie Kennard can lead the service back to an acceptable grading.

Ignore the message and shoot the messenger

Unlike his colleague, who resigned as chairman of the Children and Young People’s Select Committee, this committee’s chairman, Andrew Barrett-Miles, tried to shoot the messenger. Quite irresponsibly he accused her of “hugely damaging morale” and undermining public confidence.  

What damages morale and undermines public confidence is cutting resources and staff to such an extent that the service faces an impossible task. Councillors failing to scrutinise effectively also damages morale and undermines public confidence. To make matters worse, just ahead of the report’s disclosure, three members of this committee, who were not afraid to ask challenging questions, were removed from the Select Committee. 

Their replacements are:

Lionel Barnard, the former Cabinet Member who approved the last round of major cuts to fire & rescue, despite clear evidence of risks to public safety. Cuts that their own modelling indicated could result in an extra death every two years and over £80,000 extra property damage each year.

David Barling, the former Cabinet Member who implemented those cuts and dismissed concerns about increased response times as “scaremongering”. He called on Councillors to ignore the Council's extra death and property damage figures and angrily attacked anyone, including residents, who voiced concerns. Concerns that have since proved well founded.

Roger Oakley, former Vice Chair of the Governance and Standards Committees who refused to investigate the dubious deal that saw an extra senior post created by Council officers for the benefit of a senior Council officer. He also refused to do anything about the Council’s inadequate record keeping after a Judge led tribunal criticised the County Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice.”

The timing of these changes suggest they have less to do with
ensuring proper scrutiny and more to do with damage control.

The truth about failed response times

As if to confirm those concerns, David Barling tried to play down the Inspector’s comment that the service hasn’t met their own standard for response times since 2014/15, by saying it was just one percent below last year. What he did not say was that the West Sussex standard is lower than most fire & rescue services.

Unfortunately, the Inspector’s report only quoted the West Sussex standard for very high-risk areas (first fire engine in 8 minutes and the second in 11 minutes). Yet the service says they no longer have any areas requiring that standard. I don’t know if the Inspector made an error or was misled, but I intend to ask the question.

The actual standard they are failing to achieve for response to life threatening incidents is:

Risk grading	Area covered by this grading	To arrive within (minutes)
		First fire engine	Second fire engine
High	2%	10	13
Medium	37%	12	15
Low	61%	14	17

Compared to Hampshire’s 8 minute target and Surrey’s 10 minute target for all areas, 

West Sussex’s failure to meet their generous targets is nothing to be proud of.

 Funding cuts are directly responsible for poor response times.
"Long travel distances have increased as a reason for failure, as we have four less operational fire stations in West Sussex." "The performance on the second pump is weaker than the first due to recent changes within WSFRS. This includes the removal of the second fire engine from three stations."

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service 2018-19 Quarter 3 Operational Performance Report

Heads in the sand over bullying

David Barling also questioned the Inspector’s comments on bullying, because no one had complained to him about bullying when he was Cabinet Member! I am afraid his comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about harassment and bullying. My WSCC training on the subject made it very clear that victims tend to withdraw into themselves and often won't talk about it.  If Mr Barling genuinely believes that firefighters would open up about such things to a Cabinet Member, then he is really naïve.

I have some sympathy for Neil Stocker, as he has been left holding the baby, and a sickly baby it is. However, his optimism on morale is misplaced. It is at an 'all time low', and just because he and a FBU official were unaware of harassment and bullying, is not evidence that things are OK. I accept that it is difficult to detect, but trying to downplay the report's findings is not going to improve anything.

The Chief Inspector pointed out that West Sussex had evidence of bullying 
at least two years before the inspection, but had failed to take action.

I welcome that they now say they are taking steps to address the problem with new policies and a new officer post, but will that be enough? The County Council has had policies, training and staff responsible for diversity and inclusion for many years, and that includes Fire & Rescue. I first attended WSCC/WSFRS diversity training, delivered by external specialists, over 20 years ago.

If Councillors and managers can't grasp the fundamentals of bullying and harassment,
I have serious doubts they can improve the situation.

WSCC policy in 2010

A few Councillors do support the fire & rescue service

Thankfully there were two County Councillors at the meeting who do recognise the County Council's failings and voiced their genuine support for fire & rescue service staff. Michael Jones and James Walsh have long campaigned to prevent the Council's reckless cuts and they continue to try and hold the Council to account. 

Councillor Michael Jones said that he thought the problem was not just confined to fire & rescue. He saw the link between less staff trying to cope with an impossible workload leading to stress and that sometimes resulting in bullying. A problem I witnessed when I was working with different departments at County Hall as cuts and poorly planned reorganisation took place. I raised my concerns with the then Chief Executive and my comments included:

“With less staff, people are under greater pressure, so have less time to help colleagues, and managers have less time to support staff. Training is either not given, or people do not have time to attend it. Many experienced staff have left, so we have managers who are not only less experienced, they are also less well trained. Lack of time is also stopping effective consultation.

Standards of behaviour are dropping, and people do not treat others with respect. Now some of that may be a social problem, but pressure of work and stress will also be a factor.”

The Chief Executive accepted there were problems and was clearly trying to address them, but unfortunately Louise Goldsmith decided she no longer needed a Chief Executive. When he left, things went from bad to worse.

County Council may make things worse

Councillor James Walsh also pointed out that these problems were not new and that he had spoken to staff who had told him about low morale in the service. He identified the direct link between funding cuts and failed response times, especially in rural areas.

He correctly identified that the Council is in danger of making things worse by advertising for a Chief Fire Officer who doesn't need to have fire service experience. He said, "The idea of the army being led by an accountant, or the police led by a business manager would be an anathema in those services. It is the same in terms of respect and leadership in the fire service."

He said that the message in the report is that the problems start at the top, with the political leadership of the Council, where the cost of everything is known, but the value of the service to the public is not understood.

Debbie Kennard's silence after the concerns voiced by Michael Jones and James Walsh spoke volumes. 

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service does not need an enthusiastic cheerleader, 

it needs a Cabinet Member with a grip on the problems and a determination to improve. 

Residents and firefighters need an experienced fire service professional as Chief Fire Officer. 

The County Council needs a leader who puts the safety of residents before party political ideology.

West Sussex deserves better

County Council Hypocrisy and Cabinet Member Misinformation

Hypocrisy

The answer to a written question from County Councillor Chris Oxlade exposes shocking hypocrisy regarding the issue of On Call Firefighters. As the Fire & Rescue Authority, the County Council regularly calls on employers to release staff from their jobs to respond to emergencies as On Call Firefighters.

Yet the County Council does nothing to ensure that their own staff are able to respond to emergencies as On Call Firefighters. Astonishingly, there is no policy on the matter and they only support staff doing so, “as long as it does not conflict with their main employment”. You must be pretty dim to think that leaving their main employment to respond to emergencies is not going to conflict, so instead of supporting On Call Firefighters, they immediately put a great big obstacle in the way.

They go on to admit that they have no policy to ensure On Call Firefighters working for the County Council are not penalised financially, or in terms of career progression. The Council also admits they put no requirement in contracts with companies, providing contracted out services to the Council, to ensure they also encourage and support On Call Firefighters.

Asked if the Council ensures that managers actively encourage employees to become On Call Firefighters, it appears they don’t. All they say is that internal communication campaigns have “generated little interest to date either from managers or employees”. Hardly surprising when there is no support or encouragement.

This is yet another example of inept leadership from the County Council. 

Expecting other employers to help them out by releasing staff to respond as On Call Firefighters, whilst restricting and even preventing County Council staff from doing the same. With such hypocrisy it is no wonder there is such a shortage of On Call Firefighters in West Sussex. Shortages that are resulting in increased response times, which put the public in greater danger.

Cabinet Member Misinformation (again)

At the last County Council meeting, Councillor Dan Purchese asked Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard to agree that the next Chief Fire Officer needed to have experience of the fire service. Not only did she fail to agree, she falsely said "we have other fire officers who did not come up through the ranks". That is not true, all the officers in West Sussex came up through the ranks.

She also said that they will appoint the best person for the job. Well if she means that, then it can only be someone who has came up through the ranks. A career's worth of in depth knowledge and experience are vital for any Chief Fire Officer.

What will tomorrow bring?

The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services is due to be published tomorrow. The signs are not good, as the County Council has already transferred £365,000 from reserves to begin addressing areas identified in the report as needing improvement. 

HMICFRS say they expect fire & rescue services to achieve a rating of 'good'. Sadly, with such severe cuts to the service I am not optimistic that West Sussex will achieve that as an overall grade, so the question is will it achieve a 'good' rating in any of the key areas:

• How effective is the fire and rescue service at keeping people safe and secure from fire and other risks?
• How efficient is the fire and rescue service at keeping people safe and secure from fire and other risks?
• How well does the fire and rescue service look after its people?

The categories of graded judgement are:

• outstanding;
• good;
• requires improvement; and
• inadequate.

Whatever the outcome, we must remember that primary responsibility for any inadequacies rests with the County Council. Staff must not be blamed in the way the Council shamefully tried to do for their failings in Children's Services.

Critical decision making and public safety

With the County Council meeting taking place on Friday, I thought it an appropriate time to write to County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith about my concerns regarding the possible appointment of a Chief Fire Officer with no fire service experience. The email, copied to all County Councillors is reproduced below:

"Dear Councillor Goldsmith,

 

Whenever I have spoken to Cabinet Members about their fire service decisions, I am invariably told, “I am not a firefighter, it is the Chief Fire Officer who is the expert on the fire service, so I must follow his professional advice.” Leaving aside the constraints that Cabinet Members impose on the Chief Fire Officer, that statement seems reasonable.

 

I am therefore at a loss to understand why the County Council would now consider being advised on fire & rescue service matters by someone who is not an experienced and professional Chief Fire Officer.

 

Critical decision making

 

During 15 years in the County Council’s Emergency Planning Unit, I witnessed several competent WSCC managers struggle to make decisions during emergencies. This was at all levels up to Chief Executive level and ranged from poor decisions to flat refusals to make an urgent decision when it mattered. This was not because they were poor managers, but because there is a stark difference between making day to day decisions and making critical emergency decisions. When making day to day decisions in a calm office environment, others can be consulted, research carried out, advice sought, reports reviewed, and option papers considered. All of which will help a competent manager to reach a sensible decision.

 

However, that is a World away from having to make a critical decision at 3 am, in an unfamiliar location, with limited and sometimes confused information, with no one available to consult and everyone around you expecting an immediate decision. Even the best managers, who are not used to such decision making, can fail under such pressure. Yet no one can predict who will, and who won’t fail, until the situation arises.

 

Whilst none of those decisions were life and death decisions, the failures did undermine the effectiveness of the emergency response. Put a Chief Fire Officer, without experience, in those situations and lives could well be lost. For the County Council to even consider appointing a Chief Fire Officer, who might fail when life critical decisions are required, seems to be a serious folly.

 

Throughout their service firefighters are trained to quickly make critical decisions when they only have limited and confused information. By the time a firefighter has reached higher management levels, they will have honed those skills and gained invaluable practical experience over many years. They will also have developed, through training and practice, the broader management and financial skills necessary for the role of Chief Fire Officer.

 

To be effective a Chief Fire Officer must also understand the roles, responsibilities and methods of operation of all the emergency services, and of the many other organisations that are involved in complex emergencies. Effective joint working, especially at major incidents, also depends on an in-depth knowledge of inter-agency plans and procedures, reinforced with extensive inter-agency training and practical experience.

 

Such knowledge, skills and experience can only be acquired by serving in the fire & rescue service for many years.

 

Non-critical decision making

 

Management consultants may claim this is where fire service knowledge, training and experience is not necessary. The fundamental flaw in that thinking is that all non-critical decisions ultimately have an impact on the effectiveness of the service’s prevention and response activities. Understanding how decisions will affect the service’s ability to prevent and respond to emergencies is vital in ensuring the right decisions are made. There is no better way of understanding the hazards and challenges facing firefighters, than having been in that situation yourself. That experience also makes day to day decisions on procedures, resources, staffing, training etc fully informed. 

 

It may be suggested that a Chief Fire Officer, without fire service experience, can rely on a Deputy Chief who has that experience. Not only does that result in the Deputy Chief being the de facto Chief Fire Officer, whilst being paid less, it also results in the Chief Fire Officer being no more than a rubber stamp for the Deputy's decisions. An added danger is that, if a Deputy Chief in that position provides poor advice, either deliberately or inadvertently, the Chief Fire Officer will not have the knowledge, training or experience to recognise it. There is also the danger that a Chief Fire Officer without fire service experience may not wish to be seen to always follow a Deputy’s advice and, in an effort to assert their authority, may ignore it. Failing to listen to professional advice could then have serious consequences.

 

Confidence

 

It is essential that staff in the fire & rescue service, WSCC Directors, heads of partner agencies, and the public have confidence that the Chief Fire Officer has the necessary fire & rescue service knowledge, training and experience. Without that confidence the opinions and decisions of the Chief Fire Officer will not be trusted and that will quickly undermine respect for the service and the Council.

 

The few fire authorities that have been foolish enough to experiment with a head of service shipped in from outside the fire & rescue service have seen confidence decline. None of those experiments has proven successful, with only those who took the decision to appoint such a person, and the person themselves, claiming otherwise.

 

There are enough challenges in running a modern fire & rescue service without adding the challenge of having no fire & rescue service experience. Residents and firefighters deserve a Chief Fire Officer who has had a career’s worth of training, knowledge and experience in the fire & rescue service.

 

I trust that you will ensure that a Chief Fire Officer with considerable experience of the fire & rescue service is appointed to protect West Sussex residents.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Morris"

Office for National Statistics ignores true value of our fire & rescue services

Yesterday's report, “Activities, spending and productivity in the Fire and Rescue Services since 2009”, from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), clearly shows how distorted thinking is undermining our fire & rescue services.

They claim to be independent of politics, but the claim looks somewhat suspect when the report suggests that cuts have improved productivity. They also claim to be the “recognised national statistical institute of the UK”. Well perhaps they are competent when it comes to business statistics, but when it comes to the fire & rescue service they clearly don’t have a clue.

They apply a simplistic business test of looking at inputs (cost of provision) and outputs (quantity produced), which they perceive for fire & rescue to be operational and prevention activity. They then crudely claim, because activity cuts are not as bad as staff cuts, that productivity has improved.

Home Office figures

The fundamental schoolboy error in this approach is that fire & rescue is not a business, but a form of insurance that both reduces mishaps and disasters, and minimises their effects when they do occur. If they properly assessed outputs, they would assess the financial benefit of lives not being lost and property not being destroyed as a result of FRS activity. Sadly, something this national statistical institute appears incapable of doing.

Now it may be difficult, but proper research could identify the value of lives and property saved at incidents by the FRS. Identifying the value of lives and property saved by prevention activity, i.e. losses avoided because incidents were avoided, may be more challenging, but a “recognised national statistical institute” ought to be able to estimate this. Yet they have not even tried to do so.

The real value of the service is what is saved and prevented, not how many incidents or inspections are carried out. I have no doubt that if these fundamental outputs were properly calculated, then the service would be shown to be very productive and very good value.

Of course, that would also show that cuts to the service are counterproductive, with the cost of the consequences being much greater than the actual saving on service provision. The ONS may consider themselves to be non-political, but their inept assessment is helping austerity politicians to falsely claim damaging cuts as productivity improvements.

If the ONS want their statistics on fire & rescue to be taken seriously, then they need to properly value the full benefit that fire and rescue services contribute to public safety and the economy.