Surrey fire control deal puts West Sussex lives at risk

At the recent Environment, Communities and Fire Scrutiny Committee meeting at County Hall, Councillors questioned claims that the arrangement for Surrey to control the response to West Sussex emergencies was "a success". Unfortunately, the denials and assurances sounded ever so familiar.

Groundhog Day

When the West Sussex control room was closed and the Sussex control room opened, WSFRS officers assured Councillors it would be straightforward and the Cabinet Member claimed it was a success. When reports of problems were leaked, WSFRS officers and the Cabinet member dismissed them and only admitted to "teething problems" that had been "fixed".

"There is nothing that would give me or officers cause for concern"

Cabinet Member Lionel Barnard August 2014

Lionel Barnard added that staffing was satisfactory, sickness had dropped and everything is "as we would expect it." Yet, a freedom of information request revealed a very different story, and one that would get worse.

There were also strenuous efforts, in both East and West Sussex, to keep problems with the technology secret. This went on for over four years and thousands of pounds were spent trying to fix the problems. It was only after West Sussex's Chief Fire Officer Sean Ruth left that East Sussex began to admit problems, although they blamed connections to existing systems and the old chestnut, "teething problems". 

Although those who reported the original concerns believed that the problems had been fixed by 2018 and the Control Centre was working well, West Sussex decided to leave East Sussex in the lurch by abandoning the Sussex Control Centre. Rushing in to this deal with Surrey, and spending even more money, has again resulted in reports of problems with staffing and technology.

The previous assurances about the arrangements with East Sussex proved false, dishonest even,

so how can we have faith in the latest assurances about the arrangement with Surrey?

Assurances not enough, evidence is needed

Councillors, notably Michael Jones and James Walsh, rightly questioned those assurances and asked for more detail and some evidence to support them. The question is, will the details and evidence be published to allow proper scrutiny, or will they be sent to Councillors with instructions not to reveal the detail? An all too common tactic from West Sussex County Council when they wish to cover up failures.

In an effort to try and ensure information is made public, I have submitted Freedom of Information requests to both West Sussex and Surrey. Of course they may try and keep that information secret, by using exemptions in the legislation, but if they are truly open and honest they will not. It will certainly be an interesting test of WSCC's claims to be improving their culture, especially with regard to honesty and accountability. 

The meeting was told that the FBU Safety Critical Notice was just a Surrey affair and that West Sussex FBU officials had not raised any issues. That may have misled Councillors in to believing that the errors and failings had not affected West Sussex. As West Sussex firefighters had reported 'near hit' events to managers, they would have no need to report them to the FBU. That would only follow if they believed no action was being taken.

It was admitted at the meeting that there had been 'near hit' reports and a weekend system failure, but it was claimed they were not safety critical. I beg to differ. A 'near hit' report means safety was compromised, and it was only luck that meant serious consequences did not result. It is like saying a safety harness failure wasn't safety critical because the person wearing it was close to the ground and wasn't hurt.

It was disappointing to hear that some Councillors were unconcerned about these failures because "you expect teething problems". This was supposed to be a state of the art, tried and tested system, not some early stage experimental computer system. These are not "teething problems" or "bedding in" difficulties, they are failures. 

Failures of concept, of planning, of testing, of training, 

of implementation, of data validation, or all of those.

When lives depend on a system, such failures are unacceptable.

Having heard the dubious claim that less staff were needed because the system relied more on system data being updated automatically, I was astonished to then hear that the data updating was unreliable. It depended on the mobile telephone network and coverage was poor in some areas. The committee was then told that they were going to switch to the Airwave system to improve the situation, but it could take three months to get the necessary licence.

So why did they go ahead before it was in place? No explanation was given. The Committee Chairman said he knew about the licence issue last July, but the meeting was told the application had not yet been submitted. That beggars belief. The mention of Airwave raises further concerns:

• Airwave is basically a mobile telephone system that also does not have 100% coverage.
• Like other mobile telephone systems, Airwave can experience failures and overload.
• Airwave is due to be replaced by the Emergency Services Network, which is yet another mobile telephone system that has yet to be fully tested.

West Sussex residents less safe

The committee was told that ways of working had been changed "for alignment". No detail was given, but reports suggest that West Sussex has cut their levels of protection for the public to match Surrey's poor standards.

Leaving busier fire stations without a fire engine is not a 'culture change', 

it is a downgrading of the service provided to West Sussex residents.

Councillors were told that the system had a new tool for mapping risk and maintaining cover, as if that somehow made it acceptable because it is the computer that says "NO". The parameters used by the computer are determined by the supplier and should meet the requirements of the Service. If the system is as good as claimed, then it should be perfectly possible to have West Sussex standards applied, even if they are different to Surrey's. 

It was concerning to hear about dependence on 'the cloud'. Whilst it is true that this may offer some benefits, it also creates new vulnerabilities. Industry experts will admit that your data could get lost, wiped, corrupted or stolen. They will of course assure you that they take security very seriously, but we have seen many large organisations, who take security seriously, suffer significant problems including denial of service, theft of data and infected systems.

For many years fire services ensured that their control room systems were isolated and protected. 

Now they are happy to put them at risk to save a bit of money. 

I am also concerned that data obtained by West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, which they are legally obliged to protect, is now accessible to Surrey County Council and those contractors and sub contractors used to store or transmit that data. The more people that have access, the greater the risk of unauthorised, malicious or criminal access. WSFRS obtains a lot of data from individuals and businesses that is personal data under data protection legislation, or is commercially or security sensitive.

If a GP refers a patient to another part of the NHS, the GP has to have written permission to share their details. So I wonder how many West Sussex residents and businesses have been asked if they are happy for their data to be shared with, or accessible to, other public and private organisations?

Over £4 million wasted

It was also disappointing to hear the Assistant Chief Fire Officer suggest that, because the control building at Haywards Heath could be used for other purposes when East Sussex move out, money had not been wasted. Finding a use for the building is not the issue, over £2 million was spent on converting it to meet the specialist needs of a fire service control facility. In addition, another £2 million of the £3.6 million Government grant was spent on equipment and work that will now be wasted.

These joint figures were published by East Sussex in 2014, so they do not include subsequent spending by both Services to fix problems. Exactly how much has never been revealed, with some costs being hidden under other budget headings. The Surrey move means that most of the money spent at Haywards Heath has been wasted, and even more is likely to be spent on converting it back to other uses. 

Inadequate staffing levels a major threat to safety

The excuse given to Councillors for such low levels of staffing in Surrey's control was that the technology reduces the need for staff to undertake certain tasks. Yet we were also told that when the technology fails, staff can carry out those tasks. No one can predict when failures will occur, which means that when they do staffing will be hopelessly inadequate.

No matter how good the technology, it cannot replace the Control Operator's ability to gather vital information from often agitated and distressed callers and to ensure that the right help is quickly on its way. No one can predict when many callers may need that help at the same time, which means that when they do staffing will be hopelessly inadequate.

This is not a commercial call centre where staffing can be varied to match expected demand and, if demand is unexpectedly high, the only result is frustrated customers. This is a critical control room managing the fire and rescue service's response to life threatening emergencies. There is no pattern to instances of high demand, it can happen at any time of day, on any day of the week, and at any time of the year.

There are not enough staff in the Surrey Control Room to safely deal with emergencies in Surrey and West Sussex. It will be even worse when they also deal with East Sussex emergencies.

Relative workload per Operator on minimum staffing 

(last column assumes minimum increased by one, as it did when West Sussex joined)

Not enough Control Operators to answer calls for help means
people in danger wait longer for Firefighters to arrive

More bad news for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, as County Council makes changes behind closed doors

It seems that Chief Fire Officer Gavin Watts is to retire early, after just 29 years’ service, and Nicola Bulbeck’s post of Executive Director of Communities and Public Protection seems to have vanished from a new structure dreamt up by one of “Private Eye’s” favourites, West Sussex County Council Chief Executive Nathan Elvery. 

From "Inside Croydon" earlier this year

It is particularly surprising, because it was Nathan Elvery who brought Nicola Bulbeck in to the Council after the dodgy deal involving Sean Ruth was exposed.

The deal that would have allowed Sean Ruth to give up being Chief Fire Officer but continue as Executive Director Communities and Public Protection on the same salary. A deal that was costly, as it meant two highly paid posts were needed to replace one. Despite Sean Ruth deciding, or being told to walk away, Nathan Elvery went ahead with the extra post at an additional cost of around £180,000 a year.

So, what part has Council Leader Louise Goldsmith played? Well we know that the County Council told the Information Commissioner that Councillors were not involved in the dodgy deal and that there were no records of who came up with the deal, who approved it or why the decision was taken. However, as Nathan Elvery was the only council officer senior to Sean Ruth, he must be a strong suspect.

Louise Goldsmith & Sean Ruth

Now, if Council Leader Louise Goldsmith and Cabinet Members were really not involved, then why is it that they are refusing to investigate to see if the decision breached regulations or standing orders? Even after a Judge led tribunal was highly critical of the County Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice”, they refused to review the adequacy of those regulations and standards.

Coming after their shocking admissions of failure regarding Children’s Services, it is difficult to have any confidence in changes orchestrated by Nathan Elvery and approved by Louise Goldsmith. Especially when they were responsible for earlier changes that they now seem to be undoing!

BBC News

We don’t know why Gavin Watts is leaving now and we may never know the real reason, but it does raise worrying questions, including:

• Is it anything to do with inadequate funding, or the failure of Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard to get answers about unfair Government funding?

• Is it to do with the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, which is due soon? I could quite understand that he would not want to be the fall guy for failings that result from his predecessor’s decisions and the failings of local and national politicians.

• Is it to do with the imposition of the new management structure and the loss of wider public protection responsibilities?

• Is it because the County Council has diverted money, which should be going to fire & rescue, to prop up other services?

• Is it because fire & rescue is going to face even bigger cuts to fund the measures needed to fix the problems in Children’s Services?

• Did the Chief Executive pressure the Chief Fire Officer to leave?

Or might it be all of those things?

As for Nicola Bulbeck’s post vanishing, it seems to be confirmation of what campaigners said at the time, that it was an unnecessary post and a waste of money. As for Nicola herself, there is no news. If she has in fact been purged, I assume it will once again cost taxpayers a lot of money. 

"The Times" 14 June 2018

Less Safe & Weaker Communities

We were told that fire & rescue, community development and regulatory services were brought together "to help build safer and stronger communities”. Yet Mr Elvery is now removing responsibility for other public protection departments, such as Trading Standards and the Resilience & Emergencies Team, from the Chief Fire Officer. 

Is he really trying to build less safe and weaker communities, or were we lied to before?

Public protection is strangely being added to the Director of Environment's already significant responsibilities, and the new Chief Fire Officer is going to be required to report direct to the Chief Executive. 

Or is something else being plotted? Perhaps fire & rescue is being separated from other WSCC departments to allow for more than just fire control to be taken over by "inadequate" Surrey County Council?

None of these changes will improve the safety of West Sussex residents

and continuing secrecy and lack of scrutiny is an insult to residents 

A worrying silence and vanishing performance data

Funding

Last December, the County Council debated a resolution asking Debbie Kennard, the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities, to write to the Government about the unequal funding West Sussex received for the fire & rescue service. The resolution was passed with just six Councillors, including Debbie Kennard, voting against.

Yet five months later all we have is a deathly silence. When was the letter sent? What was the Minister's response? Or, did she ignore the democratic decision of the County Council, and not bother to write to the Government on their wholly inadequate funding for West Sussex?

The public, firefighters and her fellow Councillors deserve answers, and quickly.

Control Centre

At the beginning of this year, despite warnings, the Cabinet Member approved moves to transfer call taking, mobilising, and management of resources and incidents for West Sussex emergencies from the Sussex Control Centre to Surrey Fire & Rescue Service's Control Centre.

Surrey Fire & Rescue Service is failing to properly protect Surrey residents, with fire stations and their control room not properly staffed. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) rated Surrey as inadequate in their inspection report last year and, among their specific concerns, was inadequate staffing in Surrey's control room. 

'SurreyLive' 9 January 2019

Concerns about the transfer were raised at the County Council's Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee meeting, but were dismissed with sometimes misleading claims. For example, it was suggested that the reason Surrey take twice as long as the Sussex control to mobilise resources to emergencies was that Surrey challenge callers and Sussex don’t. Councillors accepted that answer, but the truth is that both controls challenge callers when necessary.

Assurances were given about standards and adequate staffing, but wishful thinking is no guarantee. So, it is worrying that no information on standards and staffing have been made public, and disturbing that the agenda for last week's Select Committee meeting did not include an update on this fundamentally important change. 

One of the concerns raised was about the risks of transferring a vast amount of data from the Sussex control to the Surrey control. The meeting was assured that Capita, the IT provider, were on top of it. Unfortunately, similar assurances were given about the transfer of pension management from Capita to Hampshire County Council. Yet Capita’s failings resulted in hundreds of retired firefighters receiving incorrect tax codes that meant they would have to pay additional tax.

This failure resulted in a massive amount of pensioner and HMRC time, additional cost for postage and paperwork, and some pensioners had less money in their last payment, as too much tax was deducted. I was also affected and spent nearly an hour on phone calls to HMRC, received three unnecessary letters, and a reduced payment as a result of Capita's failure. 

The Capita pensions failure cost time and money, but any
mistakes with transfer of fire & rescue operational data could cost lives

Missing performance data

Sometime ago, after pressure from Councillors, performance data for fire & rescue was added to the West Sussex Performance Dashboard. That helped the service and the Council live up to their claim to be open and accountable. However, all that data, with the exception of first fire engine response time, has now disappeared from the website.

It is especially worrying that much of the data that has vanished showed some of the worst performance. That smacks of secrecy and avoiding accountability. They will no doubt say that the information can be found in the quarterly operational performance report, but that lacks sufficient detail to allow long term comparison and proper scrutiny.

The performance data needs to be restored to the Performance Dashboard as a priority

Campaigners & firefighters vindicated

When serious cuts to fire & rescue were being discussed by West Sussex County Council in 2010 and 2014, firefighters and campaigners warned that response times would increase and that response targets would be missed more frequently. 

Former Cabinet Member David Barling and Chief Fire Officer Sean Ruth claimed the changes were improvements and dismissed concerns as 'disinformation' and 'scaremongering'. However, a look at the latest quarterly report clearly vindicates firefighters and campaigners. Not only do figures prove their concerns were well founded, but the service now directly link failed response times to the cuts:

On the 13.5% failure rate for first fire engine arrival they say:

“Long travel distances have increased as a reason for failure, 

as we have four less operational fire stations in West Sussex.”

On the 19.4% failure rate for second fire engine arrival they say:

“Performance on the second pump is weaker than the first due to recent changes within WSFRS. This includes the removal of the second fire engine from three stations and the full closure of another three stations*. This means it is much harder to achieve a two pump attendance target at six stations”

(* In fact four fire stations are no longer operational and more than six stations are affected)

Those Conservative County Councillors who blindly support Cabinet Members

and Chief Officers should remember the advice of trading standards:

“If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”

Worrying excuses

The quarterly report also trots out another well worn and misleading excuse for failing performance. At night and at the weekend, three quarters of West Sussex fire engines are crewed by On-call Firefighters, yet their availability continues to decrease. West Sussex County Council try to duck their responsibility by claiming it is an "on-going issue nationally".

Whilst it is true that a national failure to ensure on-call firefighters are properly rewarded has not helped recruitment and retention, it does not explain why overall availability in some fire & rescue services is well over 90%, yet West Sussex can't manage 57%.

The excuse gets weaker when you see that some On-call crewed fire stations in West Sussex struggle to achieve 10% availability, when others achieve close to 100% availability.

West Sussex County Council used to have a target of 88% availability but then, without consultation, they cut that target to just 75%. A shameless attempt to make inadequate performance look better. This performance indicator is one of the ones that has disappeared from the Council’s Open Performance website and perhaps the fact that it has fallen to 56.9% explains why it was removed.

It is time that West Sussex County Council stopped making excuses and acknowledged that their cuts have significantly contributed to this failed performance.

The reduction in On-call fire engine availability by over 30% began in 2011

&

West Sussex County Council’s cuts to the fire & rescue service began in 2011

More cuts as Tribunal condemns County Council

A Judge led tribunal investigating West Sussex County Council’s failure to provide information, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, has unanimously criticised the Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice”.

The tribunal said, “we would have thought it basic good practice for any public authority to maintain such records in order to demonstrate a proper justification for its decisions, and to be able to account for its expenditure of taxpayers’ funds.”

Some will recall the fiasco when the Council decided to replace Sean Ruth’s Executive Director/Chief Fire Officer post, which cost the Council £193,000 a year, with two separate posts of Executive Director and Chief Fire Officer, which would then cost £372,000 a year.

Sean Ruth would 'retire' as Chief Fire Officer, but continue as Executive Director on the same salary. Whilst he would benefit from the arrangement, any benefit for the Council seemed to be missing. I am sure that many people would happily give up the main part of their job (the Chief Fire Officer manages 90% of the Directorate's services), if they can stay on the same salary. 

As there was a clear disadvantage for taxpayers, I submitted a Freedom of Information request asking for the business case supporting the decision. West Sussex County Council clearly did not want to reveal any details, as they ignored the request. It was over four months before a reply was received, and that was only after reminders and a warning of enforcement action from the Information Commissioner.

Although some figures were provided, the Council claimed that no documentation was held about the justification or rationale behind the change. The tribunal's recent decision follows a lengthy appeals process and it has become clear that any written information about the decision no longer exists. Was the delay to give time for any emails about the change to be  automatically time deleted? There is no evidence to support or disprove that, but then no other explanation has been provided for the very unusual and lengthy delay.

Although Sean Ruth eventually changed his mind and left the Council, they stubbornly continued to appoint both a Chief Fire Officer and an Executive Director, despite the enormous additional cost. 

So, what do we know? Well, we know some of the costs, and that the decision seems to have been made by Council officers, not Councillors, which would appear to be in breach of the Council’s Financial Regulations.

What do we not know? Well, we don't know who suggested, who discussed and who approved the expensive change, or the justification for it. Neither for the initial decision, when Sean Ruth was involved, nor the decision to advertise two posts, instead of one, when he was out of the equation. We also don't know the full costs, or if Sean Ruth's pension was inflated.

I have now written to the Council's Standards Committee to ask them to investigate this fiasco (the letter is reproduced below).

More cuts and Cabinet Member refuses to help

The new Executive Director, Nicola Bulbeck, is now proposing more damaging cuts to front-line public protection. The cuts will be discussed on Thursday at the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee meeting. The Executive Director's report begins on page 41 of the Public Document Pack, and this item will be webcast.

Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard claims that the cuts are because they don’t have the money, yet she is refusing to write to the Government to demand fairer funding. West Sussex already receives less to provide the fire & rescue service than all neighbouring areas and, by 2019/20, West Sussex will be getting less than half the money per person that East Sussex will get.

Whilst Debbie Kennard often praises firefighters, what they and the public really need is for her to fight for proper funding to stop more damaging cuts. The Council's claim that these cuts will not change emergency response cover is simply untrue. Both the technical rescue unit and the resilience and emergencies team respond to emergencies. They are already small teams, so if they are cut, then the response to emergencies will get worse.

Cutting prevention work is also incredibly damaging. The ‘Safe Drive Stay Alive’ courses, which help reduce deaths and injuries on the road, are to be stopped. That is despite the courses being universally praised, including recently by the High Sheriff of West Sussex and the Chairman of Horsham District Council.

Worryingly, none of these cuts were mentioned during the public consultation on the Integrated Risk Management Plan, just a few months ago. Sadly, it is inevitable that more lives will be lost as a result of these cuts, yet the Executive Director’s report fails to include that as a consequence. 

It is quite wrong that Councillors are not given all the facts

when life threatening cuts are considered.

The proposals may save money, but they will cost lives!

Letter to the Standards Committee

Dear Councillor Oakley,

I am contacting you as Vice -Chairman of the Standards Committee, as Councillor Barnard has had previous involvement with these events and may be conflicted.

I am sure you will be as concerned as I am that a Judge led tribunal has been highly critical of the County Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice.”

This relates to last year’s decision to replace the combined Executive Director for Communities & Public Protection/Chief Fire Officer post (costing the Council £193,000 pa) with separate posts of Executive Director for Communities & Public Protection and Chief Fire Officer (costing £372,000 pa).

I could see no benefit for the Council, or for taxpayers, so using a Freedom of Information request I asked for information on the justification and rationale supporting the decision. I was eventually told that no such information was held. In the decision notice (attached) from the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber - Information Rights), they concluded, “on a balance of probabilities, that the Council holds no further information.“

However, they went on to say that “we have found it surprising that there are no written records about the type of decision in issue here. Like the Appellant, we considered that it was reasonable to expect some information to exist in relation to the justification for the posts.”

They also said, “We would have thought it basic good practice for any public authority to maintain such records in order to demonstrate a proper justification for its decisions, and to be able to account for its expenditure of taxpayers’ funds.”

The Council’s responses to the Information Commissioner also reveal that the decision was made by senior officers alone, which appears to be in breach of the Council’s Financial Regulations.

Despite the Council’s repeated claims to be open and transparent, the following questions about the decision and the extra expenditure remain unanswered:

1. Who proposed the change, who participated in the discussions about the change, and who authorised the change?
2. What was the justification and rationale for doing so, especially when the Council was trying to cut costs?
3. Why was Sean Ruth to be allowed to relinquish the post of Chief Fire Officer, yet continue as Executive Director on the same salary?
4. When Sean Ruth decided to leave the Council, why was the decision not reviewed?
5. Why was the new Chief Fire Officer not then given Executive Director responsibility, as Sean Ruth had been three years earlier?
6. Who authorised the decision to advertise for an Executive Director for Communities & Public Protection, in addition to the Chief Fire Officer?
7. What was the justification and rationale for doing so, especially at a time of continuing financial restraint?

I would ask that your committee review the circumstances of these decisions to establish if there was any breach of regulations or standards. If the conclusion is that there was not, I would ask you to review the need for regulations and standards to be tightened to improve procedures and record keeping. Openness and transparency on the unanswered questions above would also be appreciated.

I would further ask you to consider, in relation to professional standards, why my FoI request, submitted on 1 April 2017, was not dealt with in a reasonable time (usually 20 working days). The request was ignored, as was a reminder on 5 May 2017. The Information Commissioner then issued a direction to the Council to respond within ten working days on 16 June 2017. This too was ignored and it was not until 8 August 2017 that a response was received.

Top job changes could cost taxpayers an extra £300,000

On 1st April, I submitted a Freedom of Information request for details of the business case and costs in relation to the recent splitting of the Executive Director & Chief Fire Officer post in to two posts. I also requested the same information in relation to the decision to combine the two posts in 2014. The request was acknowledged and I was told to expect a response by 4th May. It did not come, so I sent a reminder. It was acknowledged, but I still had no response.

I contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office, and they wrote to West Sussex County Council, on 16th June, to point out their failure to comply with the legislation. They also directed WSCC to respond within ten working days, but they did not. This breach of the law is currently awaiting allocation to a case officer at the Information Commissioner’s Office.

On 7th August, I finally received a response from West Sussex County Council, but it is far from satisfactory. Astonishingly, they claim that there are no documents to justify these senior management changes. The suggestion that the person, or persons, approving the decisions in 2014 and in 2017 had no paperwork setting out the justification, rationale and cost of these changes defies belief. If the claim is true, then I feel sure the Local Government Ombudsman and the National Audit Office would have serious concerns about such lax governance.

According to West Sussex County Council £532,000 - £353,000 = £19,000

They have provided some salary costs, but claim they don’t know the associated cost of provided vehicles, accommodation and support staff. Something else I suspect the Local Government Ombudsman and the National Audit Office would be concerned about. The salary figures provided are incomplete and appear designed to mislead. They claim that replacing a combined post, which cost £193,000 per year, with two posts totalling £372,000, will only cost an extra £19,000!”

The figures shown for the combined post included the Deputy Chief Officer post, but the figures for the separate posts do not. As they still have a Deputy Chief Officer, that cost should be included, so the extra cost is at least £179,000. That figure does not include the vehicle, accommodation and support staff costs associated with the extra post.

It should also be remembered that the original plan was for Sean Ruth to continue as Executive Director, whilst receiving a Chief Fire Officer’s pension in addition. Despite retiring from the Chief Fire Officer part of his combined role, it seems his salary was not going to be reduced. That is quite astonishing when you consider that the new Chief Fire Officer would be responsible for 90% of the directorate’s budget.

Add in the pension payments and the difference in costs between 2016-17 and 2017-18 must be an increase of around £300,000 per year. Sean Ruth recently changed his mind and left WSCC, but if the Council appoint a new Executive Director, council taxpayers would still be forking out an unnecessary £193,000 on top of the pension costs.

Since 2010, the County Council has cut personnel crewing fire engines by 32% and middle managers by 26%. Senior manager posts were initially cut, but increased again in 2013.

It is utterly scandalous that nearly a third of the firefighters who save lives in West Sussex have been cut, whilst highly paid manager posts have doubled, even though they manage fewer people. The Council said they could not afford £63,000 a year to keep second fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington, but they are happy to squander money on senior manager posts.

The misleading figures from WSCC mean the exact full costs are unclear. It is obviously more than £19,000, but is it £179,000, £193,000, £300,000, or something else? We must be told exactly what the full costs of this debacle are and council taxpayers deserve a thorough investigation in to this appalling misuse of their money.

WSCC’s creative accounting:

Single post 2014	Pay	NI	Pension	Total
Executive Director and CFO	140,000	18,000	35,000	193,000
Director & Deputy Chief	116,000	15,000	29,000	160,000
Total	256,000	33,000	64,000	353,000
Separate posts 2017
Executive Director	140,000	18,000	35,000	193,000
Director & CFO	130,000	17,000	32,000	179,000
Total	270,000	35,000	67,000	372,000

Difference: £372,000 – £353,000 = £19,000

The figures for the separate posts that should have been shown:

Separate posts 2017	Pay	NI	Pension	Total
Executive Director	140,000	18,000	35,000	193,000
Director & CFO (new post)	130,000	17,000	32,000	179,000
Director & Deputy Chief	116,000	15,000	29,000	160,000
Total	386,000	50,000	96,000	532,000

Difference: £532,000 - £353,000 = £179,000

(not including Sean Ruth’s pension, and vehicle, accommodation & support staff costs for the new CFO post)