Dear Councillors,
I am sure that many of you will have been disappointed by
the misleading statements and false claims made about the Fire & Rescue
Service proposals at the County Council meeting last week.
I have identified 20 of the most serious ones and provided
an explanation of why they were misleading or false below. The facts shown are
from the consultation supporting documents and other West Sussex Fire &
Rescue Service or Department for Communities and Local
Government documents.
Please review them and, if anyone believes this information
is inaccurate, please let me have any evidence to support that belief. There
has been far too much speculation, wishful thinking and misdirection during
this process, it is time for the plain, simple truth.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Morris
1. There will only be 3 extra deaths in 100 years, and no
secret was made of the extra deaths.
This is the most disgraceful cover up and deception. The
public consultation document did not mention a single extra death. It is only
in the technical document that it says there will be 3 extra fire deaths in the
home in 100 years. However, figures on the very last page reveal that there
will also be 6 extra fire deaths in other buildings and 46
extra deaths in non-fire incidents. 3 + 6 + 46 = 55 extra
deaths resulting from the changes. The Chief Fire Officer’s report to
the meeting also inexplicably ignored the non-fire deaths and just said there
would be 3 extra fire deaths, when in fact it is 3 + 6, which makes 9
extra fire deaths. This detail has been hidden and, despite now being
exposed, the deceit continues.
2. Consultation widely available.
There is no evidence that more than a very small number of
West Sussex residents were aware of the consultation. Those who did know were
not told the truth. The consultation document suggested these savings could be
achieved without affecting performance, which is not true. Even if people took
the trouble to read through the 280 pages of supporting documents they would
not have seen the true effects and the total number of extra deaths, unless
they also did some sums.
3. Forums held and presentations given.
Information about the real effects was withheld at these
meetings and misleading and false information was given. For example, at the
Chichester South CLC meeting, they were told that the number of fire engines
was not being reduced, when in fact five are being cut.
4. The scrutiny processes were rigorous.
Processes took place, but as Councillor Rae said they are
not professional firefighters. They had to rely on the Chief Fire Officer’s
proposals, which had to fit the reduced budget. There was no one with the
necessary professional expertise to scrutinise his suggestions, to offer
alternatives, or to identify the full effects. Since the proposals became
public there has been overwhelming professional opinion confirming that the
proposals will see firefighters and the public exposed to a much greater risk.
5. Mr Barnard does not recognise significant public
concern.
He chooses not to recognise that there is significant
concern amongst those who understand the real effects of these cuts. The only
people not concerned are those who are blissfully unaware of the increased
danger they will be in as a result of longer response times for many incidents.
6. The service is changing and needs to reflect a modern
approach.
The service already has a modern approach and it is
disrespectful to the principal officers to suggest otherwise. Reducing fire
crews and fire engines is not modernisation, it simply reduces the ability of
the service to meet demand, especially during increasingly frequent periods of
high demand. There is simply no justification for reducing resources to the
lowest level since the service was formed in 1948, especially when there are
over three times as many calls, more complex incidents, and additional duties
have been placed on the service.
7. Prevention is at the heart of everything the Fire
& Rescue Service does.
Yet the number of fire safety audits has fallen from over
3,000 in 2010-11 to less than 1,400 in 2012-13. Worryingly 34% of the latest
inspections also found premises to be unsatisfactory. Mr Barnard’s latest cuts
will, from just one proposal alone, cut prevention work by more than 5,000
hours a year (Proposal 5).
8. The Chief Fire Officer would not put the public or his
personnel at risk. This is professionals redesigning their professional
service.
This shows that Councillors Rae and Barnard do not
understand risk. The Chief Fire Officer necessarily puts firefighters at risk
every day, and the public are also at risk every day. His job is to reduce the
risk as much as possible, but his ability to do so is dependent on support and
funding from the County Council. Better funding means more prevention and
improved response times, which means more lives and property saved. Reduced
funding means less prevention and longer response times, which means more lives
lost and more property destroyed. Firefighter safety depends on their fire
engines being fully crewed and supporting fire engines arriving quickly. The
public and Firefighters will clearly be at greater risk if these cuts go ahead.
It is not being professionally redesigned to meet need, just to fit an
inadequate budget.
9. There was no ‘call in’.
This is a complete red herring, as the call in process
cannot be used to oppose a decision.
10. Several references were made to the advantages of the
4x4 vehicles. Easier to get two people there on a 4x4 than it is to wait until
you fill a fire engine.
Mr Barnard, despite not being a professional firefighter,
suggests that a small 4x4 vehicle is an adequate replacement for a full sized,
properly equipped and crewed fire appliance. It may be easier to get two people
there on a 4x4, but that is of no use when you need a full crew and the
equipment on a fire engine. There may be some incidents where only the crew is
required from a second fire engine, but that is not known when the call is
received. The only responsible approach is to send two proper fire engines to
building fires. Failure to do so will see a repeat of the tragic incident in
Wales where two Retained Firefighters lost their lives. National guidance
followed that said two fire engines with an absolute minimum of 9 firefighters
must be sent to all house fires. Removing fire engines and reducing crews will
result in unsafe working practices. No upgrade of the 4x4s is going to see them
carry the extra water, hose, ladders, or the rescue and other equipment that is
often required.
11. Unsubstantiated and unfounded scaremongering.
A disgraceful slur from Mr Rae, as there is every good
reason for residents and firefighters to be concerned. The evidence to support
that concern is to be found in the official documentation. Hundreds of
professional firefighters have confirmed there is good reason to be concerned.
Serving firefighters have done so through their union representatives, as they
have been told not to speak publicly, and many retired firefighters have also
spoken out about the dangers.
12. Councillor Rae complained about only hearing,
‘Crawley, Crawley’.
Councillor Jones actually said that the cuts will affect all
areas, but there is good reason for Crawley residents to be concerned. They
will be left with the worst fire cover in the County, despite them having the
most incidents of any station area each year (1,483 last year), and having the
busiest fire station in the County, responding to an annual average of over
2,100 calls. Yet they will have only two fire engines, the same as
Littlehampton which only had 430 incidents in their area last year and on
average they respond to just 830 calls per year.
13. Mr Rae quoted statistics for the number of
mobilisations made by the 2nd and 3rd fire
engines that are being removed.
Mr Rae’s deception continued, as he only spoke about actual mobilisations,
not how often they were actually needed. The ongoing failure of West Sussex
County Council to ensure adequate numbers of Retained Firefighters means that
all too often, when these fire engines have been needed, there are not enough to
crew them. Fire engines from stations further away have to be used, which then
reduces the fire cover in that area. The real demand for these second and third
fire engines has been hidden. Mr Rae also conveniently forgets that on the
occasions they have responded, they have saved lives and property. Having these
fire engines available between 35% and 60% of the time is not good, but instead
of improving the situation, Mr Rae intends to make them unavailable 100% of the
time.
14. Mr Barnard referred to Gatwick’s fire service. He
also said that Gatwick Fire Authority made no objection.
There is no Gatwick Fire Authority. The Fire Authority
responsible for Gatwick Airport is West Sussex County Council. Gatwick Airport
is only responsible for immediate response to aircraft accidents and for having
an emergency plan. The County Council has a legal duty to provide fire and
rescue services to the airport for all incidents, and to
provide the bulk of fire and rescue service resources as part of the Airport’s
emergency plan. Up until 2010 there were 5 West Sussex fire engines close to
the airport to support that plan. Now there will be just 2. Gatwick Airport
answers to its shareholders and they need all the support they can get for
their second runway proposal. They are not going to risk upsetting WSCC by
objecting to these cuts. Especially as it will be WSCC who will have to explain
an inadequate and slow response to the Airport at a public inquiry or inquest.
An aircraft accident will put hundreds of lives in jeopardy. The number who
survive will initially depend on luck, but will then depend on how quickly
sufficient numbers of West Sussex Firefighters arrive. Removing resources and
increasing response times to such a high risk location is grossly negligent.
15. There is a constant review and if new homes are built
they will get the fire cover they need.
The suggestion that fire cover will be increased to protect
new developments is a nonsense. Thousands of new homes have been built since
1974, yet the number of fire stations has not been increased. Instead they have
been cut from 28 to 25 (effectively 24, as Horley no longer has any fire
engines). No extra money has been set aside to provide fire cover for new
homes. The only fire cover new homes will get is that which is already
available from an increasingly over worked and under resourced service.
16. There has been a problem with Retained recruiting for
many years.
It is quite disgraceful that Mr Barnard has been aware of
this serious problem since 2003, but has done nothing to remedy it. In fact he
has taken advantage of it by saying that, as crews are often unavailable, he
will take their fire engines away. He has also imposed limits on the number of
Retained Firefighters at stations that fall well below the number necessary to
crew all their appliances round the clock. Mr Barnard's only reference to
any action taken to address this crisis was that there is a recruiting
poster near his home. It is his neglect that has resulted in nearly half the
County’s fire engines being unavailable on some days. Such a shocking situation
should be the subject of an urgent investigation. All the factors that
contribute to this problem must be thoroughly investigated and workable
solutions researched and implemented.
17. People will not be satisfied unless there is a fire
engine at the end of every street.
This appears to be Mr Barnard’s fanciful notion, as no one
has ever suggested there are demands for any such nonsense. Public expectations
are quite moderate. They want no more than the level of resources that they
have always had. Mr Barnard is failing the public and spuriously suggesting it
is their expectations that are unreasonable.
18. The service is changing away from house fires.
Not true, as house fires in West Sussex during the last
12 years have fluctuated between 491 and 654 (530 in 2012-13). Very
similar to the 1980s when they fluctuated between 502 and 599.
19. Risk is being reduced. Cars and roads are improving
all the time.
As far as fires are concerned, the risk is increasing in
West Sussex with fire deaths going up every year since 2008-09, despite the
national figures going down. This should also be subject to an urgent
investigation. Some old risks may reduce, but they are replaced with new ones.
One of the latest has been electronic cigarettes and their chargers. The
situation with road traffic collisions (RTCs) has been blurred, as not all
attendances at RTCs are recorded. For some bizarre reason, if crews attend a RTC
and report no action taken, it is erroneously recorded as a false
alarm. National reports also indicate that the recession has seen a reduction
in traffic and they expect that, as the economy picks up, traffic will increase
and so will the number of crashes. The number of RTCs attended is still high,
even with the manipulation of figures to suggest that the number is lower.
20. You will find this more than fair and adequate for a
county of this size.
The size of the County has not changed since 1974, but the
population has increased by 23%. Up until 2010 adequate cover was rightly
considered by Councillors and professional Chief Fire Officers to be 28 fire
stations with 46 fire engines and crews. It is reckless nonsense to suggest
that with a larger population, which is going to continue to grow, just 24 fire
stations with 35 fire engines and crews is adequate or fair.
