Why the Conservatives cannot be trusted with our Fire & Rescue Service

Key changes between 1974 and 2024

West Sussex was enlarged in 1974 and for the next 35 years the Conservative’s management of the fire & rescue service could be considered adequate. However, during the last 14 years this has deteriorated dramatically and worryingly it is continuing to deteriorate.

Misleading information and false claims

With County Council elections next year it is important that misleading information and false claims from the Council's Conservative leadership are exposed. At a recent meeting, Cabinet Member Duncan Crow claimed that they had increased the number of firefighters. Home Office figures show that is not true, they have been reduced significantly.

Duncan Crow is also fond of claiming that fire deaths have fallen as a result of prevention work. That is untrue. The number of fire deaths fluctuates year by year, so more than one year has to be examined to get a true indication of changes.

Unfortunately for Councillor Crow, the most recent five year average shows a worrying increase in fire deaths compared to the five year average before the County Council began their cuts to frontline fire crews.

The Conservatives cannot be trusted to run our Fire & Rescue Service

Latest figures show Conservative claims of improvement are false

Response standard failures increase

Paul Marshall, Conservative Leader of West Sussex County Council, says he feels "significant improvements" have been made to the fire & rescue service. Yet the latest figures, released following a freedom of information request, show his claim to be false.

The number of occasions our inadequately resourced fire & rescue service has failed to meet the very generous response times, set by the Conservative run County Council, has nearly doubled in five years. This is not every delayed response either, the figures just cover the first two fire engines arriving at the most serious fires, and the first fire engine arriving at serious non-fire emergencies such as road traffic collisions.

The response said that figures for 2020-21 were unavailable as they "are currently working through the raw data".

Fire deaths on the rise

This latest evidence that the service provided to the public is not improving comes after a recent increase in fire deaths. In the last ten years the Conservatives have cut frontline response resources by a quarter. They claimed it was justified as they would save more lives with prevention work. Final figures for 2020-21 have yet to be confirmed, but four fire deaths have so far been reported to County Councillors. Sadly there are unconfirmed reports that the final figure for 2020-21 may be six.

The chart shows confirmed figures

The Conservatives have failed to properly protect West Sussex residents, yet instead of apologising for their failures they continue to mislead voters by claiming things are improving. Staff in the fire & rescue service have been working their socks off to try and improve performance, but the continued lack of resources makes it an impossible task.

There has been no indication that the Conservatives will stop their arrogant  misrepresentation, improve performance, or even ensure proper scrutiny and accountability. 

It was only last year that Conservative Cabinet Member Duncan Crow's answer to poor call handling times in the Surrey Fire Control, which handles West Sussex calls, was to suggest excluding the worst times from the statistics. 

Conservative Steve Waight, who is supposed to ensure that the performance of the fire & rescue service is properly scrutinised, repeatedly tries to stop discussion of serious concerns by claiming they are 'operational matters'. These 'operational matters' are fundamental to the service's performance and it is essential that they are discussed. 

Incidents are also increasing

Remember when the Conservatives told you that the number of emergencies attended was falling and would continue to fall?

The Conservatives cannot be trusted

with our Fire & Rescue Service

A genuine consultation or more smoke and mirrors?

You may well see the latest West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service consultation as insincere and only intended to tick the ‘have you consulted’ box. You may also feel that commenting on it is a waste of time, because they will ignore responses.

You may well be right, but I would encourage people to respond to the consultation and to voice concerns about it being a sham, about the Community Risk Management Plan not meeting the requirements of an Integrated Risk Management Plan, about the so called 'plan' failing to give any real performance information, and about the suspicious selection of statistics that appear intended to deceive.

An IRMP should provide up to date risk information and a proper evaluation of previous service delivery. It should also show how they will mitigate the impact of risk on communities. This document does none of that. It simply describes the current fire & rescue service, with no indication of how they have performed or how they are going to address problems. In other words, it is a PR document, not a plan!

In the plan for 2010-15 they said they would reduce fire deaths, but fire deaths actually increased during the IRMP period.

To try and disguise this, they illogically decided to show figures for eleven previous years. A cynic might say they included 2004/05, as it was particularly high and would make later figures look better. It was not indicative and was actually higher than the four previous years. A cynic might also wonder why the 2015/16 figures were not shown. No doubt it was because there were accidental dwelling fire fatalities in 2015/16, which would not look as good as ending that part of the table with a ‘0’ figure for 2014/15.

They also said they would report on the cost of incidents to our community annually, and on the consequences of fire incident outcomes (types of fires and numbers of people injured), and response standards achieved quarterly, but they did not. They have also failed to report on these factors in this ‘plan’.

They said in 2010 that they would look at "new and creative options to maintain cover and continue to attract new retained recruits". They have failed miserably and things have got worse, as these official availability figures show:

Station	Fire Engine	2009/10	2015/16
Arundel	1	84%	66%
East Preston	1	100%	47%
East Wittering	1	89%	54%
Hurstpierpoint	1	90%	33%
Lancing	1	100%	30%
Petworth	1	98%	72%
Shoreham	1	100%	88%
Shoreham	2	87%	30%

In fact, every retained crewed fire engine, except one, has seen availability get worse during the period of the last IRMP. In the worst cases, even despite the new Crewing Optimisation Group, some fire engines are unavailable for periods equal to more than eight months of the year.

Remember also that the fire engines that were removed just over a year ago, were available between 75% and 100% of the time in 2009/10. So the wonderful table showing Fire Appliance and Specialist Vehicle Locations is itself misleading. It gives the impression that they are available resources, when often they are not.

They say “Our change in operating model has not altered the emergency response standards we agreed with you in 2009”. Yet they don’t confess that they fail to meet them more often as a result of the cuts, or as they like to spin them – “change in operating model”. More people in West Sussex are waiting longer for help to arrive and all the County Council does is try to hide the truth.

If this was commercial advertising it would be facing criticism and possibly action from Trading Standards, but of course with the Chief Fire Officer now in charge of Trading Standards that would never happen.

There is a section called "Progress since the last Risk Management Plan", yet very little of it relates to the previous IRMP. They claim "a considerable reduction in the number of ‘Very High’ Critical Fire risk areas", but offer no evidence to support that. Given their previous misuse of the term 'risk', when they actually mean frequency of calls, it may simply be a small drop in calls in those areas. The public not only remain at risk of death, injury or loss of property in those areas, but the increase in response times has increased that risk.

Finally, the nonsense about calling the IRMP a Community Risk Management Plan. This is supposedly because they created the Communities and Public Protection Directorate to also bring “Trading Standards, Community Professionals and Resilience and Emergencies colleagues” under the control of the Chief Fire Officer.

Yes, they tinkered with management structures and gave the Chief Fire Officer a fancy new title, presumably with extra pay, as part of council cuts (or as they spin it - reorganisation), but there has been no real change. The fire & rescue service has always worked closely with other council services and partners. The sham title is actually well exposed by the content of this ‘Community Risk Management Plan’, with virtually no mention of Trading Standards, Community Professionals and Resilience and Emergencies staff, or their work. 

Not only is this an inadequate plan and consultation, but it will yet again strengthen the Police and Crime Commissioner's case to take over the running of the Fire & Rescue Service. I don't want to see that happen, so it is frustrating to see West Sussex County Council and West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service again playing in to her hands.

The consultation is open until 5 August 2016, so please have your say.

Cabinet Member David Barling called these Government statistics "Untruths"

Remember the consultation document?

They said they had "significantly reduced the number of people killed or injured in fires in the home".

They said, "In the last five years we have reduced the levels of risk considerably across the county."

They said, "We are not proposing to lower our response standards". Perhaps not the generous 'standards' they set themselves, but what about the actual standard of response?

Not only gone up, but from the best to the worst is an achievement. Sadly not one to be proud of.

All the figures above are ones published by the Government.

Do they actually know what "significantly" and "considerably" mean?

There has been one significant reduction, in just 5 years.

Cuts Will Cost Lives

This is what Councillors seem oblivious to and senior officers seem to have forgotten about. 

This rescue in Suffolk at the weekend involved two ladders, at least six firefighters engaged in the rescue and at least eleven firefighters at the incident when the rescue was carried out. 

Crews of four don't cut it and Hampshire's proposed crews of two in a van are a sick joke.

Incidents like this don't happen every day, but no one knows where or when they will happen. 

There is absolutely no doubt, cutting resources will cost lives. Well done to the firefighters involved.

If further confirmation that cuts cost lives is required, just read this:

An open letter to County Councillors

Dear County Councillor,

 

At last week’s County Council meeting Cabinet Member David Barling helpfully pointed out that, “It is often about what they don’t tell you that you need to focus on”. He is quite correct that there were a number of extremely relevant things that you were not told.

 

You were told that the changes were developed by a professional team, but you were not told that they were only allowed to come up with changes that also saved £1.6 million pounds. So not the best protection for the people of West Sussex, not fit for the next decade, just the best they could come up with on an inadequate budget. You were also not told that hundreds of professional firefighters say it is wrong.

 

When Mr Barling mentioned fewer incidents, he did not tell you that the number of incidents has never been a key factor in determining the number or location of fire engines. When West Sussex had 6,000 incidents there were 45 fire engines, yet when there were over 15,000 incidents there were just 46 fire engines. When incidents dropped back to around 10,000, fire engines were cut to 40, and now that incidents are between 9 and 10,000, they will be cut to just 35. Ten less than when far fewer incidents were dealt with.

 

He did not mention that the key factor  in determining the number and location of fire engines  is response times. When fire engines were cut from 46 to 40, response times went up and West Sussex residents in desperate need now have to wait, on average, 30% longer for help to arrive than those in East Sussex. Further cuts will increase this significantly.

 

When Mr Barling said that there is a problem with keeping retained firefighters, he did not say that the Deputy Chief Fire Officer has stated this is not a problem. Lee Neale is on record as saying that the retained establishment is continuously monitored and maintained at the appropriate level. He has also said that WSFRS had twice as many applicants as retained firefighter vacancies.

 

You were not told that some people applying to be retained firefighters have been turned away, even when their local station has crewing problems. This is because the County Council has barred the service from recruiting enough firefighters to properly crew all stations. This has resulted in the ridiculous situation of some stations having 14 firefighters to crew one fire engine round the clock, whilst others have to struggle with just 7.

 

Mr Barling said that the fire engines being removed were used irregularly by retained firefighters. You were not told that this was because of inadequate crewing levels and that they were actually required much more frequently. Fire engines had to be called from other areas to cover for these crewing failures, which reduced cover in those areas and increased the response times significantly.

 

Mr Barling even added Horsham to the list, but did not tell you that this fire engine was crewed by wholetime firefighters and attended 626 incidents in 2013/14.

 

You were not told that experience has shown that when retained stations are cut from two to one fire engine, the availability of the remaining fire engine suffers. This is clearly evidenced by East Preston and Lancing, where the first fire engines were close to 100% availability, but are now only available for 56% and 73% respectively.

 

You were previously told that the new retained contract would improve firefighter and fire engine availability. You were not told that the contract was untested before being introduced and that it has actually resulted in a dramatic drop in availability.

 

You were not told that the new wholetime crewing system has not been trialled or tested and that there is no evidence to support the claim that this will not reduce performance.

 

Mr Barling said that the new ‘super-duper’ 4x4 vehicles will enable ‘our people’ to get off road, but he neglected to say that they already had 4x4 vehicles at those stations and could get off road now. He did not tell you that the so called ‘high tech equipment’ could not in any way replace a proper fire engine. He also neglected to say that a previous new ‘super-duper’ 4x4 vehicle, trialled at Midhurst in the 1970s, proved to be inadequate. There is no evidence that this will be any different.

 

Mr Barling said that the fire service had listened to the people of Littlehampton and were improving the service they receive (4 minute better response time at night). He did not mention that they did not listen to the people of Bosham, East Preston, Findon, Keymer and Lancing in 2010, and are not listening to the people of Crawley, Horsham, Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington now. All of whom have, or will have to wait longer for help to arrive on many occasions, both day and night.

 

When Mr Barling mentioned the Horsham fire engine being removed, he did not tell you that this will result in a 4 minute increase in response times in the area both day and night. Worse still, the second fire engine will often not respond at all. It will be crewed by retained firefighters who, in 2013/14, were only available for 52% of the time.

 

Mr Barling also rather bizarrely claimed that ‘every second, every minute’ the fire authority is moving fire engines around to areas of greatest need. Not only is that a gross exaggeration, but the movements that do take place are not to meet demand, but to areas where inadequate crewing has meant several fire engines are not available. Covering up failures instead of properly resourcing the service.

 

The most serious omission was that Mr Barling did not tell you that all the national and local evidence shows that these cuts will increase response times, increase deaths and increase property damage. Clearly an increased risk for the public and firefighters and certainly not a service fit for the next decade.

 

Some of you have opposed these cuts, but for those who have not, it really is time to put your residents’ safety before your party politics.

 

Yours sincerely,

Tony Morris 

800 signatures and open letter to County Councillors

Thanks to excellent work by Labour Councillors and supporters in Crawley yesterday collecting paper signatures, and more people signing online the petition has now passed the 800 mark. Not bad for less than two weeks. 

Keep letting people know and remind Firefighters and other WSCC employees that they are allowed to sign the petition and will suffer no repercussions. That is in writing from the Chief Fire Officer and Executive Director Communities and Public Protection.

Ahead of the County Council budget meeting tomorrow I have written to all County Councillors as follows:

"Dear County Councillor,

County Councillors Save Lives could be a headline.  At tomorrow’s County Council meeting you have the opportunity to justify that by rejecting the fire service budget cuts. Do you, like firefighters, have the necessary courage to do that? Councillor Goldsmith has pledged not to bow to party political pressure, so none of you should be disciplined for acting to protect the lives of your constituents.

I can understand that some of you may have been lulled in to a false sense of security by statements from the Cabinet and the Fire & Rescue Service. However, more and more information is coming to light that has been kept from the public, and may well have been kept from you. So before you decide what to do tomorrow, please consider if you have been told, by the former Cabinet Member for Resident’s Services or the Chief Fire Officer, any of the following:

That following previous cuts, West Sussex residents now have to wait, on average, 30% longer for help to arrive than East Sussex residents.

That despite fewer calls, fire deaths in West Sussex have been rising, whilst they have been falling in the rest of the UK.

That some fire engines crewed by retained firefighters are unavailable more than they are available.

That fire stations do not have an approved establishment for retained firefighters, which results in some stations with one fire engine having twice as many firefighters as another. Effectively guaranteeing that the ones with less will often fail to crew their fire engine. There really cannot be any other organisation or business that does not start by determining staffing levels required to meet the ‘business’ need. More wishful thinking than proper management.

That retained fire engine availability dropped 10% in one year (2012/13 to 2013/14) and is now 16% below the West Sussex target (published as 88% in 2011/12).

That WSCC modelling showed that there would be an extra death every other year and £80,000 extra damage every year, as a direct result of the cuts.

That if later claims the modelling may have been wrong were true, it would also mean that the figures used to justify spending over £1 million to improve response times at Littlehampton will also be wrong.

That government and independent research has proven that response times have a direct bearing on lives and property saved. The budget cuts will inevitably result in longer response times to many calls, especially in rural areas.

The people of West Sussex do not deserve front-line cuts to such an essential life saving service. You can stop those cuts, please do.

Several West Sussex online newspapers covering the petition and fire deaths story

Well that is annoying. Several online newspapers in West Sussex are running with the petition and fire deaths story, but the add comments section is not working. 'They are looking in to it'. The comments I wished to add were:

Sadly it is West Sussex County Council that is guilty of taking figures out of context and making misleading claims. Whilst the public is expected to accept figures that they select for publication without question, they immediately criticise anyone who reveals figures they want to keep quiet.

 

Those who are protesting against these dangerous cuts have only ever used figures available from WSCC or Government departments. They are presented as cold, hard facts. Trying to excuse the high number of deaths, and implying that West Sussex is somehow unlucky is very shabby behaviour.

 

To save lives I would urge the public to sign the “Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex” petition. You can find it online by searching for ‘West Sussex Epetitions’.

 

Response times are increasing in West Sussex and on average people have to wait 30% longer for help to arrive than in East Sussex. That is a direct result of previous cuts. Government and independent reviews have proven that when response times increase, more people die and more property damage is caused.

 

WSCC know, but want to hide, the fact that removing more fire engines and firefighters will cost more lives. Their own assessment of the effect of the cuts showed an extra 55 deaths in 100 years, which equals an extra death every two years. Yet now WSCC spokespersons choose to ignore or dismiss their own figures.

 

The County Council carried out an inadequate review, a sham consultation, and the changes to the service were not put to the full County Council for approval. The October debate was about using savings to avoid the cuts, and was defeated by just 28 of the 71 County Councillors. Many sneaked off before the vote and all but one Conservative followed the party whip.   

 

Let’s be clear, these cuts are nothing to do with meeting future needs, just about meeting an inadequate budget. Commuters must breathe a sigh of relief that the County Council is not in charge of the railways. If they were, then there would be fewer trains, with less coaches, and journey times would be longer.

 

This campaign is supported by most serving firefighters, many retired firefighters, parish and town councils, several County Councillors and the public. 

West Sussex County Council cuts to the Fire & Rescue Service are unjustified and dangerous

Just a reminder about why the online petition is so important. 

Please also note that the Council say only signatures from people living, working or studying in West Sussex and showing a valid West Sussex post code will be counted. If you live outside the County please use your West Sussex work or study address and postcode. After signing, you have to confirm the link sent to you by email, so if you do not receive that email, please check your spam folder.

West Sussex County Council cuts to the Fire & Rescue Service are unjustified and dangerous

Relative changes since 1978, using the official figures for each year shown

This chart illustrates that, whilst fire deaths and incidents fluctuated, the number of fire engines to protect residents never fell below 45 until 2011. That is because 45 fire engines were the minimum necessary to reach any location quickly, as well as providing enough to deal with simultaneous incidents and with those requiring several fire engines.

Every Chief Fire Officer since 1948, when control of the fire service passed to West Sussex County Council, has considered that to be an absolute minimum. Every Chair and the Members of the relevant County Council committee have supported that from 1948 until 2010.

Political interests have now replaced proper risk assessment. Since 2010 three fire stations have been closed and six fire engines and their crews cut. Response times and fire deaths are increasing. In 2013/14 the availability of retained (part time) firefighters was 16% below standard, with some fire engines not crewed more often than they were crewed.

The professional case for those cuts was weak, and the professional case for a further cut of firefighters and another five fire engines is non-existent. The number of incidents is still well above 1970s and early 1980s figures, yet further cuts of fire engines and firefighters are planned.

Their claims that 'prevention is at the heart of everything we do', is just hot air designed to deflect attention from the frontline service cuts. Over 12,000 inspections in 1989, yet by 2012/13 that was down to just 1,400. With 34% of those inspections finding premises that were unsatisfactory, you have to wonder how many premises that were not inspected are also unsatisfactory.

There is no doubt that further cuts will increase response times, and that will result in more deaths, more injuries, and more property damage. That is not acceptable.

The following charts show the actual numbers for each of those years.

Cynical "Fire chief's pledge"

Well we can all forget the appalling 72% retained availability (target 88%), the 33% increase in response times (since the 1990s), the increase in fire deaths and even how much worse it will be after the planned cuts. We are saved - the DCFO has made a pledge! They really do take the public for fools.

Unbelievable nonsense from the County Council about next years cuts

West Sussex to consider £124m ‘savings’

Who on Earth is Richard Burrett trying to kid when he says, "they are savings, they are not cuts". At the last County Council meeting Richard Burrett and his Conservative cronies voted against a motion to stop cuts to the fire service. 

His administration is cutting five fire engines in the County next year, even though the Council's own report shows that this will mean longer response times, more property damage and more deaths. They are also cutting the number of firefighters, which will mean more cases of fire engines not being available, or having to respond with insufficient crews to carry out rescues.

All this after changes they have made since 2010, which include cutting 3 fire stations and 6 fire engines. Those changes resulted in longer response times and deteriorating availability of retained (on call) crewed fire engines. Despite claims of more prevention work, fire deaths have increased in West Sussex every year since 2008/09.

You may drive past your local fire station and see a modern fire engine waiting to respond, but if you have an emergency there is no guarantee it will come to your aid. For example the retained crewed fire engine in East Wittering was available for 89% of the time in 2012/13, but last year was only available 47% of the time. For more than half the year people in the area had to wait for help from Chichester or from further afield.

Do not be fooled, this Conservative administration is doing their Conservative Government's bidding and cutting essential services. Party interests are taking priority over the welfare of West Sussex residents and their cuts will even cost some West Sussex residents their lives.

Newspaper coverage continues

Just some examples of how on line versions of newspapers provide opportunities to keep the issue alive in their comments section:

Nick Herbert MP

Francis Maude MP

WSCC Flood Prevention

Plus another example of newspapers picking up on the story:- 

Fire service cuts condemned
Monday, 10 November 2014

WEST Sussex Fire and Rescue 'Stop the Cuts' campaigner Tony Morris has condemned the county council’s decision to cut the service budget by £1.6m as a “death sentence”. 

A motion to overturn the decision by Michael Jones, the Labour member for Crawley, was rejected by 28 councillors. 

The cuts include the loss of two fire engines at Midhurst and Petworth, and the loss of three firefighters at both Bognor and Chichester. 

For full story, see this week's Liphook Herald.

Email your County Councillor before Friday

Not too late to email your County Councillors (or all of them) with your views. Addresses here.

Or email all of those that need convincing these cuts are unnecessary and dangerous:

bill.acraman@westsussex.gov.uk, patricia.arculus@westsussex.gov.uk, david.barling@westsussex.gov.uk, lionel.barnard@westsussex.gov.uk, andrew.barrett-miles@westsussex.gov.uk, liz.bennett@westsussex.gov.uk, pete.bradbury@westsussex.gov.uk, michael.brown@westsussex.gov.uk, heidi.brunsdon@westsussex.gov.uk, richard.burrett@westsussex.gov.uk, peter.catchpole@westsussex.gov.uk, philip.circus@westsussex.gov.uk, mick.clark@westsussex.gov.uk, michael.cloake@westsussex.gov.uk, duncan.crow@westsussex.gov.uk, janet.duncton@westsussex.gov.uk, margaret.evans@westsussex.gov.uk, peter.evans@westsussex.gov.uk, christine.field@westsussex.gov.uk, michael.glennon@westsussex.gov.uk, louise.goldsmith@westsussex.gov.uk, peter.griffiths@westsussex.gov.uk, trixie.hall@westsussex.gov.uk, paul.high@westsussex.gov.uk, stephen.hillier@westsussex.gov.uk, jeremy.hunt@westsussex.gov.uk, sandra.james@westsussex.gov.uk, anne.jones@westsussex.gov.uk, graham.jones@westsussex.gov.uk, amanda.jupp@westsussex.gov.uk, debbie.kennard@westsussex.gov.uk, liz.kitchen@westsussex.gov.uk, bob.lanzer@westsussex.gov.uk, gordon.mcara@westsussex.gov.uk, peter.metcalfe@westsussex.gov.uk, janet.mockridge@westsussex.gov.uk, pieter.montyn@westsussex.gov.uk, roger.oakley@westsussex.gov.uk, simon.oakley@westsussex.gov.uk, john.o'brien@westsussex.gov.uk, lionel.parsons@westsussex.gov.uk, ashvin.patel@westsussex.gov.uk, andy.petch@westsussex.gov.uk, nigel.peters@westsussex.gov.uk, joan.phillips@westsussex.gov.uk, jim.rae@westsussex.gov.uk, ann.rapnik@westsussex.gov.uk, john.rogers@westsussex.gov.uk, 
david.sheldon@westsussex.gov.uk, bernard.smith@westsussex.gov.uk, brenda.smith@westsussex.gov.uk, tony.sutcliffe@westsussex.gov.uk, bryan.turner@westsussex.gov.uk, graham.tyler@westsussex.gov.uk, deborah.urquhart@westsussex.gov.uk, steve.waight@westsussex.gov.uk, brad.watson@westsussex.gov.uk, derek.whittington@westsussex.gov.uk, sujan.wickremaratchi@westsussex.gov.uk

County Council Fire Cuts Debate 17 October

It would be very helpful if people could show their support for Michael Jones, who is proposing the motion to abandon the cuts, by going along to the public gallery at the full County Council meeting on Friday (17th) afternoon. I will be going and it would be good to see others there.

Please note that the meeting is at County Hall North, Chart Way, Horsham, RH12 1XH. The afternoon session starts at 2:15.

You may see from the agenda that tickets are required, but I have checked and that only applies to the morning session, when fracking is on the agenda. It would be helpful if you can let me know if you are able to attend.

It should be an interesting debate and an opportunity to see who cares, and who does not care about public safety.

WEST SUSSEX FIRE CUTS WILL COST OVER 55 LIVES

On Friday, County Councillors will be debating cuts that are based on misleading information.

No additional deaths were mentioned in the consultation document. Even the technical report, only admitted to ‘3 extra dwelling fire fatalities in 100 years’, but other deaths are hidden in the statistics. The Cost Benefit analysis reveals that the total number of additional deaths will be 55. The figures below are taken from that document. The calculations were omitted from the document, so they have been added.

Fire appliance Deployment Strategy	Dwelling Fatalities	Other Building Fatalities	Special Service Fatalities (eg road crashes)
Base Case	3.873878	2.150886	47.700663
Total FFR Proposal	3.901706	2.206813	48.163136
Increase for one year	0.027828	0.055927	0.462473
Increase for 100 years	2.7828	5.5927	46.2473

That is a grand total of 55 extra deaths. The cuts at Midhurst and Petworth will only save about £21,000 each, but these alone will account for 22 of those deaths.

The final count may well be more, as extra deaths resulting from the reductions in wholetime crewing have not been calculated, and the fatality figures used in this and the previous technical document were, with one exception, inaccurate.

Instead of cutting the service, the County Council should be investigating why, when fire deaths are falling in England, they are rising in West Sussex. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13 there was an 11% drop in fire deaths in England (323 down to 289), but a 600% increase in West Sussex (1 up to 7).

The Chief Fire Officer’s claims that the number of incidents is falling in line with national trends is also misleading. There has been a 27% drop across England (717,805 to 521,222) in the same period, but West Sussex has only seen a 14% drop (11,047 to 9,504). The reduction for fires is also poor, down 38% for England (249,237 to 154,433), but only 20% for West Sussex (2,675 to 2,148).

No one who has seen through the false claims in the consultation document has supported the proposals. Not mentioned in that document, or at the forums, were the real effects - more loss of life, more property damage, longer response times, poorer performance, loss of flexibility, less effective crewing, and failing to match risk and performance. The consultation was a disgraceful sham.

Much has been claimed about moving from ‘just response’ to ‘more prevention’. These hollow claims are without substance and are made every time there are cuts. In 2003 the then Chief Fire Officer said they would be “changing the service emphasis from one of intervention to one of protection and prevention”. Yet deaths are now increasing and West Sussex is lagging well behind the rest of England.

Another illusion is that ‘emergency response services must reflect changing demands’. NOT TRUE, the number of calls fluctuate for a variety of reasons from year to year. Looking at change over 30 years, fires are about the same (down just 1%), but total incidents have increased by 45%, and non-fire emergencies have increased by 78%. Despite these increases, the proposals will see fire engines cut by a total of 24%. Those with more experience know that there is no changing demand that justifies fewer resources. It does not matter if it is a fire, road crash, chemical leak or flooding, they all require one or more fully equipped and fully crewed fire engines as quickly as possible.

Another false claim is that the Crawley cuts will mean “resources more proportionate to risk and performance”. NOT TRUE, Crawley is not being properly protected. 15% of all West Sussex incidents are in Crawley’s area, yet they will only have 6% of the county’s fire engines (cut from 11%). Worthing, which has fewer incidents, will have 9% of the county’s fire engines. To make matters worse, when Crawley’s two appliances are at a call, the nearest fire engine to reinforce them, or to attend second calls will be over 5 miles away. By contrast Worthing, with three fire engines, has reinforcements available within just 3 miles, and another about 5 miles away.

County Councillors have a duty to protect the people of West Sussex. They should reject these proposals and hold an inquiry in to why we have been deceived.