After an examination of West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service’s
consultation document, ‘A fire service for the future’, I have significant
concerns regarding the validity of the consultation and the real dangers of the
proposals.
The document is misleading, omits significant information,
and contains proposals that will increase the risk to life and property across
West Sussex. A review of the published minutes from the County Local Committees
also suggest that fire officers have provided some misleading information to County
Councillors and the public.
Whether this was done innocently or deliberately, the result
is that County Councillors and the public have been asked to approve the
proposals based on inaccurate and misleading information. The consultation does
not meet the standards expected of a public consultation and should therefore
be set aside.
General issues related to the consultation
a. The
anticipated savings for each of the various proposals are not shown. People
should be informed, so that they can decide if the anticipated saving of each
proposal justifies the reduction in service.
b. Much
has been made of the drop in calls attended by the service, but this is
misleading. This has largely been achieved by putting the public and
firefighters at greater risk by refusing to attend some fire alarm calls. Many may
turn out to be false alarms, but others are not, and by delaying the response
to those calls public and firefighter lives are put in danger. What the public
has not been told is that, since 1948, the area covered by West Sussex Fire
& Rescue Service has seen 6 fire stations closed and 17 fire engines removed
from operational service. These proposals will remove another five fire
engines, even though call levels are three times greater than they were then.
The number of calls has never
been a key factor in determining the provision and location of fire engines.
The relevant factors are the number needed in each area to reach incidents in a
reasonable time, to cope with more than one incident occurring at the same
time, and to provide reinforcements or cover for larger incidents. There was no
increase in the number of fire engines when calls increased fourfold, so there
is no case to reduce them, because of a slight reduction. In addition, there is
no evidence that calls will continue to decrease.
c. The
Government has said they want Fire & Rescue Services to increase the number
of Retained Duty System (RDS) firefighters. In these proposals the Chief Fire
Officer is ignoring that direction by reducing the overall number in West
Sussex.
d. The
Chief Fire Officer claims that the number of people killed in fires has ‘significantly
reduced’, but this is not true. His own figures show that fire deaths in West
Sussex have tripled in four years (two in 2009-10, three in 2010-11, four in 2011-12 and six in
2012-13). So has risk reduction failed, or have delays resulting from previous
cuts in the number of fire engines and firefighters contributed to this
increase?
e. This
also makes the modelling, that claims ‘minimal cost in terms of life and
property damage’, extremely suspect. Such modelling is unproven and its
reliability in doubt. The more established modelling used by the Environment
Agency said that the 1994 flooding in Chichester was a ‘one in five hundred
year’ event, yet it was repeated just six years later. There is also no
indication that all the negative costs of these proposals have been properly
assessed. Such things as more people dying in hospital, after being trapped in
crashed vehicles for a longer time, and increased property damage from flooding
when firefighters are delayed, or unable to attend because of the volume of
calls. It is highly likely that the cost in lives, more serious injuries and
property damage will be much greater than claimed.
f. Much
is made in the document about reduced risk, yet this is based on call changes
over just three years. It is not possible to draw reliable conclusions about
trends from three, four or even five years of data. This is well illustrated by
a previous Chief Fire Officer, who wanted to cut the number of firefighters at
Chichester. He produced accurate figures that showed a drop in calls attended over
three years, but falsely claimed that this downward trend would continue. Those
opposed to the proposal produced figures going back about 30 years and these
clearly showed that the overall trend was upwards. They projected that, instead
of decreasing, the number of calls would actually increase by some 60% over the
next 20 years and they were proved right. It is irresponsible to make changes
based on inadequate data and unreliable modelling.
Making changes to the Critical
Fire Risk map based on just three years data is irresponsible and dangerous. The
reality remains that, irrespective of the data used, anyone, anywhere in West
Sussex can suffer a fire in their home, be trapped after a road collision, or be
at risk from a range of other hazards. When that happens people need a speedy
and adequate response from the fire and rescue service. Telling people that
they have to wait longer for help, because there have not been enough calls in
their area, or the area is deemed safer than others, or more prosperous, or too
modern, will be of no help to them whatsoever. They need help and should not be
discriminated against, because of where they live.
g. The
Modelling and Analysis Technical Report states that ‘each proposal has been the
subject of a risk assessment. However, risk assessments are only shown for three
of the eight proposals and there is no risk assessment for the package as a
whole. The criteria used for determining the scores have not been shown for the
few risk assessments that are included, so their accuracy cannot be assessed.
However, the likelihood and severity ratings appear to be rather on the low
side, so the actual risk may well be greater.
h. The
Fire & Rescue Service has considerable responsibilities under the Civil
Contingencies Act, yet none of the reports mentions these important
responsibilities. It appears that the Chief Fire Officer has failed to assess
the impact of these proposals on those responsibilities, which is a major
omission. The Act requires the service to maintain critical functions during
major emergencies, but these cuts in fire engines and crews will seriously
affect the ability to comply with this legislation.
i. The
over use of RDS crews and too many responses outside the communities they
joined to protect have been given as reasons for RDS resignations in the past.
These proposals will increase the time that the remaining RDS firefighters have
to spend responding to incidents. They will also have to respond to other
station areas more frequently. This poses a significant risk of more RDS
resignations and crew shortages.
j. No
alternative proposals are included in the consultation document, which wrongly
suggests that there are no alternatives. Significant savings have been achieved
by other Fire & Rescue Service mergers, and a £1.0m saving for West Sussex was
claimed to be achievable with a merger of West and East Fire & Rescue
Services during a previous consultation. I understand that government delays
stopped the previous merger plan going ahead, but I see no reason why problems
could not have been overcome in the intervening years.
k. The
South Chichester County Local Committee was told that there were no proposals
to reduce the number of fire engines, when in fact the proposals will see a
reduction of five.
l. The
North Chichester, and the North Horsham County Local Committees were told about
the capabilities of the 4x4 vehicles, as if this would be an improvement. The
stations concerned already have these vehicles, so already benefit from their
capabilities. What they should have been told was that the loss of the second
fire engine would mean that there would be less flexibility, as the station
would no longer be able to attend two separate incidents.
For example in 2012, whilst the first fire engines from Midhurst,
Petworth and Storrington were helping colleagues along the coast to deal with storm
related incidents, the second fire engines on those stations were protecting
their own areas and responding to other calls. Those present were also not told
that, at building fires, the first crew will now have to wait longer, whenever
they are in need of the additional water, hose, breathing apparatus, ladders
etc that are carried on second fire engines. In a rural area the prompt arrival
of additional water and hose can often mean the difference between fires being
controlled, or becoming out of control.
m. If
these proposals go through, no matter where people live in West Sussex, they
will be at higher risk of a delayed response from the fire and rescue service.
With fewer fire engines and crews there is no guarantee that those nearest to
the incident will be available. Increasingly those fire engines will be at
other incidents, or helping in areas directly affected by these cuts, or unable
to respond as there are not enough firefighters to crew them.
n. The
current proposals will see West Sussex with one of the worst resourced services
in the UK. Cornwall, a poorer county, will still have 43 operational fire
engines and crews (1 for every 12,500 people), whilst West Sussex taxpayers
will only have 35 (1 for every 23,000 people).
Specific Proposals
Proposal 1 - Move one of the two immediate response
fire engines at Horsham to Littlehampton, making it a 24-hour immediate
response station.
a. This
claims a fire engine will be moved from Horsham to Littlehampton. This is not
true, as it will actually result in one less fire engine and crew being
available in West Sussex. Whilst response times at night will improve in
Littlehampton, the level of cover throughout the day in the north of the county
will deteriorate. The claim that the outcome will be ‘improved service
performance’ is therefore false.
b. The
Modelling and Analysis Technical Report is also inadequate, as it fails to
properly consider the effect on fire cover resulting from the loss of this fire
engine and crew on the service as a whole. In particular, when considered with
proposal 4, the very significant effect on the north of the county.
c. In
the Equality Impact Report the Chief Fire Officer claims that to mitigate the
effect of this proposal he will improve the resilience of the RDS unit at
Horsham and surrounding stations by ‘targeting recruitment and retention in these
areas’. This suggests that work to improve RDS recruitment and retention has
not been carried out at stations mentioned in proposals 3 and 4, when crew
shortage has allegedly been a key factor in low use of those fire engines. If
so, the question has to be asked, ‘why not?’ Alternatively work was carried
out, but it has failed. If so, that raises serious doubts that it will work in
this case. The Chief Fire Officer cannot have it both ways.
Proposal 2 -
Introduce group-crewing model at immediate response stations.
a. This
claims no reduction in performance, but the proposal has been completely left
out of the Modelling and Analysis Technical Report, so there is no evidence to
support the claim. When West Sussex had higher crewing levels there were still occasions
when immediate response fire engines were unavailable, or became dependent on
RDS crews to supplement wholetime firefighters, which delayed their response.
If the number of wholetime firefighters are reduced yet further, then the
reality is that this will happen on more occasions.
b. Previous
cuts in firefighter numbers has seen a rise in occasions when the nearest specialist
appliances, such as lifesaving Heavy Rescue Tenders and Aerial Ladder
Platforms, cannot be crewed. Significant delays occur whilst waiting for the
next nearest appliance to attend from stations that are 20 or 30 miles away.
This proposal will see a significant increase in this type of delay.
Proposal 3 - Remove
the 2nd fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington.
a. This
claims ‘minimal impact on performance’, which is wholly misleading. That
impact, according to the Modelling and Analysis Technical Report is a higher
cost in terms of life and property damage. It is unacceptable to describe this
as minimal, and omitting this information from the consultation document is
shameful.
b. The
document also states that the second fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and
Storrington are often not crewed due to an insufficient number of retained
firefighters being available. That deficiency is the responsibility of the
Chief Fire Officer, not the firefighters at those stations. I was shocked to
read in the station profiles that these stations have been deliberately
understaffed. RDS stations with one fire engine should have an establishment of
12 and those with two fire engines should have 20 to maintain round the clock
cover. Yet these stations have each been restricted to a maximum of 15
personnel to crew 2 fire engines and a 4x4 vehicle on a 24 hour, 365 day basis.
Those stations should be applauded for crewing two fire engines on as many
occasions as they have. They should not be criticised for the times they have
been unable to.
No doubt the Chief Fire Officer
will tell Councillors that it is difficult to recruit and retain RDS
firefighters who can provide day cover. This is not a new problem, but what has
the Chief Fire Officer done to overcome the difficulty? Occasional press
releases and half-hearted recruiting campaigns are not enough. Why has there
not been a comprehensive investigation in to why suitable people do not apply
to be RDS firefighters, and in to why many RDS firefighters resign? Solutions
will not be found without such an investigation in to the root causes of the
problem. How many town or parish councils, local business groups, or
professional partners have been consulted on this problem and invited to help
find solutions? What reports have been submitted to County Councillors on the
problem and on possible solutions? The Chief Fire Officer needs to remedy this
neglect.
c. The
reference to use of the 4x4 vehicles is also misleading. The consultation
document says that when additional firefighters are required, a 4x4 vehicle
will proceed as well as a fire engine from another station. However, the
Equality Impact Report states only that ‘consideration is being given to
mobilisation of the four wheel drive’. Which is it? If it is only
‘consideration’, then the consultation document is again misleading.
d. The
Chief Fire Officer also claims that this proposal will improve flexibility,
which is untrue. These stations already have 4x4 vehicles, so any flexibility
they do afford is already available. The reality is that removing the second
fire engines will drastically reduce flexibility. Currently the second fire
engine can be used to support the first fire engine at more serious incidents,
or attend other incidents as the first response when the first fire engine is
already committed. There have been many occasions when one of the fire engines
from these stations has been at incidents or providing cover in other towns,
and the second fire engine has been available for incidents in their own area.
That is true flexibility, which will be removed by these proposals.
e. As
no figures are included, it is not possible to confirm that the additional
costs of this proposal have been included in the calculations. The response to
a building fire in these areas would currently be two vehicles with a maximum
of 12 firefighters. The proposals would change this to three vehicles with a maximum
of 17 RDS firefighters, all of whom are paid by the hour. One of the vehicles
will also be travelling further, so running costs will be greater and the extra
time taken will, on occasions, see up to 6 firefighters having to be paid for
an extra hour. These costs will add up and undermine any savings from the
proposal. Not forgetting of course that the proposal will also cost more lives
and increase property damage.
f.
The
Equality Impact Report claims that planning takes into account the needs of the
whole community. However, it has completely failed to consider the more
significant effects of this proposal on the rural poor, rural elderly and rural
ethnic minorities. These groups are more vulnerable for a variety of reasons.
For example, they are more likely to be in rented, older and less well
maintained properties where the risk of fire and the risk of becoming trapped
is greater. With less access to public transport these groups also need their
own cars, but often can only afford older second hand ones. These have fewer
safety features, such as air bags, than modern ones and in a collision they are
more likely to be trapped with more serious injuries. The Equality Impact
Report has not been properly carried out.
g.
The
report also suggests that the increase in response times to calls in the
Midhurst, Petworth, and Storrington areas ‘will be slight’. With the number of
fire engines on these adjacent station areas being cut by half, it will in fact
result in considerable delays. Even a 10 minute additional response time is
significant if you are trapped by a fire, trapped in a crashed vehicle, or at
risk of drowning during floods. The reality is that there will be many
occasions when the delay is 15, 20 or even 30 minutes. During severe weather
conditions, when the number of calls rocket, these areas are highly likely to
see even greater delays and potentially no response at all.
h.
In
the Modelling and Analysis Technical Report it is claimed that the increase in
the use of fire engines from Hampshire and Surrey in Midhurst’s area is ‘the
introduction of AVLS (Automated Vehicle Location System)’. This is misleading,
as the control room may know where West Sussex fire engines are, but they cannot
see actual locations for fire engines in other counties. Requests for
assistance are therefore based on the assumption that those fire engines are at
their stations, when they may actually be further away and take longer to
arrive. West Sussex should be providing adequate resources and not taking them
away from other counties.
i.
In
the station profiles we are informed that ‘where a second appliance has been
removed in the past, the availability of the first appliance has been seen to
subsequently decline’. This is a significant risk that will result in even more
delayed responses, but the information has not been included in the
consultation document.
j.
The
figures only show incidents attended by second fire engines, which is
misleading. They also fulfil a valuable role when standing by at other stations,
when their fire engines are committed at incidents, and when carrying out
community safety work. These figures should have been included to show the full
value of these resources.
Proposal 4 - Closure of retained unit and removal of 3rd
fire engine at Crawley
a. This
claims ‘resources more proportionate to risk’, yet the Chief Fire Officer’s own
figures show the situation is actually getting worse in Crawley. To reduce
resources is clearly not ‘proportionate’. 75% of the fire deaths in West Sussex
during 2013-14 were in the area covered by Crawley fire station. In addition,
so far this year West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service have rescued 5 people
from fires – all of them from fires in Crawley.
b. The
Modelling and Analysis Technical Report admits that this proposal will have a
higher cost in terms of life and property damage, but this is omitted from the
consultation document.
c. In
recent years the number of fire appliances available in Crawley Borough has
been reduced from 5 to 3. This proposal will reduce it to just 2, which is totally
unacceptable. Gatwick Airport and businesses in Crawley that supply the
airport, are key contributors to the UK economy. They also add significantly to
the West Sussex economy and to council coffers. A major fire at the airport, or
at one of their key suppliers, would have massive implications, yet no
consideration has been given to this as the Chief Fire Officer plans to cut yet
more fire engines. The additional delay on response times for an air crash at,
or near, the Airport is also totally unacceptable.
d. Once
again the Equality Impact Report has completely failed to address the more
significant effect of this proposal on the elderly, poor and ethnic minorities
in Crawley Borough. These people are statistically more likely to have fires
and to need rescuing, so reducing further the number of fire engines in Crawley
will unfairly have a greater impact on these vulnerable groups.
e. The
Chief Fire Officer claims that to mitigate the effect of this proposal he will
improve the resilience of RDS units at surrounding stations by ‘targeting
recruitment and retention in these areas’. As mentioned in relation to proposal
1, there are serious doubts that this will work and the residents of Crawley
will therefore be at even greater risk.
Proposal 5 -
Implement revised day crewing model at Variable Crewed Stations
a. This claims to maintain response standards at reduced cost. However, this
proposal has not been covered in the Modelling and Analysis Technical Report,
so there is no evidence to support the claim.
b. As
mentioned in relation to proposal 2, with fewer firefighters the number of
times fire engines become unavailable, or dependent on RDS crews, will increase
along with response times.
Proposal 6 - Increase
operational capacity and support for communities in flooding and severe weather
a. This
claims that it will provide an improved response to flooding and severe weather
events, yet no evidence to support this is included in the Modelling and
Analysis Technical Report. No details are given, so it is impossible to tell if
this money is to be spent wisely, or if it would be better spent on avoiding
proposed cuts in service.
b. One
of the most important requirements during flooding and severe weather is simply
the availability of a large number of properly crewed fire engines, rather than
specialist equipment. Any benefit from this proposal, for the few incidents
where specialist equipment is required, will be undermined by having five fewer
fire engines and crews to respond to the many other incidents where specialist
equipment is not required.
Proposal 7 -
Reductions in management and administrative support
a. This
contains encouraging words, but no substance. There has been plenty of time to
review management and administrative roles, so there should have been concrete
proposals in the document for people to consider.
b. West
Sussex County Council has achieved substantial reductions in management and
administrative posts in all departments except the Fire & Rescue Service. They have even done away with the
Chief Executive’s post, as well as all ‘deputy’ posts. Yet the Fire &
Rescue Service, despite the financial crisis, continues to have a Chief Fire
Officer, Deputy Chief Fire Officer and an Assistant Chief Fire Officer. In fact
the Assistant Chief Fire Officer post was only recently reinstated after being
removed during previous cutbacks. There was no consultation on the
reinstatement, no business case was published, and the financial situation had
not improved. The crews of the five fire engines proposed to be cut could have
been used to save lives and property, the senior management posts will not save
either.
c. West
Sussex County Council has also invested heavily in new technology to enable
staff to participate in meetings without having to spend time and money
travelling. The need for senior managers to run expensive vehicles can no
longer be justified and this should have provided an opportunity for
significant savings. The Chief Fire Officer will no doubt say that they need
cars to respond to incidents, but the top three officers attend far less calls
than the fire engines they want to cut. Perhaps they should have one shared
small car between them, but they certainly do not need one each.
Not covered in the document, but
relevant to this proposal, is the concerning news that officers are apparently
now going to be provided with 4x4 vehicles. At a time of financial restraint,
replacing cars with more expensive and less environmentally friendly 4x4
vehicles seems most inappropriate. It is not clear if this is for all officers,
but the cost really needs to be questioned.
d. If
the service is to be modernised, the Chief Fire Officer and his senior
colleagues need to set an example by cutting the costs associated with their
attendance at meetings, seminars and conferences. Acceptable in better
financial times perhaps, but not when frontline resources are being cut.
Proposal 8 - Utilise
additional trained staff to improve operational resilience
a. This
is quite alarming, as this should be
normal practice in the Fire & Rescue Service. It was certainly done in West
Sussex under previous Chief Fire Officers, so has the Chief Fire Officer been
failing to use his resources properly, or is this ‘proposal’ actually no change?
b. There
would also appear to be opportunities to utilise trained staff, not on
frontline duties, to cover shortages of RDS staff. With modern technology it
should be possible to locate some of them at RDS stations to carry out their
normal duties. Whilst there they could also help crew fire engines at those
stations at times when there are crew shortages. This opportunity does not seem
to have been considered.
Conclusion
The implications of these proposals have not been fully
explained in the consultation document, the supporting documents are deficient
in a number of areas, and the proposal package represents a risk to the lives
and property of people in West Sussex. The consultation is invalid and the
proposals should be rejected. Revised proposals and a proper consultation
should now be provided.
No comments:
Post a Comment