Fire Magazine Blog

 

FIRE Editor Andrew Lynch asks, if we knew FiReControl was on the skids, why didn’t the then Deputy Prime Minister?

 

The Public Accounts Committee report on the failure of FiReControl said it was one of the worst cases of project failure that the committee has seen in many years, which is saying something given the sheer volume of project failures in recent years.

It stated that the then department launched the project too quickly, without the fundamentals of project management being in place, whilst money leaked at an alarming rate (£69 million going to consultants alone). Unsurprisingly, the Fire Minister Bob Neill has laid into the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (later Department for Communities and Local Government) supremo Lord Prescott, saying it was another in a catalogue of Labour’s IT failures: http://www.fire-magazine.com/Content/Doc.aspx?id=2036 

What surprised this seasoned cynic was Lord Prescott’s attempt to shift the blame entirely onto the civil servants, and more precisely, the then Permanent Secretary. Now I’m not saying many of the civil servants weren’t up to scratch. There were clearly issues, evidenced by the colossal shambles of FiReControl – although this didn’t seem to prevent transfers and promotions to other government departments to undertake similar roles. What really takes the biscuit is Lord Prescott’s belief that them withholding information was not his responsibility.

Speaking to the Today programme, he told listeners that he does indeed take responsibility for the policy, but urged the Committee to step outside of convention and interrogate the civil servants. It is also conventional to accept responsibility for your department, as the interviewer kindly reminded him, sparking Lord Prescott to reiterate what he’d already reiterated: he was responsible for policy; those snidely civil servants should really be in the firing line.

This is plainly a case of the former Deputy Prime Minister having his cake and eating it. What is also staggering is that I distinctly remember being well briefed (by contacts who knew a real brief when they heard one) that his civil servants were not briefing him properly/at all (according to my brief). This had allegedly been going on for some time, back during the national strike negotiations, as they sought to cut him out of the loop.

At the time I thought if true this was vaguely sinister, although not at all surprising. So, he may be right in saying that civil servants were holding back information but he is wrong in blaming them for it. It is down to his mismanagement and he should be held accountable for that.

If the ODPM was too big and unwieldy, as we all realised, he should have dismantled it instead of building his own empire. No point blaming the servants once the house of cards collapses. 

 

Posted September 21st, 2011 at 1135 by Andrew. Comment by emailing: andrew.lynch@pavpub.com 

 

 

 The shocking level of violence which spread across the capital on a third consecutive night of rioting has left the country reeling and has placed firefighters in the cross-fire. As well as the numerous car fires in Lewisham and Peckham, the large sofa factory fire in Croydon soaked up firefighting resources. Most disturbing is that firefighters were targeted as they responded to the blazes. 

Chairman and Leader of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Cllr Brian Coleman, said: “It is absolutely outrageous though that three of our fire engines came under attack and had to be taken off the road, making them unavailable for emergencies. There is simply no excuse for this abhorrent behaviour which endangers the lives of firefighters and also the people they are trying to protect.” 

The rioting has spread through the use of social networking in a way that has never been seen before – a virus that has blighted the streets of the capital and is spreading around the country. As the Prime Minister chairs an emergency meeting of COBRA to discuss the riots, many commentators are urging military intervention as police forces struggle to tackle the widespread violence.  

The thought of drafting in the military to tackle civilian unrest fills me with a sense of dread – the Troubles inNorthern Irelandlive all too vivid in the memory. However, foremost in my thoughts is the safety of firefighters, and indeed all frontline responders, as they face unprecedented levels of violence. That troublemakers are being closely monitored offers little comfort as the bricks and bottles rain down. 

There is a growing sense of outrage from the communities that have found themselves under attack from their own residents. Shop owners and residents are disgusted at the thuggery of rioters as their businesses are attacked and in some cases burned to the ground. Whilst there is little that can be done at the moment, in the coming days and weeks community leaders will work with police and emergency responders to ensure such scenes will not be repeated. 

There is no easy solution as the speed with which these violent scenes have been replicated across the country has surprised many. With the viral spread of social networking it should come as no surprise at all. The emergency services may be playing catch-up with this societal sore, but this is an aberration and not a permanent blight. With the collective will to defeat moronic behaviour in all its forms, the streets will calm and the perpetrators will be rounded up one by one. 

Now we need to sit down and work out how to off-set potential outbreaks in the future. 

 

Andrew Lynch 

 

 

 

Chief Fire Officer John Bonney, Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service, responds to our correspondent’s criticism of apparent reluctance to share information in the Service 

I read with genuine interest and puzzlement David Wright’s recent article entitled ‘Disaster Lessons Still Not Learnt’ (see FIRE June, pg 13).  I have to admit that I do not recognise his contention that there is a reluctance to share the details of incidents in which firefighters lost their lives, or indeed the lessons learnt.  The Gillender Street fire that Mr Wright mentions clearly had the causes laid bare, why otherwise would it have led to the change in our approach to training? Changes that Mr Wright himself makes reference to. 

The inference here that the great and good draw a veil of secrecy over such matters is, in my experience, nonsense. In relation to the Shirley Towers incident in my own service, this has already led to information being provided to help improve safety (CFRAU Bulletin 4/2011 – Failure of cable fixings in fires). The Villiers Road fire in London led to a training video being produced which was shared with fire and rescue services to assist in their understanding of the incident and the causes that led to the tragic death of two of our colleagues. 

I would argue that there is absolutely no hesitation in sharing, where we can, information as soon as possible. Indeed, within one month of Shirley Towers I made a presentation to CFOA colleagues on our approach to the various investigations running and the agreement we had forged to ensure productive and efficient progress was maintained. 

Mr Wright rightly commends Hertfordshire for the publication of their report on Harrow Court. I would add that the associated training package is a testament to the learning that has taken place from that incident and the willingness of HFRS to share their experiences. That said, Hertfordshire, along with other services, are simply not at liberty to circumvent the process of law. Revealing in their entirety the details of tragic events, dates, times, names and decisions before the police investigation is concluded, let alone the coroner’s inquest, is likely to find you both in the dock and doing a massive disservice to the loved ones and colleagues of those who lost their lives. There is due process to follow. 

No, the key issue is to ensure safety critical information that can protect firefighters is released as early as possible.  But providing a complete account of the events and the lessons to be learnt needs to fit with the chronology set by the Coroner and the law, however slow that might appear. 

To reflect on David Wright’s comments around an apparent reticence to reveal lessons learnt; there is no embarrassment in revealing mistakes, but for me the greater condemnation would be not to learn or share that learning with colleagues. I believe a commitment to one’s profession drives openness not silence.  Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service will release a report on the Shirley Towers incident at the conclusion of the current investigations and once the Coroner has completed his inquest. We will do this because of our desire to protect firefighters in the future, whether or not the report makes uncomfortable reading. 

 

 

 

Dennis Davis appeals to Service leaders to press for genuine change. 

Unlike previous changes the current Fire and Rescue Service one does not follow a local government review or even the deconstruction of the Wartime National Fire Service, but is arguably almost as profound. What we have is a new landscape – one I tend to call the Do IT Yourself FRS since it is very much the opposite of centralism or however you might wish to classify the previous approach. This one as we know is connected to Localism and the Big Society where each FRA with CFOA leadership is expected to forge their own way ahead. 

The response from the Minister to the Fire Future debate illustrates the point. Originally this debate was restricted to the LGA and CFOA but then widened and inputs were made from outside the FRS through the National Interest Workstream. The built environment, workforce development and research emerged as key issues. 

The Minister’s response in publishing nearly 150 recommendations – dumping only seven, including the UK having a new central agency, a sort of UK version of US Homeland Security – reinforces the DIY point. Fire and rescue authorities now have 113 ideas to choose to do what they want with, whilst accepting another seven where the government would support the FRA because they relate to national resilience. 

Given the precarious public financial situation the big decision in this DIY landscape is whether you were a missionary or cannibal. Should you simply go for the low hanging fruit, save money and run, or stick it out to change the way the FRS actually works in the future? 

 My own view is the future needed a new relationship – one that recognises that many of the improvements of the past 50 years in fire related deaths and injuries have arisen from fire safety changing our environment and improving consumer products. In the home fireguards, nightdresses, foam filled furniture, smoke detection were significant (soon to be joined by RIP cigarettes). That is why it is good to learn that the Fire Kills campaign has been retained at least for another year 

In the built environment we managed fire growth in compartments through materials and construction methods, compartmentation and control through standards and codes. But control of the built environment is moving away as compartments grow in size, codes shift from prescription to performance and modern methods of construction linked sometimes with poor workmanship, lower safety.  

Fire and rescue authorities can still have an impact of course, like Devon and Somerset shining a light in a dark corner of the housing rental market just as Manchester did all those years ago when it challenged the furniture industry to improve after a series of whole family deaths in their area. 

But so to can the fire sector, with all its elements of influence in active and passive protection, training and education, and consumer and FRS research and development, and sense suggests it must be involved in any future FRS and national fire strategy. 

Public private partnerships may have been defined, used and even abused in the past but fragmentation is not the answer. And neither is this simply about saving money in hard times. What we need is a genuine and mature series of conversations that allow the whole sector to become engaged where they can in improving still further the UK response to fire. 

 

  
Des Prichard, CFOA Director of People and Organisational Development, talks about the Cross Sector Leadership Exchange. 

 

The Chief Fire Officers Association has been in discussion of late with other organisations in health, police, prisons, probation, local government and the voluntary sector at what is known as the Cross Sector Leadership Exchange.   

The Cross Sector Leadership Exchange is a consortium of senior leaders who are responsible for the development of the leaders within their organisations. Its purpose is to act as an exchange network between sectors that supports middle, senior and top leadership development. 

 

Developing Future Leaders  

The aim of the exchange is to promote awareness and understanding of how organisations are progressing the development of their future leaders, to look at what can be shared in terms of learning and development opportunities between organisations and to extend understanding beyond the public sector. 

One key initiative the consortium is keen to get started is to develop opportunities for leaders from one sector, to exchange with leaders from another sector. Exchanges may be for a little as one day or may be longer, depending on the individuals, their opportunity to exchange and the learning and development that each individual is seeking to benefit from. 

I have been involved with the consortium in my role as CFOA Director for People and Organisational Development and it is my belief that there are many benefits both for individuals and organisations to be gained from participating in leadership exchanges.  There is scope for development in terms of knowledge, skills, relationships, abilities and experience. Individuals who participate get the opportunity to engage with a broader range of views, ideas, and perspectives.   

In these times of economic downturn there is a greater need than ever for us to think innovatively and the concept of exchange can support the cross-fertilisation of ideas, roles, and resources. We can all learn from each other and by widening our horizons outside of our own service, individuals can get the opportunity to look at some of the challenges we face from a different viewpoint.  

 

Exchange Mechanism  

CFOA has agreed to host the exchange mechanism for our Service on the CFOA website. In the first instance, the exchange scheme will be open only to CFOA members but there is scope for future development to widen this initiative in time. Very simply, any CFOA member who would wish to be involved in the exchange will be asked to outline areas of interest and give some detail on how they would seek to benefit from an exchange opportunity. 

These details will be posted on the CFOA website and will be made publicly available.  Colleagues from other sectors would then be able to access the website, click in to the Leadership Exchange section and select a potential exchange partner. It would then be up to the individuals involved to agree any exchange. 

I believe that this initiative presents us with a great opportunity for the continuing personal development of both current FRS leaders and the leaders of the future. Exchanging views and ideas, sharing and learning is crucial to ensure a healthy future for our Service. It is too easy to see ourselves as ‘different’ and ‘unique’. There is much to be gained from learning how other organisations deal with some of the challenges we face on a daily basis. 

 

Password to Sharing  

It is very early days for the scheme which is being made available through the new CFOA website at www.cfoa.org.uk. If you are interested in taking part in the Leadership Exchange, Anna McDonnell, Membership Officer at CFOA HQ in Tamworth will be happy to guide you through the registration process.  

The CFOA website has been refreshed as part of the CFOA re-branding project. Anyone serving within a subscribing UK fire and rescue service can access the website. It is not just for CFOA members. If you have not already done so, it is easy to set up an account from an FRS email address. You will be issued with a password, which you can personalise, and then you will have access to all sorts of sharing and learning.  

Take a look at our library of notable practice. It is all there for you to learn from what is going on out there in our Service. No point in re-inventing the wheel if someone else out there has done the hard work for you. By the same token, if you are part of any particularly successful and innovative project within your service and you would like to share your learning with others then please get in touch with the communications team at CFOA HQ. Amy Rawlins and Jackie Findlay would love to hear from you. 

Through exchanging ideas, both we as individuals and our services as a whole will benefit. Do not sit on the sidelines – join in. Let us share and learn and continue to improve together. 

 

 

We've had a great response to our health and safety poll. Thank you to everyone who voted. We'd like to hear what you think about the poll results, and why you voted yes or no. So please leave a comment with your thoughts.

'Is current health and safety guidance adequate to protect firefighters?' 
71.43% voted 'yes' 28.57% voted 'no'  

As the government responds to the Fire Futures report, FIRE appeals for a shake-up of the risk-averse health and safety culture

A local service for local people is what we are now, as we have been reliably informed by Fire Minister Bob Neill following the government’s response to the Service’s Fire Futures report (see FIRE May issue, pg 5). From regional to local, it doesn’t matter what you call it – from micro to macro, global to globule – the Fire and Rescue Service has now been empowered like never before. This is a good thing. What the government has done, as promised by the Fire Minister, is to go along with the vast majority of recommendations, shelving those that do not fit with government policy. Thus, the devil is in the detail that is missing. Headlines read that there will be no Community Protection Authority to encompass ambulance trusts, nor will there be an adaptation of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat to reflect a US-style Federal Emergency Management Agency. Most tellingly for this reader, Operational Doctrine will be determined by the sector and not remain with government, ‘although government will retain a central role in relation to national resilience and interoperability’.  Health and Safety Gone Askew Our cover line (FIRE May issue) asks if there are ‘no more heroes?’ emanating from James Doyle’s criticism of a health and safety culture gone askew (see FIRE May issue pg 18). CFO Mark Jones continues the critique in his piece, ‘Common sense – common safety: a fire chief’s view’ (see FIRE May issue pg 22). It is noteworthy that CFO Roy Wilsher’s account of the UK International Search and Rescue team’s response to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami precedes these investigations (see FIRE May issue pg 15), underlining the international aspect to the operational picture. Also relevant is the high esteem in which the cross-service team is held, nationally and internationally. If the Service has been empowered to lead on Operational Doctrine, is it not time that the rule book was ripped up and thrown away? The dreadful spectre of a risk-averse culture is blighting response across the board, giving rise to an escalating threat of gross stupidity in overreacting to the natural hazards presented by fire and disaster. It’s a risky business, is it not? James Doyle hits the nail on the head when he highlights the gulf between the Police Service’s ‘Striking the balance’ report and our own. It boils down to the right to choose, to entrusting skilled and well trained police officers to be able to make the right decision, as opposed to the restrictive, stifling guidance given to firefighters. Therein lies the difference, firefighters and police ‘officers’ are needlessly worlds apart. Training, development and most importantly, mentoring, should enable firefighters of today to become fire officers of tomorrow, and I am not talking about career progression. If Fire Futures offers one thing, surely it should be to pick up the baton and move beyond the shambolic, hackneyed, self-limiting interpretation of health and safety restrictions, and re-write the rule book. Otherwise, what’s the point?