Skip to content
Promoting improvements
in policing and fire & rescue
services to make everyone safer

West Yorkshire 2021/22

Effectiveness

How effective is the fire and rescue service at keeping people safe and secure?

Last updated 27/07/2022
Good

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service’s overall effectiveness is good.

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

The service has improved consultation with the public, internal and external stakeholders about its integrated risk management plan (IRMP) since our first visit in 2019. A Community Engagement Forum has been set up and we look forward to seeing the benefits of this in our next inspection.

The service has a clear integrated risk management model in place. This covers how to resource activities to prevent, protect and respond to risks. However, many of the service’s activities are in response to a report or referral. The service should consider how it can take a more balanced approach to dealing with its risks.

The service gathers and shares risk information within its organisation, but could improve the speed of updates.

Since our 2019 inspection, the service has provided further command training and development to improve staff understanding of operational discretion. The service continues to provide targeted training and support to make sure knowledge stays current.

Questions for Effectiveness

1

How effective is the FRS at understanding the risk of fire and other emergencies?

Good

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service is good at understanding risk.

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Each fire and rescue service should identify and assess all foreseeable fire and rescue-related risks that could affect its communities. Arrangements should be put in place through the service’s prevention, protection and response capabilities to prevent or mitigate these risks for the public.

Areas for improvement

The service should make sure its firefighters have good access to relevant and up-to-date risk information.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service has improved how it engages with the local community to build a comprehensive profile of risk

The service has assessed an appropriate range of risks and threats after a thorough IRMP planning process. When assessing risk, it has considered relevant information collected from a broad range of internal and external sources and data sets, including incident and societal data. For example, the service shares data with healthcare partners to better understand risk and improve risk profiles.

The service has improved consultation with the public, internal and external stakeholders about its IRMP. When appropriate, the service has consulted and undertaken constructive dialogue with communities and others such as Public Health England, local authority housing and neighbourhood teams, and police. A community engagement forum has also been set up to help the service work better with communities. This isn’t yet fully effective, and we look forward to seeing the benefits of it in our next inspection.

The service also consults with staff and representative bodies to both understand the risk and explain how it intends to mitigate it.

The service could improve how it delivers its IRMP

After assessing relevant risks, the service has recorded its findings in an easily understood IRMP. The plan is supported by an integrated risk management model which describes how prevention, protection and response activity is to be effectively resourced to mitigate or reduce the risks and threats the community faces, both now and in the future. For example, by increasing resource within the protection team and changing the shift system at some fire stations. The service undertakes an annual review and replanning exercise to make sure its approach remains current. The methodology used has been externally validated. However, many of the service’s activities are prompted by a referral or report from a member of staff, partner or member of the public. For example, action is taken following a report of fire safety non-compliance. The service should consider how it can take a more balanced approach to dealing with risks.

The service has also recently introduced action plans for each of its districts to improve how it addresses local risk. These are supported by a quarterly risk reduction meeting. We look forward to seeing how these plans develop.

The service gathers and shares risk information within its organisation, but could improve the timeliness of updates

The service collects information about the people, places and threats it has identified as being at greatest risk, but the information we reviewed wasn’t always up to date. The time between a risk visit being carried out and updated information being available on the system was, in most cases, too long. And the frequency of risk visits aren’t always carried out in line with service policy.

At the time of inspection, there was a system problem that prevented risk information updates being transferred to the mobile data terminals on its fire engines. The service was working to resolve this issue.

However, information is available for the service’s prevention, protection, response, and fire control staff, which enables it to identify, reduce and mitigate risk effectively. For example, operational staff gather information during their operational risk visits.

The service also works with organisations and businesses to identify short-term risk within the county: for example, in relation to sporting events and festivals. Details about risks relating to vulnerable members of the community, including hoarders, are recorded. This supports the service’s response in the event of an incident.

Information is communicated to staff via a range of media. This includes mobile data terminals on fire engines, health and safety bulletins, operational policy documents and safety critical information messages.

Where appropriate, the service exchanges risk information with other fire and rescue services and organisations such as the police, health partners and local authorities.

The service uses feedback from operational activity to inform its understanding of risk

The service routinely updates risk assessments and uses feedback from local and national operational activity to inform its planning assumptions. For example, responses to incidents such as wildfire and flooding use insights from the environmental working group. The service uses national learning to inform risk, such as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and the Manchester Arena attack. It also has a serious incident review panel which looks at anything that has resulted in a fire fatality. It uses this to identify any new risks.

The service has used learning from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to reduce risk

During this round of inspections, we sampled how each fire and rescue service has responded to the recommendations and learning from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry.

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service has responded positively and proactively to learning from this tragedy. The service has worked with the local authorities and social housing providers to assist in its building risk review work. It has developed tactical information plans for its high-risk, high-rise residential buildings. The service has assessed the risk of each high-rise building in its service area.

It has carried out a fire safety audit and collected and passed relevant risk information to its prevention, protection and response teams about buildings identified as high risk and all high-rise buildings, including those identified as using cladding that is similar to the cladding installed on Grenfell Tower.

2

How effective is the FRS at preventing fires and other risks?

Requires improvement

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at preventing fires and other risks.

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must promote fire safety, including giving fire safety advice. To identify people at greatest risk from fire, services should work closely with other organisations in the public and voluntary sector, and with the police and ambulance services. They should provide intelligence and risk information with these other organisations when they identify vulnerability or exploitation.

Areas for improvement

  • The service should make sure it delivers safe and well visits in a timely manner.
  • The service should make sure it consistently quality assures its prevention activity, so all staff carry out safe and well visits to an appropriate standard.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service’s prevention teams could work better together

The service’s prevention strategy is clearly linked to the risks identified in its IRMP. It carries out risk modelling to categorise geographical areas into five bands ranging from very low to very high. The service then uses these categories to prioritise prevention activity.

During the inspection, it was apparent that there is a lack of unity between the district and central prevention teams. As a result, they don’t always have shared priorities and objectives.

The service works with other organisations on prevention and it passes on relevant information when needed. Information is used to adjust planning assumptions and direct activity between the service’s prevention, protection, and response functions. For example, operational and fire control staff can access information about vulnerable members of the community to help them respond to incidents. This includes information such as temporary accommodation for refugees.

The service has adapted its prevention approach as a result of the pandemic

We considered how the service had adapted its prevention work during our COVID-19 specific inspection between 5 and 16 October 2020. At that time, we found it had adapted its public prevention work appropriately.

During this inspection, we were encouraged to hear staff speak positively about how they have adapted in the wake of the pandemic. The service has recently put a triage process in place for safe and well visit requests received by telephone. This makes sure the service is prioritising these visits based on risk.

The service should optimise resources to target high-risk groups

Prevention activity is clearly prioritised using a risk-based approach towards people most at risk from fire and other emergencies. For example, the service has a process in place to make sure safe and well referrals and requests focus on vulnerable people. Partners receive training from the service to identify those people most at risk. However, the majority of the safe and well visits carried out are prompted by a partner referral. The service needs to make sure it is also visiting those people most at risk from fire based on local requirements and intelligence.

The service takes account of a broad range of information and data to target its prevention activity at vulnerable individuals and groups. As a result, the service has identified the following factors which can increase an individual’s risk of fire:

  • living alone;
  • smoking;
  • having mobility issues;
  • having mental health problems;
  • using drugs;
  • using alcohol; and
  • being over 65 years of age.

The quality and timeliness of safe and well visits could be improved

Staff told us they have the right skills and confidence to make safe and well visits. These checks cover an appropriate range of hazards that can put vulnerable people at greater risk from fire and other emergencies. This includes things like mobility, smoking and social isolation.

We reviewed a sample of safe and well visit records. We found that visits aren’t always carried out promptly and the quality of records is inconsistent. We also saw evidence that some follow up and referrals aren’t being carried out. The service is aware of this issue.

The service is good at safeguarding vulnerable individuals

Staff we interviewed told us about occasions when they had identified safeguarding problems. They told us they feel confident and trained to act appropriately and promptly. Staff can explain the signs of vulnerability and what action they would take to respond to a safeguarding concern.

The service works well with others to prevent fires and other emergencies

The service works with a wide range of other organisations such as adult social care, NHS Trusts, Age UK, district nurses, local authority housing and police to prevent fires and other emergencies.

We found some evidence that it refers people at greatest risk to other organisations which may be better able to meet their needs. For example, working with Leeds City Council, the service jointly funds staff who support people with tenancy issues and give fire safety advice. Arrangements are in place to receive referrals from others such as oxygen providers.

The service routinely exchanges information with other public sector organisations about people and groups at greatest risk. It uses the information to challenge planning assumptions and target prevention activity. For example, the service carries out training with partners to make sure they can identify people at an increased risk of fire and make relevant safe and well visit requests. Data sharing agreements support this work.

The service acts to tackle fire-setting behaviour

The service has a range of suitable and effective interventions to target and educate people of different ages who show signs of fire-setting behaviour. These include school visits, its Prince’s Trust programme and quarterly risk reduction meetings to identify trends and share what works across the districts.

The service works with partners including the police to share information and support a multi-agency approach. When appropriate, the service will also share information through campaigns. For example, ‘Be Moor Aware’ focuses on moorland fire safety to reduce the risk of wildfires.

The service evaluates its prevention activity to identify what works and how it could be improved

The service has evaluation tools in place. These tools measure how effective its work is so it knows what works, and its communities get prevention activity that meets their needs. For example, it uses educational course evaluation and success rates to assess its road safety partnerships. An evaluation of its safe and well programme has also identified several opportunities to improve activities such as performance management. As a result, the service is trialling a ‘performance dashboard’ to show managers how well they are doing.

Prevention activities take account of feedback from the public, other organisations, and other parts of the service. For example, as part of the safe and well evaluation, partner events were held with Leeds City Council and the Older Person’s Forum. These identified that more work needed to be done, particularly in developing the partnerships and improving referrals.

Feedback is used by the service to inform its planning assumptions and amend future activity, so it is focused on what the community needs and what works.

3

How effective is the FRS at protecting the public through fire regulation?

Requires improvement

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at protecting the public through fire regulation.

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services should assess fire risks in certain buildings and, when necessary, require building owners to comply with fire safety legislation. Each service decides how many assessments it does each year. But it must have a locally determined, risk-based inspection programme for enforcing the legislation.

Areas for improvement

The service should assure itself that its risk-based inspection programme prioritises the highest risks and includes proportionate activity to reduce risk.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service’s IRMP lacks detail regarding the risk profile of property types included in its RBIP

The service’s protection strategy and IRMP don’t specifically identify high-risk properties for audit and inspection. The service’s RBIP is mainly reactive and targets premises where it has received a report of non-compliance with the fire safety order. Reports are prioritised based on the level of risk. Resource is allocated according to priority and in line with the service’s policy. It is unclear from the strategy what level of activity the service aims to take, or how it evaluates what benefit protection activity will have for the public.

Staff across the service are involved in this activity, with information effectively exchanged as needed. For example, operational staff will carry out ‘hazard spotting’ during operational risk visits used to gather risk information and familiarise themselves with properties. They will flag any issues spotted to the protection team for further investigation.

The service’s RBIP does not prioritise all high-risk properties due to its predominantly reactive nature

The service has an RBIP, but it is limited in scope. Audits and inspections are carried out largely in response to reports of non-compliance. This is based on intelligence from internal and external sources, such as complaints from the public, local authorities and operational staff. The service also doesn’t routinely reinspect properties to make sure continued compliance after remedial action has been taken.

The service does undertake proactive thematic audits, currently at high-rise buildings. These generally make up a small proportion of the overall number of audits carried out.

It was disappointing that at the time of inspection the service was unable to provide data to show if it is consistently auditing the buildings it has targeted in the timescales it has set. The service told us that a manual process is in place which shows that performance is good.

The service is carrying out fire safety audits at all its high-rise buildings

At the time of inspection, the service was working with local councils and housing associations to audit high-rise buildings. This included those using cladding similar to that installed on Grenfell Tower. Information gathered during these audits is made available to response teams and control operators, enabling them to respond more effectively in an emergency.

The service has visited all the high-rise, high-risk buildings in its service area.

The service carries out fire safety audits to a high standard

We reviewed a range of audits of different premises across the service. This included audits as part of the service’s RBIP, after fires at premises where fire safety legislation applies, where enforcement action had been taken and at high-rise, high‑risk buildings. The audits we reviewed were completed to a high standard in a consistent, systematic way, and in line with the service’s policies.

Relevant information from the audits is made available to operational teams and control room operators.

The service quality assures its fire safety audits

Quality assurance of protection activity takes place in a proportionate way. Staff activities are reviewed to make sure they meet the required standard.

However, the service’s approach is predominantly to react to reports of non‑compliance with fire safety. Therefore, it isn’t clear how the service makes sure that all sections of its communities get equal access to protection services that meet their needs.

The service carries out enforcement activities

The service consistently uses its full range of enforcement powers, and when appropriate, prosecutes those who don’t comply with fire safety regulations. It works with local council housing safety partners to support a joint approach to fire safety. There are regular meetings with the enforcement team and joint inspections are carried out.

In the year to 31 March 2021, the service issued 0 alteration notices, 59 informal notifications, 36 enforcement notices, 6 prohibition notices and undertook 1 prosecution. In the last 5 years, from 2016/17 to 2020/21, it completed 13 prosecutions. During 2019/20, the service was involved in taking enforcement action that resulted in the largest ever fine for non-compliance with fire regulations.

The service has recently increased its protection resources

Our 2019 inspection included an area for improvement for the service to make sure it allocates enough resources to a prioritised RBIP. The service has made some progress. It has reviewed its pay structure and job descriptions to support recruitment and retention.

Although there has been a recent increase in protection resource it is too early to see how effective this will be. The protection department restructure has yet to be completed and the service plans to grow its team further over the next two years. We look forward to understanding the impact of the team once the new structure is fully in place.

The service has also yet to formalise an out-of-hours rota to provide 24-hour cover for protection activity. The current system, while effective, relies on staff who volunteer their time.

Staff get the right training and work to appropriate accreditation.

The service works closely with other agencies to regulate fire safety

The service works closely with other enforcement agencies to regulate fire safety and routinely exchanges risk information with them. For example, it works with local housing authorities in relation to houses of multiple occupancy. And it works with West Yorkshire Fire Safety Group to identify and address new challenges to fire safety in the built environment.

The service response to building consultations is timely and supports its statutory responsibility

During our 2019 inspection we identified that the service should assure itself that it allocates enough resources to meet its own targets for responding to building control consultations. We are pleased to see that the service has acted and responds to the majority of building consultations on time. This supports its statutory responsibility to comment on fire safety arrangements at new and altered buildings.

Business engagement to promote compliance with fire safety legislation is limited

The service could do more to engage with local businesses and other organisations to promote compliance with fire safety legislation. We were told that the continued promotion of fire safety with businesses is limited due to capacity within the team. The service has suspended its primary authority scheme until 2023, although any requests are being dealt with on a reactive basis.

The service acts to reduce unwanted fire signals

An effective risk-based approach is in place to manage the number of unwanted fire signals. Fire control operators challenge calls associated with automatic fire alarms. The service will only attend where a call is received from a person at the building and reasonably believes a fire has broken out or where there is a risk to life. It gets fewer calls because of this work.

Fewer unwanted calls mean that fire engines are available to respond to a genuine incident rather than responding to a false one. It also reduces the risk to the public if fewer fire engines travel at high speed on the roads.

4

How effective is the FRS at responding to fires and other emergencies?

Good

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to fires and other emergencies.

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must be able to respond to a range of incidents such as fires, road traffic collisions and other emergencies in their area.

Areas for improvement

  • The service should make sure its mobile data terminals are reliable so that firefighters can readily access up-to-date risk information.
  • The service should make sure it has an effective system for learning from operational incidents.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service aligns resources to the risks identified in its IRMP

The service’s response strategy is linked to the risks identified in its IRMP. Its fire engines and response staff, as well as its working patterns, are designed and located to enable the service to respond flexibly to fires and other emergencies with the appropriate resources. For example, it uses a risk-based planning approach which uses data gathered by the service. This makes sure that fire engines are in the most appropriate locations to respond to incidents as quickly as possible.

The service consistently achieves its targets for the time taken to respond to incidents

There are no national response standards of performance for the public. But the service has set out its own response standards in its IRMP. For example, in very high‑risk areas the service aims to attend life incidents such as house fires within 7 minutes and property incidents such as commercial fires within 8 minutes on 80 percent of occasions. The service consistently meets this standard. The service also intends to make response performance publicly available in future by reporting it via the fire authority.

In the year to 31 March 2021, Home Office data shows the service’s response time to primary fires was 8 minutes and 21 seconds. This is higher than the average time for predominantly urban services.

The service regularly reviews its response performance and makes changes when needed.

The overall availability of appliances supports the service’s response standard

To support its response strategy, the service sets thresholds for the number of fire engines needed to meet its response standard. Overall, availability for the year to 31 March 2021 was 96.6 percent, an improvement on 94 percent the previous year.

Fire stations are located to provide cover based on local risk. And staff are available based on the level of risk that the local community faces. There are also arrangements in place with neighbouring fire and rescue services to supplement resource if required.

Staff have a good understanding of how to command incidents safely

The service has trained incident commanders who are assessed regularly and properly. Since our 2019 inspection the service has provided further command training and development to improve staff understanding of operational discretion. To make sure this is consistent the service continues to provide targeted training and support. This enables the service to safely, assertively, and effectively manage the whole range of incidents that it could face, from small and routine ones to complex multi‑agency incidents.

As part of our inspection, we interviewed incident commanders from across the service. The incident commanders we interviewed are familiar with risk assessing, decision making and recording information at incidents in line with national best practice, as well as the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP).

Fire control has some involvement with the service’s command, exercise, debrief and assurance activity

We are pleased to see the service’s control staff integrated into the service’s command, training, exercise, debrief and assurance activity. Fire control staff recalled attending operational debrief meetings used to review incident response, giving them an opportunity to provide feedback.

Fire control can provide fire survival guidance to multiple callers

The control room staff we interviewed are confident they could provide fire survival guidance to many callers simultaneously. This was identified as learning for fire services after the Grenfell Tower fire. The service has a fire survival guidance policy and procedure in place, which has been supported by staff training.

Control has good systems in place to exchange real-time risk information with incident commanders, other responding partners and other supporting fire and rescue services. Maintaining good situational awareness enables the service to communicate effectively with the public, providing them with accurate and tailored advice.

The service should ensure that systems support staff access to risk information all the time

We sampled a range of risk information associated with a small number of properties involving long and short-term risks. This included what is in place for firefighters responding to incidents at high-risk, high-rise buildings and what information is held by fire control.

Although the information we reviewed wasn’t always up to date we found it was comprehensive. Staff told us that they could easily understand the information but there are sometimes problems accessing it as the mobile data terminal on the fire engine can malfunction.

The service uses national operational guidance to inform its policies and should ensure operational performance is evaluated in a timely manner

As part of the inspection, we reviewed a range of emergency incidents and training events.

There is some evidence of learning to improve operational performance. However, we are disappointed to find that the service doesn’t consistently follow its policies to assure itself that staff command incidents in line with operational guidance. We found that the debriefing timescales set out in its policy aren’t always achieved. The service told us that it has introduced a new process which isn’t yet fully in place.

The service has responded to learning from incidents to improve its service for the public. For example, it has introduced wildfire awareness and refreshers before wildfire season. And it has improved how it shares risk information with other agencies and fire and rescue services.

We are encouraged to see the service is contributing towards, and acting on, learning from other fire and rescue services or operational learning gathered from other emergency service partners. For example, the service now has access to National Police Air Service helicopter footage on its command units. The service is also (at time of writing) carrying out gap analysis of national operational guidance which is used to inform its policies and procedures.

The service is good at communicating incident-related information to the public

The service has good systems in place to inform the public about ongoing incidents and help keep them safe during and after incidents. This includes social media and its website. The service also has processes in place with the local resilience forum (LRF) to share information with the public.

5

How effective is the FRS at responding to major and multi-agency incidents?

Good

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to major and multi‑agency incidents.

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services must be able to respond effectively to multi-agency and cross-border incidents. This means working with other fire and rescue services (known as intraoperability) and emergency services (known as interoperability).

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service is prepared for major and multi-agency incidents

The service has effectively anticipated and considered the reasonably foreseeable risks and threats it may face. These risks are listed in both local and national risk registers as part of its IRMP planning. These are considered for foreseeable risk and appropriate plans have been developed to support an effective response. These include planned events, severe weather risks and protests.

It is also familiar with the significant risks that could be faced by neighbouring fire and rescue services that it might reasonably be asked to respond to in an emergency. These include high-rise properties and wildfire areas in Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire. Firefighters now also have access to risk information from neighbouring services for areas within a 10 kilometre radius of the West Yorkshire border. This is an improvement to the arrangements reported in our 2019 inspection.

The service has the ability to respond to major and multi-agency incidents

We reviewed the arrangements the service has in place to respond to different major incidents, including high-risk buildings, wide-area flooding and a marauding terrorist attack. The service has good arrangements in place, which are well understood by staff, to respond to a major incident. There is a specialist response team to deal with marauding terrorist attack incidents.

The service is well prepared to respond to local and national major incidents. Resources include a high volume pump (used for wide-area flooding) and a decontamination unit (used at incidents involving chemical hazards).

The service works well with other fire services

The service supports other fire and rescue services responding to emergency incidents. For example, it has mutual aid agreements with neighbouring fire and rescue services. It is intraoperable with these services and can form part of a multi‑agency response.

The service has successfully deployed to other services and has used national assets. For example, it has assisted Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service at a large fire in student accommodation and has helped South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service tackle large moorland fires.

The service is taking steps to broaden its approach to cross-border exercising

The service has a cross-border exercise plan with neighbouring fire and rescue services so that they can work together effectively to keep the public safe. The plan includes the risks of major events at which the service could foreseeably provide support or request assistance from neighbouring services. Cross-border training is generally organised by staff at fire stations located near the county’s border. A central framework is being developed to extend this across the service.

We were encouraged to see that feedback from these exercises is used to inform risk information and service plans. For example, a neighbouring fire and rescue service has recently changed some processes and a joint training exercise is being arranged to help West Yorkshire staff understand what this means when dealing with incidents in that service’s area.

Staff understanding of JESIP has been improved through command training

The incident commanders we interviewed had been trained in and were familiar with the JESIP. These are national principles which support all emergency services in working together at incidents.

The service could provide us with strong evidence that it consistently follows these principles and staff demonstrated a good understanding. The service also has joint training plans for JESIP with other agencies.

The service is an active member of the West Yorkshire LRF

The service has good arrangements in place to respond to emergencies with other partners that make up the West Yorkshire LRF and the deputy chief fire officer is co‑chair of the forum. These arrangements include planning for incidents such as extreme weather and events, for example at festivals. The service’s media and communication team takes part in the warning and informing group. This helps all partners to give a co-ordinated message.

The service is a valued partner and takes part in regular training events with other members of the LRF and uses the learning to develop planning assumptions about responding to major and multi-agency incidents.

The service has arrangements in place with other agencies and partners such as Yorkshire Ambulance Service and the Environment Agency to work together at emergency incidents.

The service fully supports national operational learning

The service keeps itself up to date with national operational learning updates from other fire services and joint organisational learning from other blue light partners, such as the police service and ambulance trusts. This learning is used to inform planning assumptions that have been made with other partners.

The chief fire officer leads a working group involved in the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) ‘Fires in tall buildings’ work. The service also takes part in the NFCC’s National Operational Learning User Group.

English Cymraeg