Information Commissioner not fooled by County Council excuses

The Information Commissioner rejects 

West Sussex County Council's claims

Some may recall the refusal of my freedom of information request for details of incidents where the County Council's target response times were not met. Initially they claimed that "the information you seek would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of any individual." 

The internal review upheld the refusal but then bizarrely claimed, "this Authority does not hold data relevant to your request." A dishonest claim when that core performance information is used in reports to Councillors and to Government. The Information Commissioner's report says:

The Council has been given 30 days to locate the information and to provide a fresh response. We will have to wait to see if they finally provide the information they hold or try some other excuse to conceal worrying performance information.

Poor performance is no excuse for unlawful secrecy

How bad is the performance?

Well, as they won't make it public it is not possible to be exact. However, for example, firefighters have reported it taking 25 minutes for the first fire engine to arrive at a critical fire in Rogate, because the nearest fire engines did not have firefighters to crew them.

I have also had reports of a critical fire in Wisborough Green, where four Horsham firefighters had to struggle until back up crews arrived from Dorking (18 miles), and Chichester (21 miles). Again, several nearer fire engines did not have firefighters available to crew them.

Now there may be other reasons for problems on that day, but with details kept secret there is no way of knowing.

The public deserve to know the truth

Ineffective Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee 

This committee should be asking for details of the worst failures and investigating why it has been kept from them. If they were scrutinising properly, they would be demanding the information from Cabinet Member Duncan Crow. They should also be asking why he is allowing legitimate freedom of information requests to be unlawfully rejected. 

When a Conservative controlled committee fails to properly scrutinise the worst effects of Conservative cuts to the fire & rescue service, the public are going to be suspicious. Those in the service can only do their best with the resources they have. By not investigating the Council's inadequate resourcing, which has resulted in a failure to provide an effective service, the scrutiny committee is neglecting their responsibilities.

Effective scrutiny of deteriorating performance is long overdue

Another unlawful Freedom of Information refusal by WSCC

A Mr Robert Dymond requested attendance details, times, and messages for the 2023 fires at the Angel Hotel in Midhurst and the Harvester in Littlehampton. All quite legitimate performance information that is provided on request by other fire & rescue services. With their casual disdain for the legislation and West Sussex residents, the County Council refused the request. The disingenuous grounds given for refusal were that the information is already available through the 'Request a Fire Report' process. 

Not only is the attendance detail requested not usually included in fire reports, but the County Council will only provide a fire report to the occupier, or someone connected to the occupier who has a legitimate interest (e.g. building owner, or insurer). I would be very surprised if Mr Dymond would meet that requirement for both incidents. I hope that he requests an internal review and, if that is unsatisfactory, he will submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Once again, the County Council is illegally hiding performance data from the public

Consultation on a plan that is not a plan

Now I know it says it is a plan, but it is just a list of objectives with no plan on how to achieve them. Completely lacking in detail, unrealistic, and with no funding to make any improvements. At best it is a wish list, at worst it is just County Council spin.

Take 3.1, where they say they are going to enhance the availability of fire engines. There were similar claims, sorry objectives, in the two previous CRMPs, but availability has got steadily worse. They ask, "To what extent do you think the Service Delivery objectives outlined in this plan will improve WSFRS’s ability to respond to fires and emergencies quickly and effectively?" 

The only informed answer must be:

This 'plan' is meant to be West Sussex County Council telling Government how it will meet its legal obligation to provide an effective service. It is already providing a less effective and less safe service than it has ever done, and nothing in this document indicates that they will act to reverse the decline. Indeed, with some of the reviews mentioned, the County Council is likely to make West Sussex firefighters and residents even less safe and less well protected.

Should you complete the consultation? Yes, I think you should, the more people that tell the Council this plan is inadequate the better.

Consultation closing date - 22 September 2025

 

Whatever happened to the previous consultation about response standards?

This closed in February, but the outcome does not appear to have been published or even shown to the scrutiny committee. It was intended to deviously change the standards so that more failed response times would in future look like the standard was met, even though the actual times were the same. This chart shows how the last published response time failures would be reduced by the new 'standard'.

So, have consultation responses not been published because the public rejected the proposals?

As the wildfire threat increases, Cabinet Member admits Fire Service less effective

West Sussex is inadequately resourced for wildfires

The Chief Fire Officer has rightly warned of the increased risk of wildfires, but the County Council has left the service inadequately prepared and our countryside at risk.

Nearly all of the fire service's specialist off road vehicles, which are essential for tackling wildfires, are around 25 years old. Reliability is an increasing issue and, as they are built on a chassis that is no longer produced, spare parts are difficult to obtain. 

Wildfires often require large numbers of firefighters over long periods of time. The work is physically demanding and exhausting in hot weather, so fresh crews need to be brought in regularly. In addition, more firefighters need to be kept available to deal with other fires and emergencies.  

West Sussex only just managed to cope with the many wildfires during the drought of 1976. Yet at that time they had 46 frontline fire engines and crewing levels would see them providing a total of between 230 and 260 firefighters. 

Today there are just 35 fire engines, but crewing cuts would see them only providing 140 firefighters. However, as they are rarely all have crews, there can be as few as a dozen fire engines available, which would provide as few as 48 firefighters!

48 firefighters cannot do the work that used to require over 200 firefighters

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service less effective because of County Council cuts

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow, who is responsible for fire & rescue, recently wrote to County Councillors hoping to justify inaccurate comments he made at a County Council meeting. Incredibly, he blames the deteriorating performance on having fewer fire stations and fire engines. All the result of cuts made by the Conservative controlled County Council since 2010.

The council was warned that closing four fire stations and removing eleven frontline fire engines would seriously damage the service's effectiveness, but they blundered on. Latest figures for the most recent five years show that there has been a 37% increase in neighbouring fire & rescue services having to attend incidents in West Sussex. In the same period, the assistance given to them by West Sussex has fallen by 33%.

37% increase in other fire & rescue services attending West Sussex incidents 

= the County Council failing to properly protect residents

Sadly, Councillor Crow can't even get his facts right on this point. He says the criticism used data from 2004 when it very clearly stated that it was comparing the latest figures with 2018-19 figures. He cites three fire station closures when there were actually four, and he refers to 'retained appliances' no longer operating, when the eleven fire engines they cut included two that were crewed by wholetime firefighters. 

Councillor Crow continues to incorrectly claim that response times are improving. Home Office figures very clearly show that the trend is that they are getting worse.

Average response times to Primary Fires – Home Office data table FIRE1001

Councillor Crow claims that the retained crewing model dates from after the Second World War, but by then it had been in continuous operation for over 100 years. He blames the drop in retained firefighter availability on work and lifestyle changes, whilst ignoring the adverse impact that County Council decisions have had on recruitment and retention.

Councillor Crow cites changes following the pandemic, yet that has seen more people working from home, which should improve availability. Instead of making excuses, it is high time that Councillor Crow persuaded his Conservative colleagues to do more to improve availability. 

The County Council still refuses to adopt a policy of supporting staff to become retained firefighters by giving them time for training and response to emergencies. There are well over 5,000 people employed in other council departments, yet the council refuses to support them to become retained firefighters. 

Instead of leading by example, the County Council shamefully leaves it to other employers to make staff available to be retained firefighters. 

Another worrying Freedom of Information request refusal

Fantasy "parties with an intention to cause mischief"

WSFRS has just refused a request from a Charlie Healy for a copy of the risk assessment for the more compact fire engines introduced by the service.

The spurious grounds given for refusing this request - "that disclosure of the information you seek would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of any individual."

I don't know which is more worrying with this latest refusal:

Is it that WSFRS has decided that, "likely to endanger the physical or mental health" etc., can be used as an opt out whenever they want to conceal things from the public?

Or, is it that the risk assessment for the 20 plate UHP pumping appliances reveals serious flaws or weaknesses that affect firefighter or public safety?

Or, is it that a proper risk assessment was not carried out and they do not want to admit that?

Creating imaginary "parties with an intention to cause mischief", is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. Especially when the information would be of no use to them if they really existed. This would be laughable were it not for the serious issue of a public body trying to evade their legal duty.

These refusals are not in the interest of the public or firefighters, so who are they trying to protect from scrutiny?

False claims and worsening response times

More false claims from Cabinet Member

Duncan Crow entertaining his Conservative colleagues

At Friday's full council meeting, Cabinet Member Duncan Crow again misled his fellow County Councillors several times. Sadly, he seemed more interested in getting a laugh from his Conservative colleagues than he was with accuracy. Here are some disturbing examples:

West Sussex residents deserve better

Especially if we have to put up with these County Councillors for seven years instead of four!

The consultation to lower West Sussex County Council's emergency response standards is still underway. Current standards allow lengthy response times, yet this proposal will allow even longer response times. However, more disturbing information has recently come to light.

Emergency Response Standard

failures no longer investigated

Whenever County Councillors have asked about failures to meet the response standards, they have always been assured that every such incident is investigated. However, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Matt Cook has now said that they no longer investigate every failure. 

It appears that this significant change in policy has been done in secret, with even the council's Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee kept in the dark. It is not known if Cabinet Member Duncan Crow knows about this change, if he approved it, or if he instructed the service to stop investigating these serious failures.

The only excuse offered for not investigating these failures is the claim that most result from reasons “beyond our control (such as heavy traffic, and long travel distance).” A nonsense excuse, as many fire & rescue services have used data on delays caused by heavy traffic and long travel distances to support the relocation of fire stations, or the provision of additional fire stations. 

Even West Sussex used data on failures to meet response standards to support the case for improvements. Wholetime crewing during the day was extended from five to seven days a week at Burgess Hill, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath and Shoreham just two years ago. 

Responsible fire authorities investigate all response standard failures

West Sussex County Council is not being responsible

Council failure, not firefighter failure

It is important to note that firefighters continue to do their utmost to get to emergencies quickly. Responsibility for these failures rests with the County Council, which has stripped the service of sufficient resources to meet the response standards. Frontline resources have been cut by a quarter and they are failing to ensure that the remainder are always available. That is why they cannot provide a speedy and effective response to every emergency.

Only the County Council's leadership has something to gain

from lowering standards and not investigating failures

Bizarre internal review response

The new information from DCFO Matt Cook emerged from his internal review response about their refusal to provide information about failures to meet the response standards. The same information was requested in 2018 and 2021 and was provided, but the request for the same information for the twelve months to the end of October last year was refused. 

He begins by supporting the dubious grounds for refusing to disclose the information that they confirmed they held. Ludicrously, he then concludes by claiming that they do not hold the information.

It would be quite irresponsible if the service did not have information on each incident that meets, and those that do not meet, the County Council's response standards. Without that information, they would be unable to provide key performance information to the Cabinet, and the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee. Yet both received response standard information as recently as December 2024.

There is no justification for this refusal

A complaint has been submitted to the Information Commissioner

More evidence of the damaging effect of Council cuts

An examination of the latest figures shows that West Sussex assists the neighbouring fire & rescue services (East Sussex, Hampshire, Kent and Surrey) less often. Yet, they are calling on them for assistance much more often. Compared to five years ago, West Sussex has cut help to other fire & rescue services by a third, whilst assistance from them has had to increase by over 37%.

Clear evidence that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is under resourced

Don't help the County Council

cut emergency response standards

Reject the proposed changes

Reminder - The consultation closes on 27 February 2025.

West Sussex County Council cut standards to cover up deteriorating response times

Misleading consultation

Existing 8 to 14 minute response targets being 

replaced with a single 16 minute response target

It is very disappointing, but sadly not surprising, that this latest West Sussex consultation is misleading. Once again, the Conservative run County Council is attempting to deceive the public.

They refer to ‘current response standards’ but fail to show the times for response to critical fires. As those times are omitted, and it does not clearly explain that the 13 minute response standard for critical incidents does not apply to critical fires, the public may well be misled.

Average times will cover up response time failures

The change to average times is to help the County Council disguise the extent of response time failures. Nearly 80% of incidents occur in areas that have immediate response firefighters (i.e. on duty at the fire station), and they can attend incidents quickly. Using average figures helps conceal the worsening response times for the 20% of incidents in other, mostly rural, areas.

A significant increase in the response time criteria is a worrying lowering of standards

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow is attempting to renege on the County Council's existing response commitment. It already permits longer response times than in many other areas, and this will allow even longer response times. 

Many response times, which were previously graded as failures, will now be claimed as meeting the target. 

There were 486 response time failures in 2019/20 (WSCC has refused to provide more recent figures) and all were investigated. Had the proposed standards been applied to the actual response times in 2019/20, then there would have been a nearly two thirds reduction in those deemed to be failures. 

Not only is this covering up deteriorating performance, it will mean that no investigations will be carried out into most failures. Deterioration that is not the fault of firefighters, but the failure of the County Council to ensure enough fire appliances are always available. 

The consultation also incorrectly says: ‘You can also read more about national Emergency Response Standards on the Office For National Statistics’ website.(External link).’ 

There are no national Emergency Response Standards, and the website just shows performance data. Secondly, the website is not an ONS one, it is a Home Office website. 

This is not about 'greater transparency' 

It is about covering up excessive response times that put lives at risk