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.

Critical decision making and public safety

With the County Council meeting taking place on Friday, I thought it an appropriate time to write to County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith about my concerns regarding the possible appointment of a Chief Fire Officer with no fire service experience. The email, copied to all County Councillors is reproduced below:

"Dear Councillor Goldsmith,

 

Whenever I have spoken to Cabinet Members about their fire service decisions, I am invariably told, “I am not a firefighter, it is the Chief Fire Officer who is the expert on the fire service, so I must follow his professional advice.” Leaving aside the constraints that Cabinet Members impose on the Chief Fire Officer, that statement seems reasonable.

 

I am therefore at a loss to understand why the County Council would now consider being advised on fire & rescue service matters by someone who is not an experienced and professional Chief Fire Officer.

 

Critical decision making

 

During 15 years in the County Council’s Emergency Planning Unit, I witnessed several competent WSCC managers struggle to make decisions during emergencies. This was at all levels up to Chief Executive level and ranged from poor decisions to flat refusals to make an urgent decision when it mattered. This was not because they were poor managers, but because there is a stark difference between making day to day decisions and making critical emergency decisions. When making day to day decisions in a calm office environment, others can be consulted, research carried out, advice sought, reports reviewed, and option papers considered. All of which will help a competent manager to reach a sensible decision.

 

However, that is a World away from having to make a critical decision at 3 am, in an unfamiliar location, with limited and sometimes confused information, with no one available to consult and everyone around you expecting an immediate decision. Even the best managers, who are not used to such decision making, can fail under such pressure. Yet no one can predict who will, and who won’t fail, until the situation arises.

 

Whilst none of those decisions were life and death decisions, the failures did undermine the effectiveness of the emergency response. Put a Chief Fire Officer, without experience, in those situations and lives could well be lost. For the County Council to even consider appointing a Chief Fire Officer, who might fail when life critical decisions are required, seems to be a serious folly.

 

Throughout their service firefighters are trained to quickly make critical decisions when they only have limited and confused information. By the time a firefighter has reached higher management levels, they will have honed those skills and gained invaluable practical experience over many years. They will also have developed, through training and practice, the broader management and financial skills necessary for the role of Chief Fire Officer.

 

To be effective a Chief Fire Officer must also understand the roles, responsibilities and methods of operation of all the emergency services, and of the many other organisations that are involved in complex emergencies. Effective joint working, especially at major incidents, also depends on an in-depth knowledge of inter-agency plans and procedures, reinforced with extensive inter-agency training and practical experience.

 

Such knowledge, skills and experience can only be acquired by serving in the fire & rescue service for many years.

 

Non-critical decision making

 

Management consultants may claim this is where fire service knowledge, training and experience is not necessary. The fundamental flaw in that thinking is that all non-critical decisions ultimately have an impact on the effectiveness of the service’s prevention and response activities. Understanding how decisions will affect the service’s ability to prevent and respond to emergencies is vital in ensuring the right decisions are made. There is no better way of understanding the hazards and challenges facing firefighters, than having been in that situation yourself. That experience also makes day to day decisions on procedures, resources, staffing, training etc fully informed. 

 

It may be suggested that a Chief Fire Officer, without fire service experience, can rely on a Deputy Chief who has that experience. Not only does that result in the Deputy Chief being the de facto Chief Fire Officer, whilst being paid less, it also results in the Chief Fire Officer being no more than a rubber stamp for the Deputy's decisions. An added danger is that, if a Deputy Chief in that position provides poor advice, either deliberately or inadvertently, the Chief Fire Officer will not have the knowledge, training or experience to recognise it. There is also the danger that a Chief Fire Officer without fire service experience may not wish to be seen to always follow a Deputy’s advice and, in an effort to assert their authority, may ignore it. Failing to listen to professional advice could then have serious consequences.

 

Confidence

 

It is essential that staff in the fire & rescue service, WSCC Directors, heads of partner agencies, and the public have confidence that the Chief Fire Officer has the necessary fire & rescue service knowledge, training and experience. Without that confidence the opinions and decisions of the Chief Fire Officer will not be trusted and that will quickly undermine respect for the service and the Council.

 

The few fire authorities that have been foolish enough to experiment with a head of service shipped in from outside the fire & rescue service have seen confidence decline. None of those experiments has proven successful, with only those who took the decision to appoint such a person, and the person themselves, claiming otherwise.

 

There are enough challenges in running a modern fire & rescue service without adding the challenge of having no fire & rescue service experience. Residents and firefighters deserve a Chief Fire Officer who has had a career’s worth of training, knowledge and experience in the fire & rescue service.

 

I trust that you will ensure that a Chief Fire Officer with considerable experience of the fire & rescue service is appointed to protect West Sussex residents.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Morris"

Office for National Statistics ignores true value of our fire & rescue services

Yesterday's report, “Activities, spending and productivity in the Fire and Rescue Services since 2009”, from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), clearly shows how distorted thinking is undermining our fire & rescue services.

They claim to be independent of politics, but the claim looks somewhat suspect when the report suggests that cuts have improved productivity. They also claim to be the “recognised national statistical institute of the UK”. Well perhaps they are competent when it comes to business statistics, but when it comes to the fire & rescue service they clearly don’t have a clue.

They apply a simplistic business test of looking at inputs (cost of provision) and outputs (quantity produced), which they perceive for fire & rescue to be operational and prevention activity. They then crudely claim, because activity cuts are not as bad as staff cuts, that productivity has improved.

Home Office figures

The fundamental schoolboy error in this approach is that fire & rescue is not a business, but a form of insurance that both reduces mishaps and disasters, and minimises their effects when they do occur. If they properly assessed outputs, they would assess the financial benefit of lives not being lost and property not being destroyed as a result of FRS activity. Sadly, something this national statistical institute appears incapable of doing.

Now it may be difficult, but proper research could identify the value of lives and property saved at incidents by the FRS. Identifying the value of lives and property saved by prevention activity, i.e. losses avoided because incidents were avoided, may be more challenging, but a “recognised national statistical institute” ought to be able to estimate this. Yet they have not even tried to do so.

The real value of the service is what is saved and prevented, not how many incidents or inspections are carried out. I have no doubt that if these fundamental outputs were properly calculated, then the service would be shown to be very productive and very good value.

Of course, that would also show that cuts to the service are counterproductive, with the cost of the consequences being much greater than the actual saving on service provision. The ONS may consider themselves to be non-political, but their inept assessment is helping austerity politicians to falsely claim damaging cuts as productivity improvements.

If the ONS want their statistics on fire & rescue to be taken seriously, then they need to properly value the full benefit that fire and rescue services contribute to public safety and the economy.     

No wonder things go wrong when WSCC don't care about experience for vital top jobs

Following yesterday's disturbing news, I now learn that the Chief Fire Officer's job has been advertised with an advert that includes this ludicrous sentence:

"Fire service experience would be helpful, it is not essential for this leadership role." 

The idea, so often expounded by management 'experts' and consultants, that managers do not need to know the organisation or business they are managing in detail, is fundamentally flawed. You only have to look at the civil service and the numerous failed Government projects to understand why that philosophy is so flawed. 

Local government is not much better, with senior managers flitting from one section to another after yet another reorganisation. That often leaves one crisis behind, as they create another in the new post. There are also many businesses that have failed after someone is put in charge who has no experience of the specific challenges and requirements of that business.

I grew up in a family business and had other relatives running successful businesses, so learnt about the challenges from an early age. Each of them knew exactly how every part of those businesses worked and were able to carry out any function in that business. That is why they prospered whilst others failed.

Several years ago the fire service experimented with an accelerated promotion scheme where, after a special course, a person could skip several ranks. It was an unmitigated disaster and was dropped. Why, because many of those officers missed out on vital sharp end experience and that undermined their ability to make the right decisions, especially under pressure.  

West Sussex County Council will no doubt say that Chief Fire Officers don't often attend incidents, but when they do, or when they attend the inter-agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group for major incidents, it is vital that they fully understand the consequences of their decisions. There is no better way of understanding the hazards and challenges facing firefighters you are directing, than having been in that situation yourself. That experience also makes your day to day decisions on procedures, resources, staffing, training etc properly informed. 

There are enough challenges in running a fire & rescue service 

without adding the challenge of having no fire service experience

To compound the Council's stupidity, I understand they are using a private consulting company to manage the recruitment process, and they haven't advertised the job throughout the fire & rescue service. You really have to wonder how much more money West Sussex County Council will waste on consultants, especially when consultants have been involved in so many of the Council's failures.

Unsurprisingly, this appears to have the fingerprints of Louise Goldsmith and Nathan Elvery all over it. No consultation, no scrutiny, just do what they want and to hell with the consequences. If, by some chance it is not their doing, then they must surely get the advert changed and ensure the job is advertised widely in other fire & rescue services.

In a service where morale is already low, this is just another 
kick in the teeth for loyal and courageous firefighters

I hope sensible Councillors, who are genuinely concerned about public safety, will make it clear that they want a proper, experienced Chief Fire Officer. I see that County Councillor Michael Jones has already made that clear and I trust many more will follow his common sense approach.

If a business fails livelihoods are lost, but if a Chief Fire Officer fails lives are lost

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

'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.

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.