As a community service that is funded by the taxpayer, I feel that the public deserve a better deal and one that is more open, honest and transparent and one that works with the consumer and fire protection industry.
Many years ago, in Birmingham we had regular meetings with the FRS, consumer and interested parties where we discussed items of mutual interest and it was a forum for looking at ways forward and current trends, but these appear to have disappeared and in my experience many FRS now appear to work in isolation from their colleagues in the profession. This is a great pity as we are all trying to work for the same outcome. I have spoken to one colleague in the SW of England about this who is involved in carrying out Fire Risk Assessments and he tells me that he has requested regular meetings with his FRS but has never had a response.
I never thought that I would see comments like this from serving fire service members: ‘Some of our senior managers seem to me obsessive about secrecy and control, and this combined, at times, with a craven attitude to Government, incompetence, lack of honesty and a sense of not being accountable, is a truly worrying phenomenon’ and ‘Government have clearly played a big part in knocking us down, but I think we have also been infected with the curses of corporate/executive greed and hair-brained management ideas that never stay long before being replaced by others, along of course with the never-ending re-organizations’.
Or this from members of the public describing the moment firefighters arrived at the scene of a fatal fire, quoted as saying: ‘Everybody was shouting at the fire brigade to save the lady, but they did not take any actions to save her … When I saw their single fire engine with one hosepipe, this just reinforced my despair. They did not have the capability to deal with the fire.’
Clearly, this is not about the lower ranks of the fire service that generally have very little say in the day-to-day running of the service but the senior officers that manage the service and are responsible for the outcomes. Obviously, there are financial constraints on the public purse, but this is no different from commerce and industry and just like the public we all must manage within our budgets, but it is how we manage those budgets and the services we provide that matter.
It is also worrying to read in the HMICFRS Report that so many FRS staff feel ‘bullied or harassed’ because this is not a good basis for this type of service that relies on a solid working relationship, and I have certainly been made aware of this type of treatment in the investigations that I have been involved in.
If FRS cannot provide the level of public service that is required then they should be open, honest and transparent and not hide behind excuses such as data protection, terrorist threats, risk assessment, broadly compliant and service reviews. They should also be prepared to be on the side of the people they protect and not the paymaster and not be afraid to tell the truth and involve other stakeholders in difficult decisions.
Legislation and enforcement
In my view the current legislation is not fit for purpose and whilst it has many good points for the RP, for the consumer it is sadly lacking. If you just look at hotels as an example, can it be right that when you book into a hotel you have no idea if that establishment is up to the current level of fire safety or if it has been inspected by the FRS or how competent the person doing the Fire Risk Assessment is? However, if you want to check on the Food Hygiene Rating you can look to see how many stars that it has – clearly, it appears that food hygiene is more important than fire safety.
Serious and fatal fire investigation
I do not intend to discuss the Grenfell Tower Fire in this article and only hope that some lasting positive improvements come from the various investigations and enquiries.
One area that does concern me is how the investigation of these serious fires are undertaken because I feel that it is another area that requires a complete review and if you look at some of my previous investigations and articles you can see why we need more openness, honesty and transparency together with a standardised approach.
One of my first insights into how FRS dealt with fire investigations came after The Hartopp Court Nursing Home Fire in 1979 that resulted in the deaths of six residents, and it was interesting because the official report stated the following: ‘The first appliance reached the home at 01.08 and the second at 01.09 and a third at 01.16. The predetermined attendance for the nursing home was three pumps and all arrived well within the prescribed attendance time.’ The attendance times were interesting because it came at a time when the FRS had recently reduced the number of appliances at the nearest station to one and the second appliance had to travel an additional 4.5 miles to the incident – it was also interesting that I knew several people on the first appliance, and they informed me that the second appliance got lost because it could not find the location of the nursing home. When I questioned this anomaly, the FRS produced a tape of the second appliance booking in a minute later and even though I highlighted that it was not possible for the second appliance to cover that distance in one minute they maintained that it was accurate.
In my investigation into the Penhallow Hotel Fire1 that I carried out after being approached by the residents who did not believe what they were being told by both the police and fire service, it soon became obvious that their suspicions were correct and after several meetings with them and some of the hotel staff involved it was clear to me that the official story did not truly reflect what happened and needed to be put into the public domain. Again, both the fire and police services were very unhelpful and resisted all attempts to provide information and the FRS even threatened the BBC with legal action if they went ahead and broadcast my investigation.
If you now look at the Cathedral Yard Fire and the loss of the Royal Clarence Hotel in Exeter, the FRS have resisted all attempts to provide any useful evidence apart from the official report of their actions during that fire. It took one of their officers, who was extremely brave to expose what went wrong during the fire on the BBC Inside Out programme and even after this exposé the FRS denied any shortcomings. The subsequent NFCC Review also did very little to throw any additional light on the fire and the actions of the FRS and failed to answer many key questions.
Can it be right that the organisation that carries out the fire investigation and produces the official report is the same enforcing authority that is responsible for enforcing and advising on fire safety together with firefighting operations? This arrangement has failed in the past and will continue to do so without radical change. And to get colleagues from another FRS to review the report is also unacceptable.
In one of my investigations, into the Fire at The King Edward Memorial Hospital in Port Stanley I worked with the Falklands Island Police (FIP) to show that the official report that had been prepared into a fatal fire by HM Fire Service Inspectorate did not, in my opinion, reflect what had probably really happened. In this investigation all efforts to gain any meaningful evidence was ignored by HMI/HMG and it was not until the media published my thoughts that I received a phone call from the FIP asking if we could work together and compare facts, which we did. After a very productive meeting we managed to get the case reopened and produced some significant previously undisclosed facts about a person of interest I had highlighted in my investigation, and this produced a more realistic cause and enabled the case to be reopened. This shows how collaborative working can produce positive results – even from a single phone call and from a distance of 8,000 miles.
My current fatal fire investigation into the Fire at the Cameron House Hotel that I am in the early stages of investigation started following a very distressing phone call from a mother who lost her son in this tragic hotel fire in Scotland – all she wants to know is why and how her son died in such tragic circumstances and I believe that she deserves this at least.
The need for change
All the above incidents pose one question and that is ‘why?’ In the Hartopp Court Nursing Home Fire, why was the FRS not open and honest about their attendance time? In the Penhallow Hotel Fire, why did the FRS threaten to take legal action against the BBC if they broadcast my investigation? In respect of my investigation into the fire at the King Edward Memorial Hospital in the Falklands Hospital why would Her Majesty’s Inspector of Fire Services not answer my 20 questions? With my investigation into the Royal Clarence Hotel Fire, why would one of the officers that went into the building indicate that my investigation was nearer the truth than the official report and appear on the BBC and present a detailed report of what actually happened?
I believe there is now a clear need for a ‘hearts and minds change’ in all areas of fire safety in the UK if we are to truly improve how we go about improving this vitally important area of our community. It must start with the FRS, and they need to lead the way and serve the community and work with them, together with all stakeholders, and not against them, we need to learn from our colleagues in other countries and just because we may not agree with them does not mean that we should not co-operate or listen to them.
There is a clear need to give the consumer a voice in fire-safety matters and this needs to be on a formal basis and supported with more readily available guidance and training – if we can offer free online training for counterterrorism for the public, surely, we can make available online fire training for the public?
Collaborative working involving the consumer, and all interested parties must be the way forward if we are to improve fire safety in the UK and around the world.
References
About the Author
Alan Cox started his career in the fire and rescue service in both operational and fire-safety roles, before moving to the NHS where he was responsible for a large district health authority. His current role is offering pro bono advice to consumer organisations and individuals that feel the explanations/advice that they are given by enforcing authorities may not be correct and requires an independent view.
You must be logged in to post a comment.