Arrogance, denial & hypocrisy will perpetuate failure

The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) made grim reading. I feel especially sad for the hundreds of fire & rescue service staff who will understandably, but wrongly, see this as a reflection on them. I also feel very sad for the residents of West Sussex who have, once again, been let down by the County Council.

It is the County Council's leadership that is responsible for this shocking report.

Thursday was rather hectic with the HMICFRS report to read, media coverage to monitor, and the County Council’s Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee meeting to watch. That is the Select Committee responsible for scrutiny and oversight of the Fire & Rescue Service and for holding the Cabinet Member and Chief Fire Officer to account.

I have now had some time to reflect on Thursday’s sad revelations. I am no less disappointed by the Inspector’s findings, but I am appalled by the arrogance, denial & hypocrisy displayed by Councillors at the Select Committee meeting. When Children’s Services were rated inadequate, the chairman of the Children and Young People’s Select Committee resigned, the Chief Executive gave interviews and even Council Leader Louise Goldsmith was quick to publicly apologise.

Yet when the Fire & Rescue Service received the worst report of the latest batch of reports, there were no apologies from the Council Leader or Cabinet Member Debbie Kennard, and no resignations. Instead, Louise Goldsmith and Debbie Kennard hid from the media and made the Acting Chief Fire Officer face the cameras.

No Apology

We had to listen to Debbie Kennard trotting out how they had spent money on equipment, and how they had found a bit of money to try and fix some of the failures identified by the Inspector. Struggling to find some positives in the report, she even had the nerve to mention road safety work, something she planned to cut! Debbie Kennard completely ignored her predecessor’s failures, which created those problems, and her failure to address problems before the inspection.

With her denial and lack of contrition, there is little hope that

Debbie Kennard can lead the service back to an acceptable grading.

Ignore the message and shoot the messenger

Unlike his colleague, who resigned as chairman of the Children and Young People’s Select Committee, this committee’s chairman, Andrew Barrett-Miles, tried to shoot the messenger. Quite irresponsibly he accused her of “hugely damaging morale” and undermining public confidence.  

What damages morale and undermines public confidence is cutting resources and staff to such an extent that the service faces an impossible task. Councillors failing to scrutinise effectively also damages morale and undermines public confidence. To make matters worse, just ahead of the report’s disclosure, three members of this committee, who were not afraid to ask challenging questions, were removed from the Select Committee. 

Their replacements are:

Lionel Barnard, the former Cabinet Member who approved the last round of major cuts to fire & rescue, despite clear evidence of risks to public safety. Cuts that their own modelling indicated could result in an extra death every two years and over £80,000 extra property damage each year.

David Barling, the former Cabinet Member who implemented those cuts and dismissed concerns about increased response times as “scaremongering”. He called on Councillors to ignore the Council's extra death and property damage figures and angrily attacked anyone, including residents, who voiced concerns. Concerns that have since proved well founded.

Roger Oakley, former Vice Chair of the Governance and Standards Committees who refused to investigate the dubious deal that saw an extra senior post created by Council officers for the benefit of a senior Council officer. He also refused to do anything about the Council’s inadequate record keeping after a Judge led tribunal criticised the County Council’s “surprisingly poor record keeping practice.”

The timing of these changes suggest they have less to do with
ensuring proper scrutiny and more to do with damage control.

The truth about failed response times

As if to confirm those concerns, David Barling tried to play down the Inspector’s comment that the service hasn’t met their own standard for response times since 2014/15, by saying it was just one percent below last year. What he did not say was that the West Sussex standard is lower than most fire & rescue services.

Unfortunately, the Inspector’s report only quoted the West Sussex standard for very high-risk areas (first fire engine in 8 minutes and the second in 11 minutes). Yet the service says they no longer have any areas requiring that standard. I don’t know if the Inspector made an error or was misled, but I intend to ask the question.

The actual standard they are failing to achieve for response to life threatening incidents is:

Risk grading	Area covered by this grading	To arrive within (minutes)
		First fire engine	Second fire engine
High	2%	10	13
Medium	37%	12	15
Low	61%	14	17

Compared to Hampshire’s 8 minute target and Surrey’s 10 minute target for all areas, 

West Sussex’s failure to meet their generous targets is nothing to be proud of.

 Funding cuts are directly responsible for poor response times.
"Long travel distances have increased as a reason for failure, as we have four less operational fire stations in West Sussex." "The 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."

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service 2018-19 Quarter 3 Operational Performance Report

Heads in the sand over bullying

David Barling also questioned the Inspector’s comments on bullying, because no one had complained to him about bullying when he was Cabinet Member! I am afraid his comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about harassment and bullying. My WSCC training on the subject made it very clear that victims tend to withdraw into themselves and often won't talk about it.  If Mr Barling genuinely believes that firefighters would open up about such things to a Cabinet Member, then he is really naïve.

I have some sympathy for Neil Stocker, as he has been left holding the baby, and a sickly baby it is. However, his optimism on morale is misplaced. It is at an 'all time low', and just because he and a FBU official were unaware of harassment and bullying, is not evidence that things are OK. I accept that it is difficult to detect, but trying to downplay the report's findings is not going to improve anything.

The Chief Inspector pointed out that West Sussex had evidence of bullying 
at least two years before the inspection, but had failed to take action.

I welcome that they now say they are taking steps to address the problem with new policies and a new officer post, but will that be enough? The County Council has had policies, training and staff responsible for diversity and inclusion for many years, and that includes Fire & Rescue. I first attended WSCC/WSFRS diversity training, delivered by external specialists, over 20 years ago.

If Councillors and managers can't grasp the fundamentals of bullying and harassment,
I have serious doubts they can improve the situation.

WSCC policy in 2010

A few Councillors do support the fire & rescue service

Thankfully there were two County Councillors at the meeting who do recognise the County Council's failings and voiced their genuine support for fire & rescue service staff. Michael Jones and James Walsh have long campaigned to prevent the Council's reckless cuts and they continue to try and hold the Council to account. 

Councillor Michael Jones said that he thought the problem was not just confined to fire & rescue. He saw the link between less staff trying to cope with an impossible workload leading to stress and that sometimes resulting in bullying. A problem I witnessed when I was working with different departments at County Hall as cuts and poorly planned reorganisation took place. I raised my concerns with the then Chief Executive and my comments included:

“With less staff, people are under greater pressure, so have less time to help colleagues, and managers have less time to support staff. Training is either not given, or people do not have time to attend it. Many experienced staff have left, so we have managers who are not only less experienced, they are also less well trained. Lack of time is also stopping effective consultation.

Standards of behaviour are dropping, and people do not treat others with respect. Now some of that may be a social problem, but pressure of work and stress will also be a factor.”

The Chief Executive accepted there were problems and was clearly trying to address them, but unfortunately Louise Goldsmith decided she no longer needed a Chief Executive. When he left, things went from bad to worse.

County Council may make things worse

Councillor James Walsh also pointed out that these problems were not new and that he had spoken to staff who had told him about low morale in the service. He identified the direct link between funding cuts and failed response times, especially in rural areas.

He correctly identified that the Council is in danger of making things worse by advertising for a Chief Fire Officer who doesn't need to have fire service experience. He said, "The idea of the army being led by an accountant, or the police led by a business manager would be an anathema in those services. It is the same in terms of respect and leadership in the fire service."

He said that the message in the report is that the problems start at the top, with the political leadership of the Council, where the cost of everything is known, but the value of the service to the public is not understood.

Debbie Kennard's silence after the concerns voiced by Michael Jones and James Walsh spoke volumes. 

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service does not need an enthusiastic cheerleader, 

it needs a Cabinet Member with a grip on the problems and a determination to improve. 

Residents and firefighters need an experienced fire service professional as Chief Fire Officer. 

The County Council needs a leader who puts the safety of residents before party political ideology.

West Sussex deserves better

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