Deception, neglect of duty and more cuts from West Sussex County Councillors

Council Leader Louise Goldsmith

No apology from Louise Goldsmith for misleading Councillors

At the recent County Council meeting, Louise Goldsmith was rightly challenged on her false claim, at a select committee meeting, that “there are 35 fire engines ready to go out today”.

Councillor Michael Jones pointed out that a fire engine is only ready to go out when there are firefighters available to crew it. He said that the Integrated Risk Management Plan showed that, at the time she made the statement, it is likely there would have been less than 15 fire engines ready to go out.

Integrated Risk Management Plan 2018-22 (page 43)

He added that the document also showed there can be as few as 10 fire engines ready to respond, because of a lack of firefighters. In her bumbling response, during which she talked about ‘firemen’, not firefighters, she failed to apologise for misleading the committee. She then proceeded to blame the public for not coming forward to be on call (retained) firefighters, or “temporary firefighters” as she called them.

Now I have yet to find the section in the Fire & Rescue Service Act that says a fire authority can opt out of their statutory responsibilities, if the public are not attracted by the Council’s offer - You provide us with an average of 4,500 hours on call and we will pay you 52 pence an hour for your trouble! The County Council has a legal duty to provide an efficient fire & rescue service, but they are clearly failing to do so.

Louise Goldsmith’s appalling excuse - “if the retained people are not coming forward, they are not coming forward”, is simply an unacceptable neglect of duty.

County Councillor David Barling

More false claims from David Barling

It was even more astonishing when former Cabinet Member David Barling attempted to help his Leader by claiming there had been “no deletions of firefighter front line posts”. Not only did he vote to cut front line firefighter posts, including the deletion of all the on call firefighter posts at Crawley, he was the Cabinet Member that implemented the cuts. Louise Goldsmith then supported his misleading statement. It matters not if this was the result of deliberate deceit or simply incompetence, it is unacceptable.

These are the true figures:

	Wholetime	On-call (Retained)
2004	401	398
2018	319	213

(Source - Home Office and WSF&RS documents)

Louise Goldsmith and David Barling owe Councillors and the public an apology for continuing to mislead and make excuses. They also need to take urgent action to ensure proper protection for West Sussex residents all day, every day and they need to do it before lives and property are needlessly lost.

More cuts on the way

With Government reducing further the money they give the County Council, it seems that more fire & rescue service cuts are on the way. How much the service will have to cut and where the axe will fall has not been publicised. All we know for sure is that cuts cannot be made without further damaging the already fragile protection offered to residents.

It really is time that Louise Goldsmith and her Cabinet Member colleagues told Government that enough is enough. If they were truly concerned about protecting West Sussex residents that is what they would do, but as both the Council and Government are in Conservative hands, they prefer to put party preferences before public safety.

Surrey take over

There have been suggestions that a solution would be to merge West Sussex and Surrey’s fire & rescue services. Unfortunately, I think any savings from economies of scale may well be short lived, as the underlying problem is the inadequate and reducing funding from Government.

Surrey has a bigger population than West Sussex and relies more heavily on wholetime fire cover. There are 40% more wholetime firefighters in Surrey than in West Sussex and 56% less on call firefighters. Wholetime firefighter costs are the biggest cost, so cuts impact them the most, which is why wholetime crewed appliances are regularly taken off the run in Surrey.

I can see why a merger would benefit Surrey, but cannot see any benefit for West Sussex. Surrey County Council seem even less concerned with public safety than West Sussex, so allowing Surrey County Councillors to have a say on fire cover in West Sussex is not a wise move. My fear is that council tax payers in West Sussex would end up paying more to improve fire cover in Surrey, whilst cover in West Sussex deteriorates.

It is bad enough that the second wholetime crewed pumps at Crawley and Worthing are often moved to different parts of West Sussex to fill gaps in fire cover. A merger could see them spending nearly all their time providing cover in Surrey. West Sussex firefighters could also find themselves travelling long distances to help crew fire engines at Surrey stations on the fringes of London.

It would also significantly reduce the say that West Sussex residents would have on the running of the fire & rescue service, especially if representation on a combined authority reflected the respective populations. That would not be a merger, but a Surrey take over.

Such a merger won’t avoid cuts and could make things significantly worse.

Update - Louise Goldsmith and the Grenfell Tower Tragedy

Well the Council Leader did reply to my comment on her Blog.

Pulling together in a time of emergency

To save readers the time of switching to her Blog, here is her reply:

Fire services across the county have had to make savings and in West Sussex we haven't been immune to that. However we made sure where savings are made they are about increasing how efficient the service is. We are confident that our fire and rescue service is equipped to keep residents safe in their homes and on the roads. We have plans for investment in our fire service for the future to make sure they continue to be a modern fire service able to respond to the needs of the community.

Louise.

I have replied as follows:

Well I am grateful for your response, but sadly not at all reassured. Your confidence is quite surprising, as all the evidence following the cuts indicates that the fire and rescue service is now less able to keep residents safe.

Whilst it is true that County Council funding has been cut by a Government unconcerned with the effect that will have, WSCC still had choices. For political reasons, in previous years, you chose not to raise council tax to protect the fire & rescue service. As Council Leader you cannot pass the buck entirely to the Government.

I would urge you to reconsider your confidence. The designers of the Titanic were confident it would not sink. The Prime Minister was confident of a massive majority. I also suspect that, if asked a month ago, the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea would have said they were confident that the residents of Grenfell Tower were safe in their homes!

Louise Goldsmith and the Grenfell Tower Tragedy

Leader of the County Council, Louise Goldsmith, has commented on the Grenfell Tower tragedy in her blog - 

Pulling together in a time of emergency

I have posted a comment, but that needs to be approved before anyone can see it. Just in case it is censored, my comments are reproduced below:

"You are quite right that our emergency services pull together in a time of emergency. It is just a shame that you and your colleagues have made it harder for them to do that. If County Councillors pulled together to keep us safe, then the number of firefighters, fire engines and fire stations would not have been cut.

With fewer firefighters on each fire engine, they must take more risks, must work even harder, and will inevitably take longer to carry out the rescue, or fight the fire. With a 24% cut in fire crews, fire engines are taking longer to arrive, especially in rural areas and when several crews are needed. It is not good enough to praise them, whilst failing to provide them with the resources they need.

It is reassuring that high-rise buildings are now being inspected, but worrying that cuts have seen fewer regular fire safety inspections, especially where multiple lives may be at risk. If politicians learn anything from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, I hope it is that more thought is given when considering what may seem like mundane funding decisions. The wrong decisions made in a safe committee room can later have the most tragic consequences for the very people the politicians should be protecting.   

For the record, it is London Fire Brigade, not London Fire and Rescue Service."

Is "Safer in our hands" just rhetoric?

Over the past week, we have seen a number of fires that have stretched the inadequately resourced fire & rescue service in West Sussex. 

Four fire engines were required in Lancing, and they had to come from Shoreham, Worthing, Storrington and East Sussex.

Six fire engines were needed at a fire in Billingshurst, and they came from Horsham, Worthing, Storrington, Partridge Green, Crawley and Arundel.

Overlapping that call was a fire in Crawley Down, which also needed six fire engines. They came from East Grinstead and Burgess Hill, plus four from Surrey Fire & Rescue Service. 

A vehicle fire in Pulborough was apparently dealt with by a crew from East Wittering, who were at Storrington to cover a shortage of local crews. Firefighters being taken from the communities they joined to protect, to protect others many miles away is sadly now a daily occurrence. 

Today we have a major fire at Selsey requiring at least ten fire engines. We don't yet know where they have come from, but the local grapevine in Selsey is rife with complaints about how long it took for the fire service to arrive. This suggests that the Selsey fire engine did not have a crew, or was otherwise unavailable. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Chichester were the first crew to arrive, that Arundel were the third and that there are four crews there from Hampshire. 

As I say, the Selsey information is as yet unconfirmed, but given West Sussex County Council's neglect of the service I would not be surprised if the information turns out to be correct. Will we ever get full details? Possibly, but there has been an increasing reluctance to give details that may inform the public of the inadequate protection they are getting. 

So what do we get from West Sussex County Council. We get press releases about "Hundreds pledge support to council’s campaign to keep fire service". Sadly ironic when you consider that West Sussex County Council rejected a petition, signed by 'thousands' last year, asking them not to cut the fire & rescue service. 

There is no evidence yet that the service will be safer under the Police & Crime Commissioner's control, but West Sussex County Council's record is far from good. They have closed fire stations, cut a quarter of the County's fire engines, failed to improve crewing of those that remain, and are failing to meet response times for one in four serious incidents. 

Government figures, released this week, also show that the number of people who died in house fires in West Sussex increased last year, as did the total number of incidents attended. 

It does not matter how many people support West Sussex County Council's campaign, as the final decision will be taken by the Home Secretary. Unless Louise Goldsmith drops her meaningless rhetoric about "we know it delivers the very best for our communities", and replaces it with evidence that they can meet the government's objectives, I fear the Police & Crime Commissioner will get her way.

Secret West Sussex & Unprofessional Fire Service Opinion

West Sussex County Council seem intent on becoming ever more secretive. At last Friday’s County Council meeting it became clear that the public and press can no longer see which way Councillors vote. Under the guise of ‘modernisation’, instead of raising their hands to vote, Councillors now press a button. Not only has this become a secret vote, but how can anyone be sure the voting is not rigged.

County Councillor Sandra James asked about the Council’s response to the Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service cuts consultation – you remember, the one the Council Leader said they would not be commenting on. She also asked how they analysed the impact of the Hampshire cuts on West Sussex before submitting their views.

She was told that the Council did not respond, but the Fire & Rescue Service did. So despite the responsibility for fire cover in West Sussex resting with Councillors (they are the Fire Authority), they had no say in the official response that was put together in secret.

They claim this was a “professional opinion” from the F&RS, but exactly how professional was it?

The reply said that “on many occasions, a crew of two will be perfectly adequate”. Yet WSF&RS has previously carried out a detailed professional analysis to determine the absolute minimum number of firefighters to safely and effectively deal with any incident. The result - FOUR firefighters!

Councillor James also asked how much longer it will take to get four firefighters to minor calls and nine firefighters to building fires, as determined by the analysis. They claim to have carried out ‘what if’ modelling scenarios, including estimated attendance times, but refused to give any details.

They refused to provide Councillor James with previous response times to the area, as they said it would take too long to compile. Not only more secrecy, but it also means they have no base level for comparison.

Most telling of all, they admitted they don’t “have a full understanding of the mobilisation criteria, vehicle equipment and capabilities that HFRS are proposing.” 

Their so called ‘professional opinion’ is not only lacking any evidence to support it, but it also contradicts their detailed professional analysis on minimum crewing. 

So why did the Chief Fire Officer support the Hampshire cuts? Perhaps he would rather blindly support a fellow Chief Fire Officer, instead of prioritising the safety of people in West Sussex.

Final Hampshire proposals will seriously affect West Sussex fire cover

I must first apologise for the lack of posts on this blog. Things have been going on in the background, but health issues and other demands have limited my computer time.

I have just seen the final Hampshire proposals and it seems no notice has been taken of concerns and views expressed by West Sussex residents. The proposals go to the Fire Authority meeting on 24 February. As they will affect West Sussex they are:

Emsworth - Downgraded to a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 12 to 9.

Grayshott - Downgraded to a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 12 to 8.

Havant - Downgraded to an Enhanced Vehicle and a First response vehicle (Wholetime shift strength cut from 7 to 4, and RDS cut from 12 to 10).

Horndean - Downgraded to an Intermediate vehicle. Firefighters cut from 12 to 11.

Liphook - Downgraded to a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 12 to 9.

Petersfield - Downgraded to an Enhanced Vehicle and a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 20 to 15.

Waterlooville - Downgraded to an Enhanced Vehicle and a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 20 to 14.

In summary – 10 Pumps cut to just 3, with 1 Intermediate vehicle and 6 First response vehicles. 

Currently crewed by 40 to 60 firefighters. In future crewed by 26 to 47 firefighters.

Despite the West Sussex County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith saying that they would not comment on the proposals, as "we just don't do that", they did submit a response to the consultation supporting the Hampshire proposals!