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.
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.
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.
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
