Inspection of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service: East Service Delivery Area

Prevention staff feel supported and empowered to develop solutions and work with partners to improve community outcomes.

Issues with procuring a structure to use as a base for the youth work at Alloa Fire Station has been a frustration. It was felt that the eventual solution didn't offer value for money. There were similar problems at Methil Fire Station.

Engagement has been carried out with partners to help drive up referrals post the reduction experienced during the pandemic. There is evidence of post-domestic incident engagement.

Community engagement packages are said to not be readily available, such as for water safety. There was a feeling of frustration over not being able to find resources.

Digital working introduced during COVID has continued to deliver benefits in managing engagement activity.

Issues around access to ICT for new Community Action Team members, e.g. it was said to have taken six months to get a mobile phone for one team member.

Access to data regarding incidents helps to target activity and evidence successful initiatives.

Community Safety Engagement Tool (CSET) risk scoring is not seen by some to accurately reflect a person's actual risk, leading to deserving cases not receiving interlinked alarms.

There is a positive view of the Service and partnership working by partners, and about youth engagement, particularly in helping to promote future employability.

The timing within the community safety Thematic Action Plan for school based activity was said to limit access to schools, as it doesn't align with school's priorities and timings.

Youth engagement work was said to have resulted in fewer incidents of fire related anti-social behaviour.

The Protection team consider the audit targets as mostly achievable, if prioritised appropriately, despite the team being under-resourced.

Continuing problems with Prevention and Protection Enforcement Database (PPED), means that personnel are maintaining their own records to cover perceived system inadequacies. It is reported as losing data and doesn't maintain a full history of the premises. There is a strong feeling among staff that this presents a corporate risk.

Enforcement staff reported good Continued Professional Development events provided both locally and by the Directorate.

There is an Operational Intelligence (O.I.) group which meets once per month, which is cleansing the area's O.I. data. Managers get a thorough report following the meeting.

The main challenge described by Wholetime personnel was said to be a lack of crewing, which was particularly challenging for water rescue stations meeting minimum crewing levels.

There is good support to On-Call staff from On-Call Support Watch Commanders. There were said to be a lot of positives coming from the role, it is well received by On-Call staff.

The frequency of stand-by and detached duties has an impact on the training of specialist stations.

The LSO management team meeting structure is said to be good, with regular monthly meetings to go through priorities and action logs.

There was a view expressed that Glenrothes is not the best location for a water rescue capability, making it an under-used resource. Also due to the location, finding suitable training venues is a challenge.

All LSO area stations have station plans and action logs. Managers find them useful. But some said the plans lacked flexibility.

Staff overwhelmingly called for wildfire Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to be issued.

The Operational Assurance system is said to be good, with staff getting feedback through Frontline Updates.

There is a lack of faith in the Getac tablet capabilities resulting in its infrequent use. Some syncing issues were also reported.

Teams are said to be empowered.

Breathing Apparatus (BA) sets were said to be too complex and heavy but the majority of the time they work ok.

The LSO area is said to be well resourced.

Some stations had inadequate BA servicing facilities, with poor access to spare cylinders. There is a shortage across the area.

Some station buildings have had improvements and some have been surveyed for contamination requirements, where this has taken place crews have been consulted in the design.

There were continuing comments from crews about the poor quality of fireground radios.

Operational Assurance has improved the OA6 form, staff felt that completed forms were looked at, and feedback was on occasion returned.

The lack of drivers is a challenge for some stations, where it was also reported as being difficult getting people onto the driver development pathway.

Equipment and structural fire Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is reported to be generally good. The new boat at Stirling is said to be a good enhancement to capability.

The general condition and layout of some appliances, including spares, is reported to be less than satisfactory. The transverse locker in newer appliances is said to be causing problems with BA set stowage.

There is a high degree of frustration around On-Call recruitment with a desire for more local involvement and control. Initial training commitment is said to be an issue for primary employers. Medical and fitness requirements for On-Call are said to be a challenge, when there is an ageing workforce, this will only get worse.

Partners have a very positive view of the Service, often said to be going 'above and beyond'.

There are limited examples of premises sharing, but partners are keen to explore more opportunities.

The style and content of scrutiny committee performance papers was valued and liked by Elected Members.

Turnover in officers, whilst understood, and managed, can lead to a cycle of developing relationships with partners.

Partners welcome the involvement of the Service in areas beyond fire, such as poverty, employability and positive action for women and girls.

There is limited formal engagement or training with multi-agency response partners.

The Community Asset Register (CAR) has been used by officers successfully.

More could be done to promote the existence of the CAR, some officers had no knowledge of it.

Personnel generally felt supported by the LSO management team, though there were examples given of when this was felt not to be the case.

It was reported that there was little formal support for recently promoted personnel, whose development was said to be ad hoc and depended on the experience of the immediate line manager.

There has been some limited improvement in the On-Call recruitment process.

On-call recruitment was described by some as challenging, taking a year to get through the process with people losing interest. Those failing in their application were said not to be getting feedback on their deficiencies.

The general view is that the new Training for Operational Competence is better than the previous process, the refresh of the video elements has been an improvement.

Lack of computers and connectivity issues were reported as being a big barrier for training, connectivity is said to be getting worse, particularly in On-Call stations.

Quarterly Performance meetings are carried out by Group Commanders to keep on top of management issues.

Access to off-station training venues was said to be an issue. The loss of the training centre at Thornton was widely cited as the cause.

There is a feeling that training at the Newbridge training centre has changed from being a 'learning' experience to an 'assessment'. Training is said to be limited, with a very quick 'workstation-based learning' prior to a BA wear, people are now apprehensive about going.

We were told that courses are cancelled at Newbridge, more often at short notice.

We were told that training of recruits differs depending on the training location. This causes problems when the trainee then arrive on station.

Some stations have a number of trainees, which is said to be difficult to dedicate enough time to individual development.

There was said to be a lack of scrap cars for training which was felt to disproportionately affect trainees.