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.