Poor performance prompts more spin and cover up

With elections next May, it seems that West Sussex County Council's leadership is desperate to cover up how their cuts have damaged the fire & rescue service's performance. 

Bogus grounds used to refuse Freedom of Information request

A recent request for copies of the service's 'Failure to meet response standard reports', covering the period from 1 November 2023 to 31 October 2024, has been refused. This is particularly suspicious, as the information was provided when the same reports were requested in 2018 and 2021. One can only assume that performance is now much worse.

The first bogus reason for refusal was that disclosure "would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of any individual". With imagination worthy of a conspiracy theorist, they suggest that a person with malicious intent could use the data to delay the response to future incidents.

So, what is this information that was previously not valuable to a person with malicious intent, but now suddenly is? 

The information simply shows that at some past incidents the service failed to meet their response standard for reasons such as long travel distance, slow turnout, nearest station off the run, appliance did not book in, difficulty in locating the incident, nearest appliance attending another incident, and heavy traffic. 

All reasons that would be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Bizarre personal data refusal, when no personal data was requested

Presumably, in case the first reason does not pass the Information Commissioner's tests, they throw in the personal data exemption as a second reason for refusal. Yet no personal data was requested, and the information held, and previously provided, does not include personal data. 

The Council's leadership and the Chief Fire Officer regularly claim to be open and transparent, yet this demonstrates, once again, that they are not.

Complacent and ineffective Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee meeting 

This committee met at the beginning of the month and, sadly, scrutiny was inadequate. The Performance Report for quarter 2 of 2024/25 revealed further deterioration in the service's response to critical fires, but committee members voiced no concerns.

Critical Fires – First Appliance Attendance

The response target for critical fires across most of the County is a lengthy 14 minutes, yet this is failed on nearly 10% of occasions. The report said that 'performance often dips in quarter two', but no one asked the Chief Fire Officer why it was nearly 8% worse than the same quarter last year (it was 94.7% in quarter two last year, but was down to 86.9% this year).

Inadequate crewing on retained frontline fire engines

Councillor complacency on this crisis is astonishing. Not only was this the worst ever quarter two performance, it was the worst quarterly performance on record. With up to three quarters of the County's fire engines dependent on retained firefighters this continuing deterioration is putting lives and property at risk. Yet, instead of demanding action, Councillors just accept Cabinet Member Duncan Crow's lame excuses and move on to the next item. 

Source: WSCC reports 

(Note - the target was cut between 2013/14 and 2019/20 without consultation or explanation)

Councillors rightly praise staff in the fire & rescue service for their efforts, but fail to examine how decisions by the Council have contributed to this worrying decline. Not only has the County Council cut the number of retained firefighters they employ, their policies are having a negative effect on the recruitment and retention of retained firefighters.

The County Council could set an example to other employers by having a policy to positively support all County Council employees who wish to become retained firefighters, and a policy to release them from their primary employment for training and response to emergencies. Yet the Council has no such policy and selfishly expects other employers and the self employed to step up and do what they will not do.

Why are establishment and strength figures not published?

It is interesting that the report refers to the Retained Duty System being 14% below the ‘authorised establishment.’ Establishment figures are no longer published, so Councillors cannot properly scrutinise the service without updates on changes to the establishment and actual strength figures. 

Source: Home Office statistics

The retained firefighter strength in 2024 is two thirds lower than the Council's approved establishment in 2004! 

Lean or inadequately resourced?

During the meeting, Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton referred to the service being a lean one. An understatement if ever there was one. The County Council has cut the service to the bone, which leaves it struggling to cope with routine demand. It is no longer able to provide an effective service when there are more demanding incidents, or when several incidents occur at the same time. 

Instead of recognising that deteriorating performance is the result of Council cuts, Duncan Crow was more interested in boasting that the County Council's spend on the fire & rescue service is £6 less per head of population than the average in England. That missing £5 million has much to do with why there are not enough firefighters in West Sussex and, as a consequence, why response times have got worse.

The County Council is failing to properly protect residents

Why the Conservatives cannot be trusted with our Fire & Rescue Service

Key changes between 1974 and 2024

West Sussex was enlarged in 1974 and for the next 35 years the Conservative’s management of the fire & rescue service could be considered adequate. However, during the last 14 years this has deteriorated dramatically and worryingly it is continuing to deteriorate.

Misleading information and false claims

With County Council elections next year it is important that misleading information and false claims from the Council's Conservative leadership are exposed. At a recent meeting, Cabinet Member Duncan Crow claimed that they had increased the number of firefighters. Home Office figures show that is not true, they have been reduced significantly.

Duncan Crow is also fond of claiming that fire deaths have fallen as a result of prevention work. That is untrue. The number of fire deaths fluctuates year by year, so more than one year has to be examined to get a true indication of changes.

Unfortunately for Councillor Crow, the most recent five year average shows a worrying increase in fire deaths compared to the five year average before the County Council began their cuts to frontline fire crews.

The Conservatives cannot be trusted to run our Fire & Rescue Service

Self deception or deceiving the public?

The response time deception

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

Councillor Steve Waight made one pertinent comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The improved performance deception

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Home Office Fire & Rescue Service data

The shocking failure to ensure fire engines are crewed

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

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

Source - West Sussex County Council reports

Conservative failure, nationally and locally

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

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

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

Definitely best tactical voting option

Chichester - Liberal Democrat

Crawley - Labour

East Worthing and Shoreham - Labour

Horsham - Liberal Democrat

Mid Sussex - Liberal Democrat

West Worthing - Labour

Less certain best tactical voting option

Arundel and South Downs - Green Party

Bognor Regis and Littlehampton - Labour

East Grinstead and Uckfield - Liberal Democrat

The most important thing is that you actually vote

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

The Reform UK Party deception

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

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

County Council failing to protect West Sussex residents

Deception

Latest figures show how West Sussex County Council's poor fire service response times are getting even worse. It is the result of closing fire stations, cutting a quarter of the county's fire engines, and failing to ensure the remaining ones are always crewed.

Most of the county's fire engines depend on retained (on call) firefighters who are called from their homes or work when an emergency is received. Figures in the latest report to WSCC's Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee show that those fire engines cannot be crewed more often than they can be crewed. 

In the report to Councillors, the chart on adequate crewing is coloured all blue, conveniently ignoring the red, amber, green mentioned in the text. The chart below is properly coloured and goes back to 2011/12, the first year of the cuts.

Source - West Sussex County Council reports

Deceiving councillors & the public is unacceptable

Cover up

A member of the public asked for this availability information on a station by station basis, via a Freedom of Information request, but this was refused. The reason given was, “Disclosure of the information you seek would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of any individual.”

A ludicrous reason as that very information used to be available online on the Council’s performance dashboard, and it has been provided on request previously. The removal from the performance dashboard in 2019, along with other performance information, was presumably to cover up deteriorating performance.

Council conspiracy theories

The refusal goes onto claim that the data, “could be used to target certain areas at specific times, which could, in turn, endanger both members of the public in those areas and the firefighters involved in any such incidents.”

Imaginary people plotting imaginary action to target areas in some imaginary way is utterly fanciful. Especially so, as the data requested would not contain ‘specific times,’ just a percentage of hours a fire engine was unavailable in the past. Availability is ever changing, so past data could not be used to predict future availability.

Publishing this data could actually be positive. Public awareness of stations that are struggling to crew their fire engines could well aid recruitment and encourage local employers to release retained firefighters to improve availability.  

This misuse of legislation is not to prevent a threat, 

it is to cover up West Sussex County Council's failure to protect the public

44% increase in time taken to reach serious fires

When an emergency call is received, and the nearest fire engine is not crewed, it means another has to attend from a fire station further away. Latest Home Office  figures show how the average travelling time for the first fire engine has, since 2010/11, increased by 44%. That is a 19% greater increase than the average across England. This is the combined effect of the Council's significant cuts to the service, and their failure to properly crew fire engines. 

The figures are even more disturbing when you realise that, in 2022, over 70% of incidents were in areas covered by the six fire stations crewed by wholetime firefighters round the clock. Their travel times are unlikely to have increased, which means that in the areas covered by the other 18 fire stations the increase must have been significantly greater than the 44% average increase.

Only six fire stations with a wholetime crew 24 hours a day

Bognor Regis, Chichester, Crawley, Horsham, Littlehampton & Worthing

The other 18 fire stations depend wholly, or partly, on having enough retained firefighters available. When they are not available, those fire stations are effectively closed.

West Sussex County Council makes excuses, but takes no effective action

Instead of positive action to find solutions, the Council's Cabinet Member, Duncan Crow, fiddles whilst West Sussex burns. He expects local employers to release retained firefighters to attend emergencies during working hours, but the Council's Cabinet has refused to approve a policy to allow their own staff to do the same.

The County Council's Cabinet should have been setting an example by encouraging council staff to be retained firefighters, fully supporting them with paid time off for initial training, and allowing them to work remotely at or near a fire station. They cannot expect other employers and the self employed to solve this problem when they set such a poor example.

County Councillors must remember that the legal duty to provide an effective fire & rescue service is their responsibility alone. So, how many County Councillors have approached parish councils, partner organisations, businesses, community groups etc., where retained firefighters are needed? It would appear very few, if any. 

Sadly, the Scrutiny Committee once again kicked this down the road this week, because 30 minutes was thought not long enough. Well yes, it is not long enough but why are they not holding an urgent special meeting about such terrible performance?

If County Councillors won't solve the retained firefighter shortage, they must fund more wholetime firefighters to protect West Sussex residents

Conflict of interest

I have recently seen two freedom of information requests related to the Chief Fire Officer's commercial activities. One asked how many of the 'Service Executive Board' attended the Chief Fire Officer’s book launch earlier this year in an official capacity, and if they claimed expenses. The response was that none attended officially and that no expenses were claimed. It did not say how many attended. 

More concerning is that promoting this book, which is about gender bias, appears to have been given higher priority than a meeting of the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee. It appears the scheduled meeting clashed with the book launch and was cancelled, which meant County Councillors had to find time for a rearranged meeting. 

The Chief Fire Officer's commercial book promotion should not be a higher priority than a County Council scrutiny meeting.

Double Standards

The other request concerned the Chief Fire Officer's secondary employment as a public speaker, and referred to an agency that arranges her paid speaking engagements. The reply says that she has County Council approval for this secondary employment, which must not conflict with the Council's interests or her employment responsibilities.

The Council also says that this secondary employment is restricted to periods of leave and in their own time. However, Chief Fire Officers don't have set hours and predecessors used to insist that they were always on duty and available. The response confirmed that no other chief officer employed by the County Council indulges in secondary employment. 

The County Council has previously dismissed firefighters when their secondary employment had any connection with firefighting, fire safety, or their employment as a firefighter. This was not because of a proven conflict of interest, but because there could be. Yet the Chief Fire Officer's paid speaking engagements will inevitably have a connection with the fire & rescue service and her County Council role. 

Of course, other chief fire officers have attended speaking engagements but, as far as I am aware, none have been paid to do so. They have always accepted it as part of their responsibility as a chief fire officer. They also often attended fire station open days, community events, meetings with local organisations, and local fund raising events for The Fire Fighters Charity in the evening or at weekends.

Prioritising a commercial book launch over a scrutiny committee meeting suggests a conflict of interest. At the very least, attending paid speaking engagements up and down the country must result in less time for the Chief Fire Officer's primary responsibility to the residents of West Sussex. 

Dismayed firefighters have said that they have more chance of seeing their Chief Fire Officer talking about her life on television, than they do of seeing her at their fire station to listen to their concerns. There is much to admire about this Chief Fire Officer, but concerns being raised about her priorities and conflict of interest are worrying.

Who monitors the Chief Fire Officer's secondary employment to ensure there is no conflict with her primary employment?

 

Cuts and fire death concerns

Fair Pay

It is good news that firefighters and their employers have reached agreement on pay and avoided a strike. Both sides have been pragmatic, with the employers offering more than many other public sector employers, and firefighters accepting an offer that is less than would cover their inflation losses.

However, the Government has not given fire & rescue authorities additional funding to cover the cost. At the recent Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee it became apparent that the County Council has not set aside enough to cover the pay rise. Cabinet Member Duncan Crow said it will be challenging and Chairman Kevin Boram said the budget is tight.

I sincerely hope that Councillors listen to Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton, who reminded them that the service was 'lean'. 

The cuts in 2010 did leave the service lean, but the additional cuts in 2014 left it far too lean. Further cuts would seriously damage the service's response capability, and jeopardise improvements made since 2018, when HM Inspectors rated the service 'Inadequate', or 'Requiring Improvement' in every category. Inadequate funding played a significant part in those dreadful judgments.

County Councillors must fund the pay rise without further endangering West Sussex residents

Fire deaths

The County Council, in 2010 and 2014, falsely claimed that closing fire stations and cutting a quarter of frontline fire crews were 'improvements'. Despite having no evidence to support the claim, they assured residents that increased prevention work would save more lives. Despite a modest reduction in the number of fires in the last five years, the number of fire deaths has increased alarmingly.

Source Home Office Fire & Rescue Service statistics

With such concerning evidence, it was disturbing to hear the Chief Fire Officer, at a previous Select Committee meeting, incorrectly claim that the committee was informed of all fire deaths. The only fire deaths reported in the quarterly committee reports are those that occur in the home (dwellings), and where the fire was caused accidentally.

If the Chief Fire Officer did not intentionally mislead the committee, why did she get this very important detail wrong? Excluding fire deaths in other buildings, in road vehicles, in other outdoor locations, and in dwellings, when the fire was started deliberately, cannot be acceptable.

Source - FRSSC quarterly reports and Home Office Fire & Rescue Service statistics

The committee can't scrutinise properly unless they are informed of all fire deaths

Inquest questions remain unanswered

After hearing of firefighter concerns, I attended a recent Inquest into a West Sussex fire death. Although I learnt more about the circumstances of this tragic incident, some of those concerns were not addressed. 

A fundamental concern must be the adequacy of regulations. The fire occurred in the early evening, on the ground floor of a recently constructed block of retirement flats, with fire detection and connection to a careline alarm provider. Fire Investigation Officers concluded the most likely ignition source was a faulty, or damaged, trailing lead for a lamp. This then ignited a very new recliner chair that apparently met all current regulations.

Yet, despite the occupier being awake and ambulant, sufficient smoke was produced to incapacitate him. So much smoke that, even with the benefit of a thermal imaging camera, the victim was not located by firefighters immediately after they arrived. According to Area Manager Dave Bray, he was not located until two breathing apparatus teams were involved in a methodical search.

Whilst the occupier's apparent decision to try and put the fire out was relevant, it was disappointing to hear Mr Bray suggest that the victim's age was a factor in that decision. In my experience, people of all ages instinctively try and extinguish a small fire. Most succeed in extinguishing the fire, some don't but then escape, some suffer injuries in the process and, sadly, a few do not survive. 

Mr Bray did helpfully make the case for sprinklers, as a way to help avoid such deaths in the future. The Coroner indicated that she would submit a Prevent Future Deaths report that would raise the benefits of sprinklers.

Response delays

Mr Bray insisted there were no delays in the service's response, yet evidence suggests that there were. The wholetime crew in the town concerned had been mobilised to another incident, shortly before this call was received. Consequently, the town's retained crew was sent to this incident, together with the wholetime crew from a town five miles away.

Mr Bray told the Coroner that retained crews had five minutes to turn out and that they arrived in 11 minutes. However, he didn't tell the Coroner that it is only a two minute drive from the fire station to the incident. 

If there were no delays they should have been there in seven minutes, not eleven.

The Coroner was also told that the incident the wholetime crew were attending was 'an emergency'. I have been told it was not an emergency, and there are questions about why they were sent to it. The Inquest was not told the nature of that incident, or that the wholetime crew was located very close to the fatal fire.

In such circumstances, when West Sussex had its own fire control, control staff would have quickly radioed the wholetime crew to ask if they were in a position to attend the life threatening incident. That did not happen. It is alleged that, when the crew became aware of the serious incident, they requested permission to attend. It is also alleged that the Surrey based Joint Fire Control initially refused permission, insisting that incident details must first be completed on their in cab computer.

This suggests that, instead of control operators being able to use common sense and initiative, they are tied to inflexible procedures, an inflexible mobilising computer system, or both.

Although I believe my information was reliable, it was not first hand, which is why I hoped the Inquest would uncover the truth. As it did not, the service should investigate the full circumstances and ensure the removal of any obstacles that may have delayed the wholetime crew being immediately sent to this tragic incident.

'Computer says no' is unacceptable, Fire Control Staff must be free to use their initiative to save lives

Inadequate Response Targets

Mr Bray also told the Coroner that the service met their response targets. However, he did not tell her that West Sussex targets are lengthy, and differ according to where you live in the County

The targets set by the County Council do not ensure that the service is effective at saving lives and property, they are simply intended to mask the inadequate resources provided by the Council.

Research has shown that the optimum response time for life saving is no more than 10 minutes. Yet, West Sussex County Council has decided that for 66% of West Sussex the target time for the first fire engine will be a lengthy 14 minutes, for 34% of the County it is 12 minutes, and only 0.2% will receive the optimum life saving 10 minute target. 

West Sussex County Council's lengthy response times for critical fires

Green diamonds are fire stations and their designated number

Incredibly, if the first fire engine takes longer than those times for up to 11% of critical fires, the County Council can still claim to have met their target.

Nationally, the number of fires and fire deaths are reducing, although the percentage of fire deaths to fires is increasing. Slower response times are inevitably playing their part in that. Sadly, it is even worse in West Sussex where both the number of fire deaths and the percentage of fire deaths to fires are both increasing.

If West Sussex County Council genuinely want to reduce fire deaths, they must improve resources and bring response times down

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow failing to properly protect West Sussex residents

Not responding to fires does not improve resilience

Once again, West Sussex County Council uses dishonest spin to try and cover up their failure to provide an effective fire & rescue service. There is no evidence that the latest policy of not attending automatic fire alarm calls in some premises will improve effectiveness and resilience. 

However, it will inevitably result in some fires, which have been detected by automatic fire alarms, not being attended until they have reached much more serious proportions. It also increases the risk to life of the public and firefighters.

The 'get out, stay out, get the fire brigade out' slogan of just a few years ago was developed after tragedies. Incidents where, instead of calling the fire service and evacuating when the fire alarm operated, people went to investigate and were overcome by a fire and subsequently died.

WSCC is encouraging people to take action that may result in their death

Ignoring the first call and allowing fires to develop to more serious proportions will also threaten neighbouring buildings and present a greater risk to firefighters, when they finally arrive. 

Other consequences of not attending automatic fire alarm calls include unsafe conditions not being identified, firefighters not being familiar with hazards in those buildings, and a drop in income for retained firefighters. 

With the recession, any reduction in income for retained firefighters is likely to result in more leaving the service. Not only a waste of the money invested in training them, but a further degradation of fire protection for residents.

They say this only applies to "retail or public assembly premises", which they describe as low risk, yet there have been fire deaths in such premises in the past. Lives may well be lost in the future as a direct result of this retrograde step. 

This policy is ill considered and will have serious repercussions. I wonder if Councillor Crow has considered how he would justify, in a Coroner's Court, his policy decision that resulted in the service not responding immediately to a fatal fire? I suspect he has not. 

Gambling that an automatic fire alarm call will be false, is gambling with lives 

The real reason West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is less effective and resilient

Since 2010, West Sussex County Council has closed 4 fire stations and removed a quarter of frontline fire engines and crews. Despite previous assurances that this would improve the availability of the remaining fire engines, it has got progressively worse. 

At night, over three quarters of the County's fire engines depend on retained fire fighters who have to be called into their fire station when there is an emergency. The Council's original commitment, ten years ago, was that 88% of fire engines crewed by retained fire fighters would be available. When they failed to achieve that, instead of fixing the problem, they just dropped the commitment to 75%!

Disgracefully, they have failed to achieve that low standard every year since 2012/13. Latest figures show an obvious and worrying downward trend. 

(The two quarters above 70% in this chart result from pandemic measures that temporarily improved availability)

So, as the Cabinet Member responsible for the Council's legal duty to provide an effective fire & rescue service, what is Duncan Crow's response? Excuses, followed by more excuses. It is apparently everyone's fault except his! 

It is time for Councillor Crow to stop making excuses and provide West Sussex residents with more reliable protection

Incidents and fire deaths increasing

It is worth noting that the number of incidents attended by West Sussex firefighters is increasing. Not only is there a clear upward trend, but 2022-23 looks set to show a significant increase. Even before the spate of wildfires in the summer, the first quarter showed a 6% increase compared to the previous year. 

Desperation from the recession and ludicrously high energy prices are likely to drive people into using less safe ways of cooking, heating and lighting their homes. These invariably increase the number of fires in the home and will put lives in danger. 

There are already signs of increasing fire deaths, with full details suppressed by West Sussex County Council. The reports submitted to the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee only show accidental fire deaths in the home, which gives a distorted impression.

Last year, the committee was only told of 2 accidental fire deaths in the home, yet the total of all fire deaths in West Sussex was 6 (Home Office figures). Worryingly, the first six months of this year has already seen 3 accidental fire deaths in the home.

In the three years before the Council's fire service cuts there were 8 fire deaths

In the most recent three years there have been 14 fire deaths

Personnel in West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service continue to do their utmost to protect everyone, despite real terms wage cuts and inadequate resources. It is not their fault that the service is less effective and resilient.

It is the County Council that is failing West Sussex residents

Councillors, Government & Inspectors Fail Firefighters & The Public

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

Hollow praise before stabbing firefighters in the back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Sussex's lucky escape amid Council complacency

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

Just one of several severe wildfires on 19 July 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is dangerously under resourced

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

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

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

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

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

Bullying, harassment and discrimination indicate serious management failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dismissal is a lazy way to deal with poor behaviour