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

County Council failing residents once again

 County Councillors blocked from discussing Government plans for fire & rescue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Performance still inadequate

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

Surrey County Council still failing to meet their commitment

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

Response times continue to disappoint

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

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

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

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

Crucial retained firefighter availability still in decline

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

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

Source - WSFRS performance reports

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

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

 

Government White Paper a threat to firefighters and to public safety

 

There is no 'compelling case for reform'

Home Secretary Priti Patel claims “there is a compelling case for reform of our fire and rescue services.” The claim is utterly false. This is a politically driven attack on both firefighters and local democracy. Her aim is to bulldoze through changes that will make us all less safe by removing the ability of staff, Councillors, and the public to effectively oppose dangerous cuts.

She uses reports from the former HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services as 'evidence'. Yet these reports have misunderstood the service, misrepresented issues, and failed to identify the root causes of problems that are undermining the service’s performance. In almost all cases the root cause is Government policy, ranging from funding cuts and deregulation, to weakened requirements for senior posts and increasing demand on the service without providing resources to meet that demand.

The former Chief Inspector and his inspectors had no knowledge or experience of the fire & rescue service, and they carried out inspections as if they were inspecting the police. In doing so they completely failed to recognise that the function of the fire & rescue service, the way it must operate to be effective, the variety of demands on the service, the resource requirements, training needs etc., are all radically different to those of the police. It is also evident that his reports were not independent. Facts were ignored or misrepresented by the Chief Inspector to suit Government agendas.

Government falsehoods to cover up their own failures is unacceptable.

Home Secretary cynically misuses national tragedies

Shamefully, the Home Secretary uses the Grenfell and Manchester Arena tragedies to support her flawed case for reform. The service’s failings in relation to Grenfell were not responsible for the death toll. Government failures to make high rise buildings safe from fire were. Had it not been for the determination and exceptional bravery of London firefighters, more lives would have been lost at Grenfell. Whilst there were planning and preparation failures before Grenfell, Government austerity cuts and their lack of support frustrated efforts to make progress on those issues.

Disrespectfully, Ms Patel cynically misuses the Manchester Arena bombing to support her deception. She dishonestly implies the delayed attendance of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service was their fault. It was not, they properly followed agreed inter-agency procedures. The delay arose from the failure of the police, who have primacy for terror incidents, to follow those nationally agreed procedures. Had they given the fire & rescue service the correct information at the right time, the response would have followed immediately.

Priti Patel should apologise to the survivors and bereaved from both these tragedies for trying to shift the blame from Government onto firefighters.

Fire Minister ignorant of the service’s needs

Fire Minister Lord Greenhalgh with the Home Secretary as they mislead the media

The Fire Minister is either badly informed or simply conniving in this political attempt to weaken our fire & rescue services. Given his controversial political career it is probably both, with the emphasis on the latter. He has also, like the Chief Inspector, completely failed to understand the unique and critical differences between the police and fire & rescue.

Far from the reforms achieving the improvements he claims, the outcome will inevitably be the opposite. He might not understand the role of fire and rescue services and of the firefighter, but the public and firefighters already do. The public want firefighters to arrive at their fire or other emergency quickly, and with the right resources to help them. Firefighters conscientiously fulfil that role every day. The only hindrance they face is inadequate Government funding and inept Government tinkering.

Far from increasing professionalism, the proposals will see a significant decrease in professionalism, especially at senior levels. Similarly for governance, the proposals will weaken, not strengthen accountability, scrutiny, and transparency.

The White Paper will seriously weaken professionalism and accountability.

Building on Success – What Success?

The last twelve years has seen more Government damage to fire & rescue services than in the previous seventy plus years. Not only drastic cuts to the resources needed to effectively respond to fires and other emergencies, but a seriously weakened regulatory regime that is failing to keep people safe from fire in their homes, at work, at school, and when enjoying their leisure time.

Source: Home Office figures for England

The serious dangers of operational independence

The proposal to grant chief fire officers operational independence will enable flexibility, but it will not improve the service to the public. It will effectively create tin pot dictators with the flexibility to not crew fire stations and fire engines properly, the flexibility to divert staff from response duties to pet projects, and the flexibility to introduce unsafe procedures that put firefighters at unnecessary risk. Flexibility will remove all the safeguards intended to stop hasty, ill considered, and flawed decisions.

It is unacceptable to have any public post free to make decisions without approval or challenge from the public they serve through their elected representatives. The only justification for the exception of operational independence for chief constables is to ensure that politicians cannot interfere with who is investigated and who is arrested. There is no justification for such an exemption for chief fire officers. 

Fully trained and experienced chief fire officers can make poor decisions, none are infallible. There must be opportunities to stop or reverse their mistakes, but these proposals remove those opportunities. With reforms enabling the appointment of more chief officers with little or no professional fire service training and experience, such poor decisions will become all too common. 

The public expect chief fire officers to have joined the service as firefighters and to have worked their way up. They expect them to have acquired in depth knowledge, after many years of training and study, plus significant experience of dealing with fires and other emergencies. 

Operational independence will be a dangerous free pass for incompetent, cavalier, or bullying Chief Fire Officers

The sinister Fire and Rescue Service Oath

This really verges on the laughable until you consider the real reason behind it. There is absolutely no evidence that this will improve adherence to any statutory code. Police officers have always had to take an oath, yet it has not stopped unacceptable, abhorrent, and even criminal behaviour by a few. 

Latest figures show that in England & Wales, in 2020/21, there were over 250 police officers dismissed, or would have been dismissed if they had not resigned or retired. If it does not work for the police, there is no reason to believe it would achieve what they claim for the fire & rescue service. In any case, there are already adequate measures in place to deal with inappropriate behaviour in the service. 

The proposal is very insulting, as firefighters show their commitment, determination, and courage, without fear or favour, every day. With the current difficulties in recruiting retained firefighters it is also foolish to introduce another requirement that may deter some applicants. 

So, is it just window dressing or does something more sinister lie behind it? I believe the real motive is to make it easier to intimidate anyone who dares speak out about unacceptable behaviour, dishonest claims, and dangerous decisions from chief fire officers or the executive leader. 

It is a devious attempt to protect inept chief fire officers 

and incompetent executive leaders from whistle blowers.

Fire funding deception

The real funding issue is not councils having to balance resource allocation between fire & rescue and other services, it is inadequate Government funding. These problems have only arisen since Government stopped providing sufficient funds to carry out all the duties placed on councils by Government. Poor council decision making may play a part in some services being rated inadequate, but the root cause is inadequate funding.

The only funding issue has been created by Government funding cuts.

Power grab by Chief Fire Officers

The National Fire Chiefs Council has been shamelessly pushing for many of the White Paper changes simply to increase their power, and to loosen the reigns of legitimate accountability. Their motivation has nothing to do with service improvement, it is simply self-interest. 

They may well find it frustrating that they must account to Councillors and the public for what they do, but that does not justify evading it. It is right and proper that they should demonstrate to Councillors, who represent the public, that proposals for change have been fully evaluated. It is right and proper that they should be questioned about performance failures. It is right and proper that they are held to account when their claims prove to be without foundation. It is also right and proper that they should use persuasion, not intimidation, to convince staff that changes at work are fair, safe, and reasonable. 

The White Paper is about leaving them free to bypass things that are in place to stop poor decisions and remedy poor outcomes. Chief Fire Officers are betraying their staff and the public they are supposed to serve.

And how long before Chief Fire Officers claim a pay increase for extra responsibility?

Power grab by Police & Crime Commissioners

It is also a power grab by Police & Crime Commissioners (PCCs), the majority of whom are Conservative politicians. The Association of Police & Crime Commissioners want to increase their power, extend Conservative Party control of public services, and remove effective local accountability. 

Research has already shown that some PCCs are "ill equipped and ill prepared" and can be manipulated by the Chief Constable. Unsurprising when a small group in a political party selects the candidate with party political agendas more important than competency. Once elected, little can be done to hold them to account. The public must wait up to four years for an opportunity to vote them out. 

There is every possibility that chief fire officers will conspire with Chief Constables to intimidate all but the strongest and most able PCCs. Combine a strong but untrained chief fire officer, who has no fire service experience, with a weak PCC and you have a recipe for disaster. 

No doubt Police & Crime Commissioners will jump on the bandwagon and claim they deserve extra pay!

Sadly, this Government views its responsibility to protect the public as an inconvenience. Consequently they lack the intellect to see that proper investment in the fire & rescue has long term benefits for the nation’s welfare, security, and economy. 

How to respond

If you care about the service, or if you simply want to be sure firefighters arrive quickly when you need them, please respond to the consultation. Make it perfectly clear there is no case for reform, and that you don't support the proposals in the White Paper.

Response deadline - 11:59pm on 26 July 2022

Online response: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-our-fire-and-rescue-service

Email response: firereformconsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk; 

Paper response: Fire Reform Consultation, Fire Strategy & Reform Unit, 4th Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF