Friday, 24 January 2020

Surrey fire control deal puts West Sussex lives at risk

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


Groundhog Day

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

"There is nothing that would give me or officers cause for concern"
Cabinet Member Lionel Barnard August 2014

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



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

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

The previous assurances about the arrangements with East Sussex proved false, dishonest even,
so how can we have faith in the latest assurances about the arrangement with Surrey?


Assurances not enough, evidence is needed

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

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


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

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

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

Failures of concept, of planning, of testing, of training, 
of implementation, of data validation, or all of those.

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

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

So why did they go ahead before it was in place? No explanation was given. The Committee Chairman said he knew about the licence issue last July, but the meeting was told the application had not yet been submitted. That beggars belief. The mention of Airwave raises further concerns:
  • Airwave is basically a mobile telephone system that also does not have 100% coverage.
  • Like other mobile telephone systems, Airwave can experience failures and overload.
  • Airwave is due to be replaced by thEmergency Services Network, which is yet another mobile telephone system that has yet to be fully tested.

West Sussex residents less safe


The committee was told that ways of working had been changed "for alignment". No detail was given, but reports suggest that West Sussex has cut their levels of protection for the public to match Surrey's poor standards.
Leaving busier fire stations without a fire engine is not a 'culture change', 
it is a downgrading of the service provided to West Sussex residents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over £4 million wasted

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

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

Inadequate staffing levels a major threat to safety

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

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

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

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

Relative workload per Operator on minimum staffing 
(last column assumes minimum increased by one, as it did when West Sussex joined)


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



Thursday, 9 January 2020

Safety Critical Notice issued for Surrey Fire Control

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


8th January 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Working Time Regulations 1998

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Management of Health Safety at Work Regulations 1999

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, 8 January 2020

Serious concerns about inadequate Surrey fire control

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

Some progress, but not all good news

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


Inadequate staffing

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

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

Reports from inside the service said:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Hidden performance standards and targets reassure no one

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

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


Assurances given to the committee have not been honoured,

Members must ask why and insist on improved staffing.