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

County Councillors again fail West Sussex residents

Committee Chairman Cllr. Kevin Boram and Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton

At the recent meeting of the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee, Councillors failed to insist that Surrey County Council honour their agreement to meet specified performance standards in their fire control. Instead of answering all '999' calls within 7 seconds, they have dropped the standard to let them take longer than 10 seconds to answer one in twenty emergency calls. The standard for the time taken to notify fire crews of emergencies was also cut.

No justification was given for this performance cut, just a misleading link to a target figure in a working agreement between all the emergency services and British Telecom. It was claimed that now the fire control is handling emergency calls for three authorities, they need to align West Sussex with East Sussex and Surrey Fire & Rescue Services. Sadly, that is simply an excuse to drop adequate West Sussex standards to suit the inadequate standards of others. This is not about fire control personnel not performing well, they do, it is a senior management and Cabinet Member failure.

West Sussex residents deserve high standards, not Surrey's low standards.

Consultation results withheld from Scrutiny Committee

The committee was told that the results of the public consultation on the Community Risk Management Plan had been discussed by the Chairman, the Cabinet Member, and the Chief Fire Officer. Yet no explanation was given for not publishing the results, or for not providing them to the Scrutiny Committee. Keeping the committee in the dark stops them doing their job properly. 

Consultation results should be published now.

Rural areas are not low risk

There was a worrying contradiction with the Chief Fire Officer talking about rural areas being 'low risk', but also referring to the problem of fire deaths in rural areas. She claimed the trend was for victims to be deceased before the alarm is raised, yet no evidence has been produced to substantiate that. Of course, sometimes, that is the case but there are also instances where it is not, which makes a quick response from fire crews vital if lives are to be saved.

She is quite right that it is better to stop fires starting with the use of prevention activities, but the reality is they cannot stop every life-threatening fire. Research has shown that the optimum response time, to save lives and to confine the fire to the room of origin, is between 5 and 10 minutes. Opportunities to do that diminish rapidly over 10 minutes, yet County Councillors have only made provision to arrive within 10 minutes for just 2% of the County. For 37% of West Sussex, it is 12 minutes, and for 61% it is a staggering 14 minutes. 

Yet, in the last quarter, they failed to arrive within these lengthy times at over 13% of critical fires.

Examples of risks found in rural West Sussex

Just a few examples of the many risks in rural areas - historic buildings, nursing homes, boarding schools, business and industrial parks, food production centres, hotels, and million pound plus homes. There are also many more modest family homes, caravans, both holiday and residential, properties occupied by those who are vulnerable, including those who cannot escape a fire without assistance, areas of deprivation, fuel depots, chemical storage, firework manufacturing, farms, heathland, woodland, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and sites of special scientific interest. All are in danger when fire breaks out. 

West Midlands

West Sussex

A 14 minute target is far too long, failing that target is unacceptable.

Why rural lives, business, property, and environment don't get a quick and effective response

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service's ability to provide a quick and effective response continues to diminish, and that is fundamentally the fault of County Council cuts to frontline resources. In addition to the removal of eleven frontline fire engines and crews, they fail to ensure the remaining 35 fire engines, at 24 fire stations, can be crewed all the time. This map overlay shows the only 10 fire engines, at 8 fire stations, that have had crews available for more than 95% of the time. The other 25 fire engines only had crews available  for between 15% and 91% of the time. 

It really should be no surprise that rural response has become so poor.

Based on four year average to 2019/20

When the Chief Fire Officer talks about 'low risk', she is really referring to areas that have fewer fires. However, they pose no less of a risk to those who live and work there than fires in urban areas. The actual risk to lives and property may depend on a building's construction, occupancy, and fire safety measures, but it does not depend on geographic location. However, once a fire does break out, in any part of West Sussex, the speed of response can significantly alter the risk to lives and property.

The danger increases for every extra minute it takes firefighters to arrive. 

A little good news

It appears that with the budget now set, additional wholetime personnel will be recruited to extend cover from 5 days to 7 days a week at Day Crewed fire stations and on the Crewing Optimisation Group (they help fill crewing deficiencies on Retained fire stations). This will obviously bring some improvement to response times, particularly in the Adur and Mid Sussex district areas, but it will not reverse all the damage caused by County Council cuts.

More firefighters are needed to properly protect West Sussex residents

Chief Fire Officer unaware of pandemic severity

I really don't understand why the Chief Fire Officer said that nobody could have predicted the scale of the impact of the pandemic. Whilst the public were unaware, those in senior positions in the emergency services should all have been fully aware. Government has known this for over fifteen years, which is why pandemic continued to be shown as the potentially most damaging threat on the National Risk Register. 

As for the scale of the impact, as far back as 2010, pandemic planning assumptions had identified that a pandemic could result in between 50,000 and 750,000 additional deaths, and cause significant disruption to us all:

National Risk Register 2010 version

Government has kept Responder Organisations (NHS, emergency services, utilities etc.) fully informed on these threats and the likely consequences. Despite the terrible harm that the Covid pandemic has caused, the reality is that the scale was far from the worst that should have been planned for. It thankfully appears that WSFRS reacted and coped well with the impact of the pandemic, but it is unclear how much of that was the result of effective pre-planning and how much was improvised response to a crisis, something the service is traditionally very good at. 

To those who have had experience of Government pandemic planning, it is painfully obvious that this Government's preparation and response was inadequate. So, it is no surprise that they would like the public to believe it could not be predicted. It was predicted, the harm was predicted, and all Responder Organisations should have been prepared. It would be unwise for the Chief Fire Officer to support the fiction being promoted by the Government ahead of the public inquiry. It certainly won't help when the Government attempt to pass the buck to Responder Organisations, and others, for the failures to prepare and to respond effectively.

Pandemic consequences were predicted 

All Chief Officers should have been aware

A victory for the public's right to know about fire control failures

Tribunal overturns Information Commissioner's decision

Some will recall the serious failures when Surrey's fire control took over the handling of West Sussex emergencies. To learn more, I submitted Freedom of Information requests in January 2020, but both County Councils went into overdrive to keep information secret. Information was refused on spurious grounds and, unfortunately, the Information Commissioner supported their refusals. 

However, this week I have heard that the Information Commissioner's decision on Surrey's FOIA request has been overturned by the Information Rights Tribunal on five out of seven parts. Surrey County Council has been given 35 days to disclose the following information in relation to the fire control deal:

1. Copies of any documents (reports, emails, memos etc) relating to the assessment of staffing levels required to deliver that additional service.

2. Details of the control room training and experience of the people carrying out that assessment, and of the person who approved staffing levels.

3. Details of the standards, good practice guides, studies and any research material used to inform the assessment process.

4. Copies of risk assessments relating to the operational impact when staffing is at, or falls below, your determined minimum level.

5. Copies of risk assessments that include the issue of stress for control room staff.

The two parts of the appeal that were unsuccessful were:

6. Copies of reports submitted, since 3 December 2019, by your own staff or by West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service that relate to occurrences that resulted or could have resulted in a delay to the service’s attendance at incidents in Surrey or West Sussex.

7. Details of action taken by Surrey Fire & Rescue Service to address those occurrences.

This was only because the tribunal accepted Surrey's claim that they did not hold the information at the time. They accepted it was held by West Sussex. West Sussex County Council refused a similar Freedom of Information request on this subject with various excuses. Eventually they claimed it was too onerous, which the Information Commissioner accepted. Unfortunately, other commitments and illness prevented me from appealing that decision in time.

West Sussex now has no lawful excuse to continue secrecy

The crucial information about failures that delayed, or could have delayed, the response to West Sussex incidents should now be disclosed. So too should details of what was done to prevent further failures. 

That alone cannot be considered onerous, and it is now very clear that the Council's other excuses, of commercial sensitivity and confidentiality have been ruled to be outweighed by the public's right to know.

The tribunal specifically mentioned a West Sussex spreadsheet on these failures that fell within the scope of the information request. They also made it very clear that there is a "strong and significant public interest in disclosure" and that "public interest outweighed any issues of confidentiality".

('The Framework' refers to the The Fire and Rescue National Framework for England, which is statutory guidance)

The Tribunal also said:

"The public interest in disclosure is increased, in our view, by the potential impact of such safety critical issues."

Latest figures for the first three quarters of 2021/22 show that Surrey is still not delivering the standard agreed.

West Sussex Cabinet Member colludes with Surrey County Council

Yet, instead of fighting for West Sussex residents, Cabinet Member Duncan Crow is colluding with Surrey by agreeing to cut performance standards. West Sussex residents deserve the standard of service they were promised and are paying for.

Councillor Crow is legally responsible for fire & rescue service transparency in West Sussex, so he must ensure that information about these failures, including the spreadsheet identified by the Tribunal, are made available to West Sussex residents. 

County Councillors must insist that agreed standards are maintained and that information on the failures is published.

Inaccurate information at Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee

No response from Committee Chairman

It is over two weeks since I emailed the Chairman of the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee, regarding my concerns that his committee was incorrectly told that there is a national performance standard for answering '999' calls. This inaccurate claim was being used to justify abandoning the standard of answering 98% of '999' calls within 7 seconds. 

The originally agreed performance standard was 100% of '999' calls within 7 seconds, so there has already been a mysterious cut.

Key Performance Indicators in the legal agreement between Surrey and West Sussex County Councils

We are not talking about dealing with the call, just the time taken to accept the call from the '999' operator. Simply, the time it takes for a control operator to raise a hand and touch the '999' line on the computer screen. In any properly staffed, equipped and managed fire control, most '999' calls should be accepted in less than two seconds, so the seven second standard can be considered generous. 

Cutting the standard from 100% in 7 seconds to 95% in 10 seconds is unjustified

It is not a national performance standard, it is just an agreement by all the emergency services to try and ease the pressure on British Telecom, who operate the '999' service. An agreement that acknowledges that much busier police control rooms, which are also subjected to more regular spikes in demand, would struggle to meet a higher target.

Had there been a genuine national performance standard for the fire & rescue service, which my research had not uncovered, then I would have expected Councillor Boram, or the Chief Fire Officer, to have informed me of it by now. However, I have heard nothing. As I believe it is a matter of public concern, I have shown the full content of my email at the end of this post.

Legitimate Concerns

The performance standard they wish to lower is not measuring staff performance, it is measuring delivery of the service. Poor performance statistics, and plans to drop performance standards, show that my concerns about Joint Fire Control are justified. However, that should not be misinterpreted as criticism of the staff working there. The performance standard depends on many other factors, including the number of staff on duty, the workload, equipment, policies, procedures, training, and local knowledge. Even the best control operators cannot make up for deficiencies in those areas.

That the average last year showed 5.8% of calls were not answered within 7 seconds indicates all is not well. 

Another indication that all is not well is that Joint Fire Control only managed to alert West Sussex fire stations, within 2 minutes of the '999' call being received, for just 84% of incidents last year (2020/21 Statement of Assurance). 

This standard has also been mysteriously cut from 100% to 98%.

Key Performance Indicators in the legal agreement between Surrey and West Sussex County Councils

This also does not compare favourably with the performance of the Sussex Fire Control, which handled West Sussex calls before this arrangement with Surrey. In the months before the changeover, despite using what was described as equipment well overdue for upgrading, Sussex Fire Control was alerting fire stations within 2 minutes for 94% of incidents. 

Source: WSFRS Performance Report 2020-21 Quarter 3 (Changeover of Controls date added)

Surrey County Council, which manages the Joint Fire Control, committed to these performance standards. On behalf of residents, West Sussex County Council should insist on them being achieved.

Lowering standards is not the answer, the failure to achieve them should be investigated and action taken to improve performance

Unfair Accusations

Whilst sorting through old documents, I came across a unique group photo of West Sussex fire control staff from 1983. I thought it would be of interest to those on a Facebook group for serving and former West Sussex staff. Numerous favourable comments show it was well received, yet one serving officer chose to link it to the current fire control problems.

I have steadfastly avoided any reference to current problems on that group, as it is a non-political group for sharing memories and news of retirements etc. When I posted the photo I simply said, "When West Sussex operated its own fire control, which supported crews and served the public so very efficiently." The officer chose to comment, "As our Fire control continues to do to this day Tony Morris". 

I have never criticised fire control staff for the current problems, so I responded with "Did I say otherwise? I did not, as I thought we wanted to keep political comment out of this group." Incredibly, he then said that the "implication is clear". It is disturbing that he decided to ignore what was actually written and decided to invent implications that were not there. He is a group administrator and deleted my reasonable reply, alleging it violated the group rule to "be kind and courteous."

He also messaged me and suggested I was trying to turn everything into part of a "bitter vendetta". It was distressing that he sees my campaigning for a properly funded and resourced fire & rescue service, which properly supports the public and staff, as a "bitter vendetta". I asked him to explain what I am supposed to be bitter about, but I have had no response. 

I have always supported the service and have only ever wanted what is best for the public and for those who work in the service. My public campaigning could only begin once I was no longer employed by West Sussex County Council, and that coincided with Council plans to reduce the capability and effectiveness of the service even further. I was particularly concerned that the cuts were being dishonestly touted as 'improvements', so I explained why they were not improvements and why they would be damaging. Deteriorating service performance since then has shown that those concerns were justified. 

It was disappointing at the time, but not surprising, to learn that certain senior officers, who have now left, told Councillors I was a 'disgruntled former employee'. A shabby and dishonest tactic to deflect attention from the issues. It also appears the tactic was employed to mislead serving personnel. Fortunately, those who know me saw it for the dirty trick it was and have been very supportive of my efforts.

So, let me be clear, I have nothing to be bitter about regarding West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service or West Sussex County Council. There is no vendetta, just legitimate criticism of changes that my professional experience tells me are not in the best interest of the public or of fire & rescue service staff. 

I am not critical of dedicated staff in the service.

My criticism is of politicans who have damaged the service, of inadequate political scrutiny, and of poor decisions by some former principal officers.

Email to Kevin Boram, Chairman of the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee

25 January 2022

Dear Councillor Boram,

   It was disappointing to hear your committee being misinformed with the inaccurate claim that answering 95% of 999 calls in 10 seconds is a national performance standard. There are no common standards set for emergency service control rooms, as each service has different requirements, procedures, demands, and information requirements. Were national standards to be set for fire & rescue service control rooms, then they would be set by the Home Office.

The Public Emergency Call Service (PECS) code of practice referred to is produced by the 999/112 Liaison Committee, which is a consultative committee that discusses matters arising from the provision of the 999/112 emergency call service. The setting of performance standards is not included in their terms of reference (see below), as it would be inappropriate for a consultative committee that includes commercial telecommunication providers to set standards for public emergency services.

 

Past research has shown that fire service control rooms can answer and process emergency calls more quickly than ambulance and police control rooms. This is not because ambulance and police call handlers are inefficient, but because they have different demands and information requirements that are specific to their services. This includes those services receiving significantly more 999 calls than fire & rescue, the nature of those calls often requires call handlers to spend more time on each call, and they are subjected to many more spikes in demand than fire & rescue. Despite this, the NHS target for ambulance services was set, just a few years ago, at 95% of 999 calls to be answered within 5 seconds.

 

The PECS figure, of answering 95% of 999 calls in 10 seconds, represents an earlier police target and was included in the PECS document to acknowledge the greater demands made on the police service. If the Joint Fire Control is properly staffed, equipped and run, then there is no reason why the standard originally agreed with Surrey, of 98% within 7 seconds, should not be met. 

It should be noted that Ofcom require BT plc, which operates the 999 call handling centres, to answer 95% of 999 calls within 5 seconds. They achieve that with just 6 call centres handling over 30 million 999 calls a year, so it is reasonable to expect Joint Fire Control to exceed, not just meet, the original agreed standard for just 30,000 incidents a year.

 

I should add that I am not suggesting that your committee was misinformed intentionally, but I believe the Chief Fire Officer has also been misinformed or misunderstands the status of the PECS code of practice.

 

It should surely be the role of scrutiny committees to keep performance standards high to ensure the best service to the public. Lowering standards can only result in a loss of motivation to strive for good performance. Seconds count when lives are at stake, and it is the public who suffer as a result of low standards.

I would urge you to require the original standard, 98% within 7 seconds, to be restored. I also hope the committee will get to the bottom of why Joint Fire Control has been failing to meet this agreed standard and to then require improvements.

Yours sincerely,

 

Tony Morris

999/112 Liaison Committee Terms of Reference

 

The Committee provides a forum to discuss operational and technical matters arising from the provision of the 999/112 emergency call service. Its main concern is the effective handling of emergency telephone calls between the public, call handling agents and the emergency authorities.

 

The Committee seeks to ensure that:

■ each interest group has an understanding of the needs of the others;

■ problems are identified and resolved;

■ call handling is efficient and effective;

■ there are agreed protocols for the management of calls;

■ technical and other developments, including European requirements, are identified and actioned in a timely manner;

■ the wider requirements of UK and European law are satisfied;

■ opportunities for the development of future emergency call processes or systems are considered and/or identified, and where appropriate these are highlighted to the 999/112 Strategic Group;

■ changes to public use of the 999/112 infrastructure are considered, whether that be as a result of technological changes or changing habits, to ensure that the best possible service can continue to be provided;

■ advice is provided to the 999/112 Strategic Group on technical or operational matters as necessary.