'Inadequate' Surrey Fire & Rescue Service to control West Sussex emergencies

Relief at the saving of safety and prevention jobs, when West Sussex County Council recently dropped planned cuts, was short lived, as jobs at the Sussex Control Centre are now under threat. Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard has approved plans 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. 

This is despite Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) recently rating Surrey Fire & Rescue Service as inadequate. Their report included criticism of inadequate staffing in Surrey's control room. 

Now when I read the report of the recent Select Committee meeting by Karen Dunn (local democracy reporter), I had expected to see which councillors asked probing questions and who responded to those questions. All vital elements of democratic reporting I would have thought. However, there was none of that, and what I read looked more like a County Council press release. With only the Cabinet Member, Chief and Deputy Chief Fire Officers named in the report, I was concerned that Councillors on the committee had failed to question the plans.

Fortunately, I was able to view a recording of the meeting and was reassured that some very intelligent and pertinent questions had been asked by Councillors, in particular by Michael Jones and Simon Oakley. Sadly, the answers were less reassuring, especially about staffing and poor performance in Surrey’s control. It was frustrating that there were not many follow up questions, but I appreciate that Councillors are not subject matter experts, so are limited in how deep they can probe.

Whilst I don’t doubt the sincerity of the officer responses, I was left feeling that they did not fully understand the complex issues involved. It has always concerned me that many people, including senior fire service officers, often lack a detailed knowledge of the operation of a control room and consequently underestimate the requirements.

An emergency service control room is not just a call centre where staff simply follow a script on the screen in front of them, type a few details in to a database and then declare ‘computer says yes’, or ‘computer says no’. Control room staff have to quickly assess information, make critical decisions, communicate effectively internally and externally, and manage ever changing resources. Technology can assist them, but the final decision and many interactions depend on well trained control room staff.

Only those who have worked in, or spent considerable time in control rooms, and studied the processes, interactions and decisions required in an emergency service control room can properly make decisions about change. In the past, West Sussex control room staff provided vital input to such decisions, but West Sussex no longer employs control room staff, so has no pool of expertise.

During my time in both the fire service and emergency planning I gained a very good insight in to control room operation and I have seen and experienced first-hand the effects of good and bad control room operation. I have also studied good practice and serious failures elsewhere, and worked locally, regionally and nationally on resilient communications. That is why, after reading the reports and listening to the discussion at the Select Committee meeting, I still have serious concerns.

Staffing

The report and the discussion concentrated on technology, but failed to properly consider the most important component of any emergency service control room – adequate numbers of well trained and capable staff.

Emergencies, by their nature, are random events that can dramatically increase demand on control room staff without warning. That can result in delays in answering ‘999’ calls, delays deploying resources, delays responding to requests from crews at incidents, and delays liaising with other emergency services and organisations necessary to ensure that incidents are dealt with quickly and effectively.

In properly staffed control rooms those delays are rare and have minimal effect on the response. In understaffed control rooms those delays occur much more frequently and have a significant effect on the service given to the public. In the worst cases it can cost lives.     

The Councillors were told about other fire & rescue services taking calls when Surrey is busy, but were not told, as reported by HMICFRS, that those services cannot mobilise fire crews. They still have to pass the call to Surrey's Control, when they eventually manage to get through, and only then will Surrey Control staff mobilise crews to the emergency.

Government figures indicate that Surrey’s control room is currently understaffed by over a third. Adjusting for the number of calls received, compared to Hampshire and Sussex, Surrey should have at least 34 control room staff, but they only have about 25.

To effectively deal with West Sussex and Surrey calls to an acceptable standard, Surrey would need to more than double the current number of control room staff. Yet reports suggest they only intend to increase staffing by one per shift, which would seriously undermine effective response in both Surrey and West Sussex.

Incident and staffing data from Home Office figures averaged over previous 3 years

CFO Gavin Watts said that staffing was still being discussed, yet costs have been agreed, which suggests that Surrey Fire & Rescue has already decided how many staff will be employed. The CFO stated that he would ensure enough staff, but based on what standard, Surrey’s poor standard or Sussex and Hampshire’s responsible standards?

Technology

I also have concerns about the reassurances given regarding technology and communications. That Surrey’s technology works with their infrastructure is no guarantee that it will work with that in West Sussex. Just because suppliers say equipment and systems can handle the significant extra demand is no guarantee that it will. If internet service providers, telecom providers and major financial institutions, with their resources, can screw up system upgrades, data transfers etc., then I cannot be reassured that two councils, three fire & rescue services and Capita will get it right.

After all, similar assurances were given by Government about Regional Fire Controls, but they failed to get the technology to work. Subsequently assurances were given by West Sussex County Council about the Sussex Control Centre, but the new mobilising system took over five years to fix. When it eventually went live in East Sussex, further assurances were given by the Cabinet Member about using it for West Sussex calls, but she later decided to abandon the Sussex Control Centre.

A far more accurate statement would be ‘we hope it will work’.

A key requirement will be ensuring that links between the Surrey control room and West Sussex fire stations and appliances will not be vulnerable to any single points of failure. Michael Jones asked if there would be two or three separate links, but was only given an answer about existing West Sussex resilience. The vital Surrey/West Sussex links were not addressed.

Executive Director Nicola Bulbeck suggested that as the fire & rescue service was part of the County Council’s IT set up, it was better than if it was a standalone fire authority. There is no evidence to support that claim. It is far more likely that an IT department in a standalone fire authority will be fully focused on the special needs of the fire & rescue service, rather than trying to balance that with needs across the entire County Council.

My experience of working with WSCC and Capita IT departments is that they cope with the core IT needs of the Council, but often struggled with the specialist IT and communication requirements and extra resilience required by both fire & rescue and emergency planning. IT policies, planning and technology designed to meet the needs of the whole County Council often frustrated efforts to meet specialist needs.

I gained the impression from the responses at the meeting that officers had been seduced by possible technological benefits, whilst being less aware of the vulnerabilities and challenges that ever changing technology creates.

Local knowledge

It was disappointing to hear Gavin Watts dismiss local knowledge as a red herring. Carol Purnell made a valid point about local unofficial names and terms, but the issue is much wider than that. The information given to control room staff by the mobilising system depends on the accuracy of information provided by a potentially panicking caller and the accuracy of the data in the system. Both can be inaccurate and result in crews being sent to the wrong location when the operator lacks local knowledge.

It was suggested that caller locations can be identified with technology, but that is only true for conventional landlines. Although even they can present challenges with modern phone divert and number transfer options. Exact locations cannot be given for mobile phone callers, only the location of the mobile phone mast the caller is connected to.

Even more challenging is increasing use of the internet for voice calls. The location provided to control operators will not be the location of the caller, but of the site where the call leaves the internet and enters the telephone network, which may be many miles away.

The only safeguard is local knowledge. I have experience of control operators with local knowledge ignoring the mobilising system recommendation and sending us to the correct location, and also of control operators, who lacked local knowledge, sending us to the wrong location. 

When it is right, technology is a great boon, but when it is wrong you need staff with good local knowledge. It is also vital when the technology fails, which can and does happen. Trained operators with local knowledge and basic paper information can still get fire crews to emergencies.  

Who is in charge?

Initially, the responses at the meeting seemed more reassuring, with talk of joint management and operations boards for the control room, but as the discussion progressed it became clear that Surrey will always have the final say.

Michael Jones asked about Surrey’s crewing problems impacting on West Sussex, but was told that was Surrey’s concern. It may be, but if the Surrey control room starts plugging gaps in their fire cover with West Sussex crews it will undermine effective fire cover in West Sussex. It is a fundamental matter that must be addressed.

Similarly, it was indicated that it is up to Surrey if they wish to deal with calls for other services. Unless staffing is increased that could well see West Sussex calls suffering even worse delays. That did not seem to concern the officers, which is worrying. West Sussex must have a say in staffing requirements, if Surrey want to increase the workload of control staff.

This is a very good deal for Surrey, as council taxpayers in West Sussex will be heavily subsidising their control room costs. Much was said about best value, but best value is not just the cheapest option. For there to be value there also has to be a reliable and effective service for West Sussex residents.

The lack of detail, the secret reports, the unanswered questions, and Surrey’s history of cutting corners on staffing do nothing to reassure West Sussex residents and firefighters that they will be safe.

Good points and very worrying points at County Council meeting

The Select Committee meeting last Friday discussed the Action Plan for implementing the Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP). On the positive side was the assurance that representative bodies would be involved in the work streams associated with the plan. 

Also welcome was the establishment of a task & finish group to look at On Call Firefighter recruitment and retention. Long overdue, this was first proposed by a County Councillor around three years ago, but the suggestion was arrogantly rejected. It was disappointing that the Cabinet Member tried to stop it this time, but the Chief Fire Officer welcomed it and the Select Committee agreed.

Most worrying though is pushing through a reduction of standard crewing from five to four, and plans to look at ways to cut minimum crewing of On Call crewed fire engines to just three firefighters. 

Vanishing Crew

Officer-in-charge, driver/pump operator, plus

"Officer and driver have specific tasks. It is the crew in the back that fight the fire and carry out rescues."

The Cabinet Member, Debbie Kennard, claimed that the IRMP “was very clear” about standard crewing changing to four, which is not the case. It is only mentioned on page 75 of the IRMP and that did not make it clear it was a cut from five. The public could have assumed it was an increase from 3 to 4. With no detail and no reference in the document to the implications, the public have been denied the full facts and the opportunity to consider and comment on this retrograde step.

Standard crew cut from 5 to 4

The Deputy Chief Fire Officer harked back to when he was a firefighter at Crawley and said that standard crewing on one of their fire engines was four (it was five on their other whole-time crewed fire engine). That suggests he does not understand the full implications of the proposals. He was in the fortunate position at Crawley of arriving at any building fire with nine firefighters on two fire engines. 

At most of the County’s other stations, with whole-time crews, they would arrive with just five firefighters on one fire engine. The second crew to support them would be five, ten or even fifteen minutes away. Cutting those crews to just four will make life more difficult and dangerous for them. Firefighters have accepted crewing with four, when another fire engine on that station is crewed with five, and in exceptional circumstances, but forcing them to always crew with just four is unreasonable.

Minimum crew may drop from 4 to 3

The Deputy Chief Fire Officer also mentioned that On Call stations used to be allowed to respond with just three firefighters, but said it was stopped because four were needed to use some equipment, such as the main ladder. That was a factor, but the main reason it was stopped was that the Chief Fire Officer considered it to be unsafe and risked putting firefighters in an invidious position. In a rescue situation, it was felt unreasonable to force them to choose between having to wait for back up, with a strong likelihood that the victim or victims would not survive, and ignoring procedures to take exceptional risks to try and rescue people.

Such potential dilemmas have not gone away, technology cannot remove those dilemmas, and there is no justification for returning to an unsafe system. These crewing cuts also ignore the extensive work done on task analysis, which identified the minimum numbers required to initially attend an incident and operate effectively and safely.

Real life scenario posed - CFO evades specific answer

Councillor Michael Jones posed a scenario where a crew of three arrive at a house with flames coming out of a downstairs window and, in the crowd, a woman says that her child is somewhere in the house upstairs. He asked if the Chief Fire Officer would expect his crew to attempt a rescue wearing breathing apparatus, or attempt a rescue without breathing apparatus, or do nothing until another crew arrives five, ten or fifteen minutes later?"

His answer, "that is why we've got to do the piece of work", and he also said he didn't think it helpful to speculate on scenarios. I am not surprised that he ducked that question. It is difficult to see anyone, who might face a potential Health & Safety Executive prosecution, approving procedures that would permit either of the two rescue options with a crew of three. He may not want to speculate in the meeting, but I sincerely hope that any review properly considers all potential scenarios. 

Crews of four less effective, less flexible and less safe

The Chief Fire Officer said that they would send more fire engines when there were not enough firefighters on the first one, but the need identified by task analysis is for enough firefighters to be present to carry out simultaneous actions. So when the answer is five, you need five on the first fire engine to arrive, not four, with the fifth firefighter arriving on another fire engine several minutes later. When that happens, the fifth firefighter's task or tasks are not done or are delayed. At best that slows firefighting or rescue, at worst, key actions have to be delayed until help arrives, or safety is compromised, or both.

The Chief Fire Officer spoke about preferring more fire engines crewed with four, to having less fire engines available with crews of five. That may look better on paper, but in practice it is not. With crews of four you often have to send more fire engines to get the total number of firefighters needed at an incident, than you do if they are crewed by five firefighters. That reduces operational effectiveness and cover for other incidents.

Just 10 fire engines available

Consider what happens when there are just ten fire engines available in West Sussex. Sadly, that is sometimes the case. The difference in crewing significantly affects the number of incidents that can be dealt with at the same time. One of the challenges for the service is that several incidents can occur at the same time, so that must be considered when planning resources. For safe and effective action a building fire needs a minimum of nine firefighters and a vehicle fire needs a minimum of five.

Crewed by five firefighters they can deal with:

5 Building fires or 10 vehicle fires

Crewed by four firefighters they can only deal with:

3 building fires or 5 vehicle fires

Crews of four, instead of five, make the service less effective, less flexible and less safe. These are some of the unintended consequences that Councillor Simon Oakley wisely said must be considered.

Will the Cabinet Member listen to the real experts?

Finally, when asked about safety, the Cabinet Member said that she relied on experts. Now that is fine, if she is listening to the real experts - the firefighters who respond to emergencies on fire engines every day. Those who face the danger, know the demands first hand, and suffer the consequences of inadequate resourcing. Their representatives have already said the proposals are unsafe. 

Sadly, I fear she means the very senior officers, for whom rolling up to a serious incident on the first fire engine is a distant memory, and who are under Council instructions to cut spending on front-line resources. No matter how sincere they are about keeping people safe, without adequate resources that becomes impossible.