Surrey fire control deal puts West Sussex lives at risk

At the recent Environment, Communities and Fire Scrutiny Committee meeting at County Hall, Councillors questioned claims that the arrangement for Surrey to control the response to West Sussex emergencies was "a success". Unfortunately, the denials and assurances sounded ever so familiar.

Groundhog Day

When the West Sussex control room was closed and the Sussex control room opened, WSFRS officers assured Councillors it would be straightforward and the Cabinet Member claimed it was a success. When reports of problems were leaked, WSFRS officers and the Cabinet member dismissed them and only admitted to "teething problems" that had been "fixed".

"There is nothing that would give me or officers cause for concern"

Cabinet Member Lionel Barnard August 2014

Lionel Barnard added that staffing was satisfactory, sickness had dropped and everything is "as we would expect it." Yet, a freedom of information request revealed a very different story, and one that would get worse.

There were also strenuous efforts, in both East and West Sussex, to keep problems with the technology secret. This went on for over four years and thousands of pounds were spent trying to fix the problems. It was only after West Sussex's Chief Fire Officer Sean Ruth left that East Sussex began to admit problems, although they blamed connections to existing systems and the old chestnut, "teething problems". 

Although those who reported the original concerns believed that the problems had been fixed by 2018 and the Control Centre was working well, West Sussex decided to leave East Sussex in the lurch by abandoning the Sussex Control Centre. Rushing in to this deal with Surrey, and spending even more money, has again resulted in reports of problems with staffing and technology.

The previous assurances about the arrangements with East Sussex proved false, dishonest even,

so how can we have faith in the latest assurances about the arrangement with Surrey?

Assurances not enough, evidence is needed

Councillors, notably Michael Jones and James Walsh, rightly questioned those assurances and asked for more detail and some evidence to support them. The question is, will the details and evidence be published to allow proper scrutiny, or will they be sent to Councillors with instructions not to reveal the detail? An all too common tactic from West Sussex County Council when they wish to cover up failures.

In an effort to try and ensure information is made public, I have submitted Freedom of Information requests to both West Sussex and Surrey. Of course they may try and keep that information secret, by using exemptions in the legislation, but if they are truly open and honest they will not. It will certainly be an interesting test of WSCC's claims to be improving their culture, especially with regard to honesty and accountability. 

The meeting was told that the FBU Safety Critical Notice was just a Surrey affair and that West Sussex FBU officials had not raised any issues. That may have misled Councillors in to believing that the errors and failings had not affected West Sussex. As West Sussex firefighters had reported 'near hit' events to managers, they would have no need to report them to the FBU. That would only follow if they believed no action was being taken.

It was admitted at the meeting that there had been 'near hit' reports and a weekend system failure, but it was claimed they were not safety critical. I beg to differ. A 'near hit' report means safety was compromised, and it was only luck that meant serious consequences did not result. It is like saying a safety harness failure wasn't safety critical because the person wearing it was close to the ground and wasn't hurt.

It was disappointing to hear that some Councillors were unconcerned about these failures because "you expect teething problems". This was supposed to be a state of the art, tried and tested system, not some early stage experimental computer system. These are not "teething problems" or "bedding in" difficulties, they are failures. 

Failures of concept, of planning, of testing, of training, 

of implementation, of data validation, or all of those.

When lives depend on a system, such failures are unacceptable.

Having heard the dubious claim that less staff were needed because the system relied more on system data being updated automatically, I was astonished to then hear that the data updating was unreliable. It depended on the mobile telephone network and coverage was poor in some areas. The committee was then told that they were going to switch to the Airwave system to improve the situation, but it could take three months to get the necessary licence.

So why did they go ahead before it was in place? No explanation was given. The Committee Chairman said he knew about the licence issue last July, but the meeting was told the application had not yet been submitted. That beggars belief. The mention of Airwave raises further concerns:

• Airwave is basically a mobile telephone system that also does not have 100% coverage.
• Like other mobile telephone systems, Airwave can experience failures and overload.
• Airwave is due to be replaced by the Emergency Services Network, which is yet another mobile telephone system that has yet to be fully tested.

West Sussex residents less safe

The committee was told that ways of working had been changed "for alignment". No detail was given, but reports suggest that West Sussex has cut their levels of protection for the public to match Surrey's poor standards.

Leaving busier fire stations without a fire engine is not a 'culture change', 

it is a downgrading of the service provided to West Sussex residents.

Councillors were told that the system had a new tool for mapping risk and maintaining cover, as if that somehow made it acceptable because it is the computer that says "NO". The parameters used by the computer are determined by the supplier and should meet the requirements of the Service. If the system is as good as claimed, then it should be perfectly possible to have West Sussex standards applied, even if they are different to Surrey's. 

It was concerning to hear about dependence on 'the cloud'. Whilst it is true that this may offer some benefits, it also creates new vulnerabilities. Industry experts will admit that your data could get lost, wiped, corrupted or stolen. They will of course assure you that they take security very seriously, but we have seen many large organisations, who take security seriously, suffer significant problems including denial of service, theft of data and infected systems.

For many years fire services ensured that their control room systems were isolated and protected. 

Now they are happy to put them at risk to save a bit of money. 

I am also concerned that data obtained by West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, which they are legally obliged to protect, is now accessible to Surrey County Council and those contractors and sub contractors used to store or transmit that data. The more people that have access, the greater the risk of unauthorised, malicious or criminal access. WSFRS obtains a lot of data from individuals and businesses that is personal data under data protection legislation, or is commercially or security sensitive.

If a GP refers a patient to another part of the NHS, the GP has to have written permission to share their details. So I wonder how many West Sussex residents and businesses have been asked if they are happy for their data to be shared with, or accessible to, other public and private organisations?

Over £4 million wasted

It was also disappointing to hear the Assistant Chief Fire Officer suggest that, because the control building at Haywards Heath could be used for other purposes when East Sussex move out, money had not been wasted. Finding a use for the building is not the issue, over £2 million was spent on converting it to meet the specialist needs of a fire service control facility. In addition, another £2 million of the £3.6 million Government grant was spent on equipment and work that will now be wasted.

These joint figures were published by East Sussex in 2014, so they do not include subsequent spending by both Services to fix problems. Exactly how much has never been revealed, with some costs being hidden under other budget headings. The Surrey move means that most of the money spent at Haywards Heath has been wasted, and even more is likely to be spent on converting it back to other uses. 

Inadequate staffing levels a major threat to safety

The excuse given to Councillors for such low levels of staffing in Surrey's control was that the technology reduces the need for staff to undertake certain tasks. Yet we were also told that when the technology fails, staff can carry out those tasks. No one can predict when failures will occur, which means that when they do staffing will be hopelessly inadequate.

No matter how good the technology, it cannot replace the Control Operator's ability to gather vital information from often agitated and distressed callers and to ensure that the right help is quickly on its way. No one can predict when many callers may need that help at the same time, which means that when they do staffing will be hopelessly inadequate.

This is not a commercial call centre where staffing can be varied to match expected demand and, if demand is unexpectedly high, the only result is frustrated customers. This is a critical control room managing the fire and rescue service's response to life threatening emergencies. There is no pattern to instances of high demand, it can happen at any time of day, on any day of the week, and at any time of the year.

There are not enough staff in the Surrey Control Room to safely deal with emergencies in Surrey and West Sussex. It will be even worse when they also deal with East Sussex emergencies.

Relative workload per Operator on minimum staffing 

(last column assumes minimum increased by one, as it did when West Sussex joined)

Not enough Control Operators to answer calls for help means
people in danger wait longer for Firefighters to arrive

Safety Critical Notice issued for Surrey Fire Control

When I posted yesterday about the problems following the so called "successful implementation of the Fire Control project", I was clearly unaware how bad the situation really was. The FBU safety critical notice, issued late yesterday, shows that West Sussex County Council has made yet another inept decision.

8th January 2020

The Fire Brigades Union demands that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), immediately suspends the West Sussex control and command function until adequate control measures are put in place to mitigate the safety critical issues that have been identified. These safety critical issues have come to the attention of the FBU since the transfer of the West Sussex control and command function to Surrey on the 4th December 2019. The safety critical issues being encountered pose a significant risk to both public and firefighter safety. The identified safety critical issues are both unacceptable to the FBU and our members in terms of both severity and occurrence since the transfer. The safety critical issues broadly fall into the categories below;

 Surrey Control staff have not be sufficiently trained to carry out their role on behalf of West Sussex
 Multiple technical failures of IT systems
 Severe understaffing
 SFRSs failure to invoke its Emergency Recall to Duty (Whole-time, Mobilising Control and Support staff only)
 SFRS failure to invoke its Degradation Procedure

SFRSs failure and omissions as categorised above have, and still are’ resulting in emergency fire and rescue operational failures as described below;

 crews being mobilised to emergency incidents from the wrong locations causing substantial delays in getting resources to emergencies.
 crews being sent mobilisation alerts, when they are not available to respond
 incident commanders not being able to access safety critical operational information from control

Control staff are under extreme pressure due to these factors, this appears to be forcing them to forgo necessary (and required) rest breaks further increasing not only stress levels, but also fatigue in the workplace.

FBU members and SFRS staff working in the control room are under extreme pressure and suffering stress levels that are detrimental to their mental wellbeing. This has already led to occurrences of work related sickness and multiple reports of staff breaking down in tears both within the control room and at home following their shifts.

This situation is totally unacceptable to the FBU and our members and must be rectified immediately.

Should SFRS not comply with above demands then the FBU believe that the Service shall be contravening Health and Safety Regulations including;

The Working Time Regulations 1998

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Management of Health Safety at Work Regulations 1999

Copies of this notice shall be sent in line with FBU protocol to the Health and Safety Executive, FBU regional and national officials as well as FBU members in Surrey.

Copies will also be sent to Surrey County Council, West Sussex County Council, as the Fire Authorities of both affected counties as well as West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service. A copy will also be sent to West Sussex FBU officials.

A copy will also be sent to the East Sussex Fire Authority, East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, and its FBU officials, as these issues may impact on East Sussex’s decision making in regards to its own mobilising control function.

Summary

 Immediate suspension of the provision of West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service control and command functions until;

o Control staff in Surrey have been sufficiently trained to provide a command and control function for West Sussex.
o Staffing levels in the Surrey Control room are sufficient and do not pose a threat to the wellbeing of those working there.
o Identified IT faults and failings are rectified.
o All control staff and operational Duty Managers are suitably trained and empowered to implement the Emergency Recall to Duty (Whole-time, Mobilising Control and Support staff only) and/or the Service Degradation Policy, on occasions when the agreed minimum crewing level of 6 control staff (which must include 2 supervisory manager roles) is not achieved.

The FBU is of the opinion that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service is inflicting unacceptable and unnecessary levels of risk on the public and employees of the Fire and Rescue Service’s in both counties. Therefore, the FBU believe that the Surrey Control is not capable of safely or effectively carrying out the command and control function on behalf of West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service at this time and therefore it should be immediately suspended until these safety critical issues have been suitably resolved.

The FBU are obviously willing to take a full and active part in investigating and mitigating the identified safety critical issues.

Richard Jones
Fire Brigades Union,
Executive Council Member,
South East Region

Serious concerns about inadequate Surrey fire control

At their meeting on Monday, the Environment, Communities and Fire Scrutiny Committee will discuss the Chief Fire Officer's progress report on the Improvement Plan, which followed Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection report. The full report to the Scrutiny Committee can be found in the agenda reports pack.

Some progress, but not all good news

It is pleasing that quite a bit of progress seems to have been made on improvements, but reference to the "successful implementation of the Fire Control project" appears to be misplaced. Information from reliable sources suggest a number of things have gone wrong, including mobilising failures, incomplete turnout instructions and delays. No doubt we will be told they were teething problems, but if implementation was "successful" there would be no such problems. There are also concerns that some back up options, which were available when West Sussex had its own control, are no longer there.

Inadequate staffing

The most worrying aspect about Surrey control also handling West Sussex emergencies is inadequate staffing. Something I warned about a year ago:

"Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) recently rated Surrey Fire & Rescue Service as inadequate. Their report included criticism of inadequate staffing in Surrey's control room." 

Reports from inside the service said:

With the possibility of East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service also opting to use Surrey for their call handling, staffing could become even more inadequate. East Sussex are only having to consider this because West Sussex County Council decided to waste millions of pounds by pulling out of the combined Sussex control. If East Sussex do decide that using the Surrey control is the only viable option, they must do a better job and insist on much better staffing.  

When the WSCC Environment, Communities and Fire Scrutiny Committee looked at the plans to use Surrey, there was a lot of discussion about technology but not about staffing. Just one question was asked and the then Chief Fire Officer told Members that he would ensure there would be enough staff. However, following answers to a written question from Councillor Michael Jones last month, we now know that was not done. 

Minimum staffing to handle emergencies in Surrey and West Sussex is just five for about 21,000 incidents a year. Minimum staffing when West Sussex ran their own control was four (9,000 incidents) and minimum staffing in the Sussex control, when serving East & West Sussex, was seven (18,500 incidents). 

The population of the area directly affects the number of incidents handled in a year and therefore control operator workload. Using Home Office data, the graph below shows the ratio of incidents and population per control operator, when at the respective minimum staffing levels.

It is quite impossible for the Surrey control to provide the level of service West Sussex residents have rightly come to expect. At busy times they will simply not have enough staff to ensure that emergencies in both counties can be handled quickly and effectively. Surrey County Council is effectively ripping off West Sussex County Council by charging a lot of money for a worse service.

It seems that senior officers in both Surrey and West Sussex have been so dazzled and preoccupied with technology, they forgot about the most important component of any emergency service control room - Control Operators. 

Important though good technology is, it is only ever an aid to Control Operators. They are the ones who have to answer every '999' call, extract the essential information required from sometimes distressed and confused callers, and then ensure the right resources are dispatched. And that is just the beginning. A routine emergency can generate dozens of Control Operator actions, a serious incident can require hundreds of actions and major incidents can require thousands. 

Control rooms can go from being quiet, with no incidents to deal with, to frenetic activity within seconds and dozens of emergencies needing a response within a few minutes. The only way to ensure that the public get help quickly and effectively is to employ adequate numbers of skilled and motivated Control Operators. Surrey have failed to do that and West Sussex have allowed them to.

Hidden performance standards and targets reassure no one

The written answer, provided last month, also said that, "there are numerous performance standards with targets assigned" to the agreement with Surrey, but failed to give any details. The only way County Councillors can scrutinise Surrey Control's performance, and the public can learn the real effects of this contract, is for those performance standards and targets to be published. We also need to see the figures for Sussex Control's performance, so that fair comparison is possible.   

Previous national data showed that the Surrey control took, on average, twice as long as the Sussex control to handle calls. Councillors were wrongly told that this was because Surrey "call challenged" and Sussex did not. The truth is that both controls use call challenging when necessary. Call challenging does however carry risks. Used properly it can prevent resources being sent to hoax calls, but it can also result in a delayed response to genuine calls and, in the worst cases, no response to genuine emergencies. It must only ever be used sparingly and cautiously.  

Assurances given to the committee have not been honoured,

Members must ask why and insist on improved staffing.

Remember this when you vote on Thursday

Many things about this General Election make it very difficult to decide who to vote for, but one thing that is very clear to me is who not to vote for:

Conservative Party policies have resulted in our fire & rescue services suffering the biggest cuts since World War 2.

Conservative Chancellors have cut funding to fire & rescue authorities with no regard for the consequences.

Conservative Ministers responsible for fire & rescue services have lied about funding being adequate and falsely claimed that there will be no cuts to front-line services.

Conservative Members on fire & rescue authorities have failed to demand fairer funding and falsely claimed cuts are modernisation.

Conservative politicians dishonestly claim there is a link between the number of calls and the resources required. The only link is between resources and the speed and effectiveness of the response.

Less Resources = Slower & Less Effective Response

The Conservative manifesto talks about more funding for some public services, which is basically undoing some of the cuts they made, but the fire & rescue service will continue to be cut.

Voting Conservative will ensure that when people are in danger they will have to wait ever longer for less firefighters to arrive on less capable fire engines.

Cuts cost lives

Conservative politics cost lives

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.