Councillors still refuse to admit their abject failure

Conservative leadership's damage control

Last week the County Council’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee met to discuss Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMIC&FRS) damning report on West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service. 

It was disappointing, but not surprising, that Chairman Andrew Barrett-Miles opened by trying to stifle proper discussion. He told Councillors it was "not a political debating session". In other words, the ruling Conservative Group did not want their political failings to be discussed. Councillor James Walsh correctly pointed out that he was wrong to do that, as the Council is a politically run authority that gives direction to the Council's officers.

Mr Barrett-Miles comment that “we are here to be a critical friend of the fire service”, seemed intended to pass the buck to those in the service. It became clear that those ultimately responsible for the poor report were engaged in political damage control. I have no doubt where responsibility lies.

Fire Brigades Union & Unison highlight the real failures

Antony Walker from the FBU gave a heartfelt presentation outlining where the problems were, including:

• Poor funding, with £7 million of cuts, loss of 11 fire appliances, and a 37% reduction in workforce leaving West Sussex top of the list for posts lost since 2010,
• Poor governance, lack of scrutiny and Councillors' limited understanding of the consequences of decisions taken,
• Poor, weak management with, until very recently, senior Fire & Rescue Service officers not strong enough in opposing financial reductions,
• The committee had approved the Integrated Risk Management Plan after they were told the service was under-resourced to deliver it,
• Unworkable, non-family friendly contracts and rates of pay for On Call Firefighters that do not reflect the commitment required.

He said, "Our members are asked to work under stressful and challenging conditions . . it is hard to comprehend why the fire authority, since 2010, have worsened those conditions."

FBU Brigade Secretary for West Sussex Antony Walker

Dan Sartin from Unison supported those comments and said the failures were County Council failures. He said "It is the County Council that sets the culture, framework and resourcing". He highlighted how support staff were the glue that held a service together and that significant support staff cuts had contributed to the failures.

Dan also made it clear that bullying at senior level was a problem across the County Council and that people were discouraged from submitting grievances. As I have mentioned previously, that is something I saw when I was at County Hall and something I raised with the then Chief Executive.

Unison Branch Secretary for West Sussex Dan Sartin

Cabinet Member proud to have failed

It is perhaps not surprising that the Chairman asked Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard not to make an opening statement. When Councillor Dan Purchese pressed for the Cabinet Member or Leader to make a statement, as they were responsible for the political leadership of the Council, it did not go well. Debbie Kennard told everyone she was proud and proceeded to spout inaccuracies and nonsense.

Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard

Not sure if she has been asleep, but Fire & Rescue has always had a voice on the select committee. The only change has been that, at the end of 2017, the title of the select committee was changed from Environmental and Community Services Select Committee to Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee. Including 'fire' in the select committee name made no difference whatsoever to the service's voice, or its scrutiny.

As for "the fire on the website" and "a brand", window dressing is not going to fix any of the problems identified in the report. With the worst performance information now removed from the Performance Dashboard, accountability and openness have actually gone backwards. 

Time for the Cabinet Member to admit that she and her predecessors have been on a very badly planned journey.

 A journey that has failed to support dedicated firefighters and failed to protect the public.

Disputed figures

The Acting Chief Fire Officer disagreed with the figures for job losses given by the FBU. Now to be fair to both it has been difficult to compare current and previous figures, as West Sussex County Council and Government figures seem to change the criteria from time to time. However, WSCC establishment figures for 2002 and Home Office total staff figures for 2018 do reveal a 35% cut.

More damage control

I always believed that one of the functions of the Director of Law & Assurance was to ensure that the Council's political leadership did not stray from acting lawfully and in the best interest of West Sussex residents. So it was concerning to see Director Tony Kershaw, who does not normally attend these meetings, appearing to be more concerned with protecting the Council's political leadership. 

He intervened to criticise Councillor Michael Jones for not circulating his recommendations before the meeting. Yet he made no such intervention when Councillor Dan Purchese protested that an email from HMIC&FRS, received by the Council three weeks previously, had not been shared with Councillors until that morning. 

Mr Kershaw also seemed very concerned when committee chairman Andrew Barrett-Miles was making recommendations on behalf of the committee. Despite Mr Barrett-Miles saying, "we cannot instruct the Cabinet Member, she wouldn’t let me I can tell you”, Mr Kershaw and Council Leader Louise Goldsmith were certainly giving him some hard stares. Or was it, as someone described to me, "the evil eye".

The promising outcomes

Despite efforts to restrain the Chairman, he did make some positive recommendations that were unanimously approved. They included:

• The implementation plan to be adequately resourced financially, both in the short and long term.
• That unions should be more closely involved in the implementation plan through inclusion in the project board, and in any future development of the fire service.
• The improvement board should include political leadership. 
• Consideration should be given to determining if the Chief Executive is the right person to chair that board. 
• The Cabinet Member/CFO need to lobby the inspectorate regarding risk versus demand driven. We believe strongly it should be risk driven. 
• Further work needed by the service to look at its future structure.
• That the Governance Committee should consider how additional scrutiny of the Fire & Rescue Service could be achieved by having a separate select committee.
• The Fire & Rescue Service to bring a progress report to this committee in September, and the unions to be invited to speak at that meeting.

The disappointing outcomes

Councillor Michael Jones proposed some additional supportive recommendations, but they were met with unseemly attempts to frustrate them being considered. Former Cabinet Member David Barling even resorted to the all too common Conservative response to anything they don't like of, "‘if we are playing politics with this". Yet it was Mr Barling and his Conservative colleagues who played politics by voting down all the Labour proposed, Liberal Democrat seconded recommendations. They were:

• To withdraw the cuts proposed for 2019/20, which were put on hold for one year, and prioritise the recruitment of additional firefighters to replace those cut since 2010. 
• The recruitment panel for the new Chief Fire Officer to only select people with significant fire & rescue service experience.
• Launch an anti-bullying campaign to stamp out instances of bullying and harassment.
• Take steps to increase the diversity of the workforce, particularly in respect of more female firefighters and more from the BAME communities.
• Commission an independent review to determine whether alternative governance arrangements for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service may be necessary.

Other worries

David Barling frequently refers to his "specialist knowledge" of the fire & rescue service, yet he said he "would have liked to have heard from someone from the retained today". It is quite disturbing that, as a former Cabinet Member responsible for fire & rescue, that he was unaware that the Fire Brigades Union representative sat in front of him speaks for both wholetime and retained firefighters. 

Mr Barling even had the gall, when speaking about wanting "much more detail on the retained service", to refer to the task and finish group looking at On Call (retained) firefighter recruitment and retention problems. 

A task & finish group that he refused to set up when he was Cabinet Member.

Chief Executive Nathan Elvery tried to defend the "no fire & rescue service experience required" advert for the Chief Fire Officer post by referring to "combined emergency services" in other countries. I have no idea where he got his information from, but such an arrangement is extremely rare. There are some examples of fire services that have historically provided some element of the emergency ambulance provision in some countries, but that is a long way from a combined emergency service.

He said the arrangements in other countries were "quite different", which ought to ring alarm bells, not encourage looking at candidates from other countries. It would be a nonsense to appoint a Chief Fire Officer who lacks knowledge and experience of how UK fire & rescue services operate, of UK legislation, of UK tactics and procedures, and of how UK fire & rescue services work with other emergency services and other agencies. 

Tried and tested UK arrangements for managing major incidents are radically different from those in many other countries. They are widely acknowledged to be far more effective, but that depends on the chief officer of each service intimately understanding procedures, and having extensive training and significant experience at exercises and incidents. 

A Chief Fire Officer playing catch up will not keep firefighters and residents safe.        

County Council Hypocrisy and Cabinet Member Misinformation

Hypocrisy

The answer to a written question from County Councillor Chris Oxlade exposes shocking hypocrisy regarding the issue of On Call Firefighters. As the Fire & Rescue Authority, the County Council regularly calls on employers to release staff from their jobs to respond to emergencies as On Call Firefighters.

Yet the County Council does nothing to ensure that their own staff are able to respond to emergencies as On Call Firefighters. Astonishingly, there is no policy on the matter and they only support staff doing so, “as long as it does not conflict with their main employment”. You must be pretty dim to think that leaving their main employment to respond to emergencies is not going to conflict, so instead of supporting On Call Firefighters, they immediately put a great big obstacle in the way.

They go on to admit that they have no policy to ensure On Call Firefighters working for the County Council are not penalised financially, or in terms of career progression. The Council also admits they put no requirement in contracts with companies, providing contracted out services to the Council, to ensure they also encourage and support On Call Firefighters.

Asked if the Council ensures that managers actively encourage employees to become On Call Firefighters, it appears they don’t. All they say is that internal communication campaigns have “generated little interest to date either from managers or employees”. Hardly surprising when there is no support or encouragement.

This is yet another example of inept leadership from the County Council. 

Expecting other employers to help them out by releasing staff to respond as On Call Firefighters, whilst restricting and even preventing County Council staff from doing the same. With such hypocrisy it is no wonder there is such a shortage of On Call Firefighters in West Sussex. Shortages that are resulting in increased response times, which put the public in greater danger.

Cabinet Member Misinformation (again)

At the last County Council meeting, Councillor Dan Purchese asked Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard to agree that the next Chief Fire Officer needed to have experience of the fire service. Not only did she fail to agree, she falsely said "we have other fire officers who did not come up through the ranks". That is not true, all the officers in West Sussex came up through the ranks.

She also said that they will appoint the best person for the job. Well if she means that, then it can only be someone who has came up through the ranks. A career's worth of in depth knowledge and experience are vital for any Chief Fire Officer.

What will tomorrow bring?

The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services is due to be published tomorrow. The signs are not good, as the County Council has already transferred £365,000 from reserves to begin addressing areas identified in the report as needing improvement. 

HMICFRS say they expect fire & rescue services to achieve a rating of 'good'. Sadly, with such severe cuts to the service I am not optimistic that West Sussex will achieve that as an overall grade, so the question is will it achieve a 'good' rating in any of the key areas:

• How effective is the fire and rescue service at keeping people safe and secure from fire and other risks?
• How efficient is the fire and rescue service at keeping people safe and secure from fire and other risks?
• How well does the fire and rescue service look after its people?

The categories of graded judgement are:

• outstanding;
• good;
• requires improvement; and
• inadequate.

Whatever the outcome, we must remember that primary responsibility for any inadequacies rests with the County Council. Staff must not be blamed in the way the Council shamefully tried to do for their failings in Children's Services.

Hope and despair at County Council meeting

I would like to begin by wishing everyone a Happy New Year and to thank all those who supported the campaign to stop cuts to the Fire & Rescue Service in 2018. Sadly, it seems the fight must continue in to 2019.

The Hope

Last month's County Council meeting saw a glimmer of hope emerge from the gloom that hangs over West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service. 

County Councillor Michael Jones submitted a resolution calling on Council Leader Louise Goldsmith and Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard to write to the Government to demand fairer funding, after it emerged that all neighbouring fire & rescue services receive more Government funding than West Sussex.

2019/20 Government funding for fire & rescue service (per person)

Michael Jones had previously met with Debbie Kennard to seek her support for the motion. The funding inequalities were plain to see, so there was nothing to lose and everything to gain by writing to the Government. Astonishingly she refused, with the ludicrous excuse that she wanted to wait for the inspection report on West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS). A report that is not due until May 2019, by which time the funding settlement will have taken effect.

Fortunately, the majority of Councillors, including Council Leader Louise Goldsmith, saw sense and passed the resolution. Of the 64 Councillors present, only Debbie Kennard and 5 others voted against (Richard Burrett, Roger Elkins, Paul Marshall, Jacquie Russell and Deborah Urquhart). So, if you live in any of the following County Council Divisions, you may want to ask your County Councillor why they don't think fair treatment of their residents and firefighters is worth supporting:

Angmering & Findon, East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wood, 

East Preston & Ferring, Pound Hill, Shoreham North, and Storrington

Michael Jones has since written to Louise Goldsmith urging her not to delay calling on the Government for fairer funding for West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service. I very much hope that she will and that she will also call on West Sussex Members of Parliament to support fairer funding. They surely can't support the  Government giving East Sussex over twice as much as it gives to West Sussex!

The Despair

Michael Jones also called on the Council to not reduce fire & rescue staffing or services, because it would further compromise public and firefighter safety. Incredulously, Debbie Kennard said that the proposed cuts were not cuts. It is simply ludicrous to claim that £700,000 of cuts that will reduce staffing in planning, prevention and response services, as well as abandoning the ‘Safe Drive Stay Alive’ courses, which help reduce deaths and injuries on the road, are not cuts. These are front-line life saving services that are being cut.

Opposition Councillors put forward strong arguments in support of the motion to stop further cuts, but Debbie Kennard failed to respond to any of them. Instead she attacked Councillors for daring to voice legitimate concerns about firefighter and public safety.

She complained about Councillors not ‘working together’, yet her written response to the motion showed that she doesn’t have the slightest intention of doing so. She complained about the fire & rescue service being used as a 'political football', but she was the one who used firefighters’ hard work, mental health and charity fundraising to try and defend her political decisions. 

Lowest of the low was when she held up a photo of the Shoreham air display tragedy and used it to try and deflect criticism. She should be ashamed.

Unfortunately, the Conservative Councillors opposed the resolution to not cut staffing or services and it was lost (13 Councillors supported, 33 opposed and 17 abstained). 

The cuts are now due to be debated by the Council’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee on 14 January. We are fortunate to have genuine and responsible Councillors, like Michael Jones and Daniel Purchese, fighting for firefighters and residents and against such reprehensible antics. I am sure they will continue the fight at that meeting.

Finally, a message for Councillor Kennard. The cuts proposed by Nicola Bulbeck, the Executive Director Communities and Public Protection, result from your instruction to cut the budget. They are cuts that will make West Sussex less safe and no amount of avoidance, deflection or evasion will change that. 

I am sure fire & rescue service staff appreciate your praise for their dedication, but what they really need is a properly funded service that enables them to do the job safely and effectively. That is also something that has widespread public support.

April 2018 Update

ARE MORE CUTS ON THE WAY?

My lack of recent blog updates is, sadly, not because things have improved, but because I have been rather busy. The threat to our fire & rescue service has not gone away, so I watched last Friday’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee with interest. They were discussing a report from the Chief Fire Officer on the draft version of the 2018-22 Integrated Risk Management Plan.

IMPROVED SCRUTINY

I would like to start on a positive note, as a key procedural change is that debates on fire & rescue service matters can now be viewed online, both live and via recordings on the County Council website. The level of scrutiny and transparency seems to be improving and, as that was a weakness when fighting off the Police & Crime Commissioner’s takeover bid, it must be welcomed. However, as Councillor Michael Jones questioned at the meeting, it is not yet clear if the improvement will be sufficient, but it is clearly a step in the right direction.

There are also signs that improved openness and genuine consultation may replace the secrecy and sham consultations we have seen in the past. Readers may recall concerns being voiced about times when more fire engines were unavailable than were actually crewed. The response from senior officers and councillors at the time was denial and attacks on those who revealed the information. The information originated from concerned firefighters and WSCC then took action to restrict firefighter access to the crewing information and they also threatened disciplinary action.

ONLY 10 FIRE ENGINES AVAILABLE OUT OF 35

On Friday, new Chief Fire Officer Gavin Watts showed the meeting this slide, which shows that the availability of fire engines is even worse than we believed. I welcome such honest transparency, as Councillors cannot begin to fix anything if the extent of the problem is hidden from them, but the situation is shocking. Previously, when the number of fire engines was cut from 46 to 40 and then to 35, we were told that the changes would help ensure that at least 30 fire engines would always be available. Now we see that as few as 10 can be available, which is bad enough, but coinciding with times of greater demand should alarm everyone.

Deputy Chief Officer Neil Stocker told Councillors that there is a national problem of attracting and keeping Retained Firefighters. There is, but that must not stop efforts to find  local solutions. He also said that people not working in the communities where they live is a major factor undermining good daytime cover. Yet the chart shows that daytime cover is worse on Saturdays and Sundays, so there must be other significant factors affecting availability. Perhaps things such as revised contracts and other management decisions that have previously been criticised by Retained Firefighters. 

RETAINED FIREFIGHTERS – JUST 52 PENCE PER HOUR

Neil also highlighted how Retained Firefighters give an average of 4,500 hours of cover on top of their day job, and earn just 52 pence an hour for providing that cover. Relying on some people volunteering to serve the community for such little reward is not good enough, and it was therefore pleasing to hear some Councillors support that view. Among them Councillor Heidi Brunsdon, who said that more must be done to provide tangible incentives such as tax breaks, family breaks etc.

I have spoken about the crewing crisis in the past and sadly this chart confirms that West Sussex County Council is not meeting their legal obligation to provide an efficient service. The legislation does not say fire authorities only have to provide an efficient service when they have enough Retained Firefighters, it is a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year requirement.

It is ludicrous that a service, which several Chief Officers, Councillors and Government Inspectors have previously agreed needed 46 front-line crews to protect the people of West Sussex, can now be left with just 10 to protect more people and to deal with more incidents. When asked if the service was adequate, the Chief Officer spoke about resources being moved around to maintain cover. That is true, but it is patently not adequate or effective cover.

This situation has deteriorated over several years, yet Government and Fire Authorities have failed to take meaningful action. Lives and property are at increasing risk and concerted action must be taken locally and nationally.

IMPROVEMENTS OR MORE CUTS

The draft Integrated Risk Management Plan will be out for public consultation in May and it is important that people read and comment on it. Whilst I don’t question the sincerity behind the strategic priorities, I see little hope of them being delivered, especially with regard to emergency response. Sadly, we have seen in the past how so called 'improvements' are actually cuts that lead to a slower and less effective response.

Councillor Daniel Purchese said of the IRMP, "there is potential for some serious cuts that the public might easily miss". I have to agree and concerns include:

Standard crewing cut from five to four – not an improvement and it will not, as claimed, reduce the consequences of emergency incidents. When you realise that the driver and officer-in-charge have specific functions at incidents and that it is the rest of the crew that undertake the critical sharp end stuff, such as attacking the fire, it amounts to cutting that capability by a third on every incident. It is also not an efficient use of resources, as more fire engines have to be used to get a safe number of firefighters to incidents, which leaves less available for other emergencies.

Looking at crewing fire engines with fewer than four firefighters ‘when necessary’ – this is simply unsafe for firefighters and the public. Other fire authorities have been pontificating about how they can use technology to safely crew with less, but there is no evidence that this can be achieved. No technology is a proper substitute for a trained firefighter. There have already been incidents, where this concept has been experimented with, and the result has been small fires developing in to serious ones as a direct result of inadequate crewing.

A review of response standards – sounds OK, but as the service can’t meet the generous standards now, there is a serious danger that standards will be cut and a proper response will take even longer to arrive. It may then look better on paper, but the reality for the public will be worse.

Review the fleet of special appliances - these have already been cut to the bone and this opens the door to more cuts and reduced effectiveness.

Revise our response to automatic fire alarms – this increases the risk of an inadequate response, or no response, to actual fires. Nationally there have been several examples of serious fires being attended with inadequate resources, because of such policies, and I know of at least one example of a fire death that resulted from not attending an automatic fire alarm call. Not forgetting Grenfell of course, where policies had removed an aerial appliance from the response. Had that been on the initial attendance, more lives could have been saved. There might even have been no deaths, as the aerial appliance might have enabled them to stop the devastating external fire spread.

COUNCIL LEADER COMPLAINS ABOUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING

Of course the underlying problem is inadequate Government funding for the fire & rescue service. You know things are really bad when Louise Goldsmith, WSCC Leader, feels compelled to criticise the Government on their funding of councils. She said in January that “It is wrong for us, and county councils across the country, to continue to have to be reliant on taxing our residents in the current piecemeal way”. For once, I have to agree. 

ARE THE IRMP FIGURES ACCURATE?

I mentioned improved openness earlier, so I was rather disappointed to see that the fire death figures quoted in the draft IRMP differ from the national figures.

National figures are usually more accurate, as they check fire & rescue submitted statistics against other sources. It is always worrying when locally published statistics do not reflect official national statistics, so I hope that accurate figures will be published in the consultation copy of the draft IRMP.