This blog is aimed at highlighting the effect of cuts to West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service.
Friday, 25 December 2015
Thanks and seasons greetings
Just wanted to say a big thank you to all who have supported the campaign to protect West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service from such damaging and unnecessary cuts. I also want to wish you all a very safe and happy Christmas.
Saturday, 12 December 2015
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.
Friday, 11 December 2015
County Council efforts to hide Fire & Rescue Service problems continue
I would first like to thank all those who signed the “Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West
Sussex” petition, and those who helped collect signatures. More than 3,700 people signed and 3,349 were considered
valid by the County Council. This was sufficient to require a debate at the
County Council meeting today.
Whilst I was not
surprised that they did not reverse the cuts, I was shocked by the appalling
attitude of the Cabinet Member, David Barling. After I spoke he said, “that was
the biggest piece of disinformation I have ever heard in this chamber”. Quite
ironic, as virtually every statistic came from West Sussex Fire & Rescue
Service and was obtained from their documents, Government documents or via
Freedom of Information requests. You can read what I said below, and I am sure
those in the know will recognise the accuracy of my presentation.
He also strongly
opposed a proposal from Councillor Andy Petch, to establish a Task Group to
consider the concerns, review the evidence and report back to the Cabinet Member.
If he was so confident that his cuts were right, then he would surely have
welcomed a review of the situation. So his negative response has only fuelled concerns
that the fire & rescue service is in crisis.
Independent, Liberal Democrat, Labour and UKIP Councillors
all spoke in support of a Task Group, but the Conservative Councillors forgot the public, fell
in to line, and voted to prevent effective scrutiny. The proposal was lost 41 votes against, to 20 for, with 1 abstention.
Presentation before the debate
I took up this cause because I care about the fire service
and I care about West Sussex. This petition, with well over 3,000 signatures
shows that the public also care deeply about their fire service. I spoke to
over six hundred people when collecting signatures and only one percent
declined to sign. Many who did sign expressed their shock that you were even
contemplating these cuts.
The issue of fire service cuts has been dogged by false
claims and half-truths. The result being that Councillors and the public were
misled in to believing cuts could be achieved without damaging the service.
Councillor
Rae, who led the review group, insisted that computer modelling showed 3 extra
deaths in 100 years, when it was actually 55 extra deaths. Not his fault, as he
had been misinformed. Shameful claims during the consultation that the
service had ‘significantly
reduced the number of people killed in fires’. Yet, comparing the 5 years before
2009, when the Chief Officer came to West Sussex, to the next five years, that
‘significant reduction’ was actually a 200% increase.
Then there’s
the fraud that less calls mean you need less fire engines and firefighters. We’re
not talking about a 24-hour supermarket needing lots of staff during the day on
Saturday, but very few at 2 am. The need for 10, 50, or a 100 firefighters can arise
at any time of the day, and on any day of the year. You don’t cut your
insurance, because your neighbours have made fewer claims. It is equally
ridiculous to cut the number of fire crews, and make people wait longer for
help to arrive.
You’ve been
misinformed about Gatwick. You, the Fire Authority, are legally responsible for
providing fire & rescue service response to emergencies at the airport. Their
private fire service is only responsible for first response to a crashed
aircraft at the airport. They depend on your firefighters arriving quickly to
rescue survivors, and they have no responsibility for any other emergencies at
the airport, that is entirely your responsibility.
I do
sympathise with
Councillors. You can’t hope to
make proper decisions if you aren’t given accurate information. I’ve even received
figures that differed to ones given to you, and I was astonished to be told
that mine were correct and yours were not. The Council’s Leader wants
the Council to be open and transparent, but her fire & rescue service is
clearly not on message. Even Councillors seem unable to get reliable information.
Cabinet Members say that Chief Officers are their professional
advisers and they have to accept their advice, but that means there is no
effective oversight or scrutiny? Something
recently confirmed by the National Audit Office who criticised the lack of
independent monitoring for the fire & rescue service.
There have been too many decisions that seem to defy common
sense:
- New retained firefighter contracts that discourage increased availability,
with the result that less fire engines are available.
- Failure to engage with local communities, councils and businesses to
address retained recruiting problems.
- Failure to take opportunities for savings through mergers and
cooperation with others.
- A Crewing Optimisation Group that is not available for all occasions
when there are crewing shortages.
- Cuts so deep that excessive amounts of overtime are needed just to maintain
minimum crewing.
- Frequent minimum crewing that restricts the tactics crews can employ
at incidents.
- A shortage of personnel that restricts effective training, undermines
essential skills and results in qualifications lapsing.
- Vulnerable people, who have automatic alarms as they are less likely
to be able to escape a fire unaided, no longer get a full response of two
fire crews to rescue them.
- Aircraft at Gatwick carry many more passengers, potentially hundreds
of people in need of rescue, but the response to the most serious alert
has been cut from 10 to 6 fire engines.
- The Heavy Rescue Tender is essential if there is a crash, but this
is no longer sent to the airport. Even worse, when both Crawley’s fire
engines respond to the alert, incredibly, no one is left to crew the Heavy
Rescue Tender.
- Midhurst firefighters have a large rural area with many narrow lanes
and tracks. For over 60 years they have had a Land Rover sized vehicle to
access areas that a fire engine can’t. Now, not only have they been given
the biggest fire engine they’ve ever had, but the Land Rover is to be replaced
with that cumbersome vehicle you saw at your last meeting. Although apparently,
it can’t actually be used as, despite being built to your requirements, it
is overweight on the front axle.
I read recently that the Council leader had called Government
plans for local welfare assistance “a cut too far.” She is quite
right, but this Council’s cuts to our fire & rescue service are also, very
much, a cut too far. They need to be reversed before lives are lost.
Summing up after the debate
Mr Barling’s approach was a little unfortunate, but I do
sympathise with him, he’s again been misinformed. Just take the 55 extra deaths
that you were told to ignore, that came from your computer modelling of the
effects, not just fire deaths, but deaths in road crashes, because of the extra
time it takes the fire service to get there. They are proper figures, they can
all be checked and I wish you would check them. Most of the figures have come
from the Government and most of the figures the Government have got came from West
Sussex Fire & Rescue Service.
West Sussex once had a fire service the equal of any in the
country. Now it’s a sorry shadow of its former self. Firefighters are just as
committed to the task, but cuts have seen the service coming ‘top’ for all the
wrong reasons. Most fire deaths and injuries per head of population in the
southeast, worst response times in the southeast and so on.
Since 1948 the County Council has been prudent with regard
to fire service funding. Never excessive, always just enough to ensure an
effective response anywhere in the County. Until 2010 that is, when the first
cuts began to reduce the service’s effectiveness and then, earlier this year,
more severe cuts that resulted in the worst protection for the people of West
Sussex since before 1939.
It’s been suggested that the service’s management team are happy
with these cuts, but let’s consider their motivation. Is it in their interest
to tell you that they can’t make savings without affecting the service
provided? Is it in their interest to confess that cuts are causing problems? It
would take a very brave man to tell the current Council Leader that.
We hear a lot about prevention, but prevention is not new. Efforts
to stop fires occurring pre-date organised fire services. Trading one off
against the other is never the answer. Does prevention save lives? Well we hope
so, but there is no evidence to confirm that. Yet there is ample evidence that
response times have a direct effect on the number of lives saved.
The risk of needing to be rescued from a fire, flood or
crash remains for all of us. No amount of prevention will remove that risk,
after all even the Chief Fire Officer recently discovered he had a faulty tumble
dryer in his home that posed a serious fire risk.
In a recent YouGov survey, 95% of the public consider a
rapid response from the fire service a high priority. The cuts have seriously jeopardised
that rapid response, especially in rural areas. It is time for that rapid
response to again become the number one priority.
Professional firefighters are telling you that the cuts have
bitten too deep, the public is telling you that they don’t want these cuts, so
please don’t bury your heads in the sand.
Please take a detailed look at these concerns, seek reliable,
independent evidence and then provide the funding to restore a truly safe and effective
fire & rescue service for the people of West Sussex.
Saturday, 5 December 2015
Response to the 2015 Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority Consultation
The Hampshire proposals will have a significant effect on West Sussex, so I have responded to the consultation as follows:
This response should not be edited or
altered and should be presented to Fire and Rescue Authority Members as
submitted. This and other submissions should be made available for the public
to read on the Fire and Rescue Authority website.
Provision of Information
It is disappointing that some of the
information in the consultation document, and that provided at the consultation
meetings, was inaccurate or misleading. Both also sadly lacked sufficient
detail to support the case for change.
The Chairman’s claim that there has been a
52% reduction in fire related incidents is misleading. No timeframe for the
claim is given, so it cannot be substantiated, and it ignores the fact that the
number has both increased and decreased over time. The area covered by the
current Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service now responds to three times the
number of emergencies that they did in the 1950s.
Even recent trends show a significantly
smaller reduction in fires than claimed. Had a more accurate five year average
figure been used for fires in the home (dwellings), which are of the greatest
concern to most people, the reduction since 2000/2001 would have been significantly
lower.
The Chief Fire Officer’s claim that “we
refuse to compromise the safety of Hampshire residents or our firefighters and
our response to emergency incidents”, is deliberately misleading spin. The
proposals will clearly compromise safety and response. Inadequately crewed
vehicles and longer waits for an effective response can only increase the risk
to residents and firefighters, and will therefore compromise their safety.
The incident figures shown in the document for
fire stations are wholly misleading. To provide a fair and accurate guide to
the activity of fire stations, all incident responses should have been shown.
Omitting incidents attended in other station areas, in other counties, as
relief crews and as standby crews is dishonest. The excuses that the public
would not understand, and that it would be ‘double counting’, are insulting and
without merit.
The claims made for improved response times
at each station are dishonest, as the criteria has been changed. Current
response times are based on a fire engine with at least four firefighters, but
the estimates for after the proposed changes are based on just two firefighters
arriving on a different vehicle. It is only a fair comparison if the estimates
are based on the arrival of at least four firefighters. Had that been done
response times would have been significantly worse.
A recent YouGov poll showed that 95% of the
public feel that rapid response must be a high priority for the fire &
rescue service. There is no doubt that they were thinking of an effective
response with enough firefighters to rescue them, not just a crew of two who
can only stand and wait for help to arrive from further away.
There is a complete lack of detail on the
planned new vehicles, which seriously undermines any claims made for their
effectiveness. It is not sufficient, when proposing such major changes, to be
told, “we expect”, “we believe”, and “we hope”! Hard evidence is required
before such far reaching proposals are accepted and that is sadly lacking.
One of the most significant flaws, as the
proposals and claims largely depend on it, is that new technology can enable an
effective response with fewer firefighters. This is not only lacking in
evidence to support the contention, but all the evidence that is available contradicts
the claims and therefore undermines the proposals.
The manufacturers of the high pressure
lance have many years of reports from fire services that use their equipment. Peter
Oom at Cold Cut systems, the Swedish Manufacturer, has confirmed that none of
them record a life being saved by using this technology - “I don’t have any
confirmed cases where the cobra has saved lives, neither fire fighters or
victims”. He also confirms the equipment can be hazardous to people inside a
burning building - “the jet can be potentially harmful if sprayed (certainly
with abrasive on) at a close distance”. I asked for copies of training notes, presentations,
and any research documentation, but have had no reply. Had there been evidence
I am sure I would have been sent it, but it appears that there is no hard
evidence, just speculation and theories.
The only reports that mention lifesaving refer
to firefighters, wearing breathing apparatus, completing rescues before the high
pressure lance was used. So the claim by HF&RS that it can be used to save
lives is without foundation. It is also clear from the reports that on many
occasions breathing apparatus wearers had to be deployed to use the high
pressure lance. To comply with safe working practices for breathing apparatus,
at least four firefighters must be present if used externally, and at least
nine firefighters if breathing apparatus is to be worn inside a building.
The high pressure lance only offers
benefits if it is available as an addition to the equipment already carried on
fire engines. In the right circumstances, and with no lives in danger, it may
be useful, but in other circumstances different equipment and procedures will
be more suitable and effective. In addition to being unsuitable at fires where
rescue is required, it is also unsuitable for slow burning fires, where there
is lots of smoke but little heat, where the room on fire does not have an external
wall, and for fires in the open, or where the roof has already vented.
Contrary to claims by HF&RS this
technology is not new and it is not widely used. Where it is used it is mostly
as an addition to the equipment on standard fire engines. Even where it is
fitted there is no evidence of frequent use. With the majority of UK, European
and worldwide fire services not using it, and those who do have it only using
it rarely, the real evidence suggests that HF&RS claims about its
capabilities are little more than wishful thinking.
No safe systems of work exist for crews of
less than four firefighters, and there is no evidence to support the contention
that they can be developed. The Health & Safety Executive have previously
made clear that systems of work, which prevent employees from completing tasks
unless they ignore safety instructions, are unacceptable. These proposals will
place firefighters in situations where their instructions will be to not
act until support arrives, yet the pressure to act will be enormous. They will
face unacceptable moral and public pressure to ignore safe working practices,
and will inevitably be compelled to take unacceptable risks. It would be wrong,
morally and legally, for Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority to put their
employees in that position.
Response Times & Risk
The questions in this section are
misleading and the claim that response times will be improved and risk reduced
are false.
The Fire & Rescue Service claim, that
response times will improve, is based primarily on reducing the minimum crew on
a fire engine from four to two, thus increasing the theoretical speed of
response. Yet this will inevitably increase the risk to firefighters and it will
increase the time taken for an effective response to arrive. That is especially
so where rescue is required. The proposals will significantly increase the potential
for loss of life at fires and at other incidents where people are trapped, such
as road crashes, where time is of the essence.
Reducing the number of Retained
firefighters at each station will also increase the number of occasions when
only two firefighters are available, thus increasing the number of times an
effective response is delayed. Common sense says that with up to a third fewer
firefighters, the number actually available at various times will decrease, which
will make overall availability worse. It will also result in many more
occasions not even two firefighters will be available. Consequently response
times will rise, not fall.
Retained firefighters are also likely to
feel unreasonably exposed to risk and public criticism when only two of them are
sent to emergencies. There is a significant risk that this will result in more
of them resigning and of it becoming more difficult to recruit. Especially so when
the inevitable complaints of firefighters ‘not doing enough’, or ‘refusing to
go in’, are highlighted by the media.
Costs and Efficiency
The inference is that the proposals will
increase efficiency, but they will not. There is no evidence in the
documentation that the changes will be efficient or effective.
Experience in other Fire & Rescue
Services suggest that initially reduced costs may quickly rise, as overtime and
retained firefighter payments increase to cover crewing problems. Problems created
by cutting the overall number of firefighters too severely.
The safe minimum of nine firefighters
required at a building fire is now usually met with two fire engines from one
or two fire stations. With minimum crews of two, that may rise to as many as
five vehicles from five different fire stations. Not only increasing response
times, with longer travel distances, but increasing travel costs and the cost
of extra hours for retained firefighters on longer journeys.
Larger incidents will also see many more
vehicles needed from a much wider area than they do now. That is neither
efficient nor effective, and it will also leave significantly more areas
without effective fire cover. References to standby moves at the consultation
meetings was misleading, as they do not increase fire cover. Every standby move
involves reducing fire cover somewhere else. As more and more fire engines are
committed to the incident, the remaining ones are just spread out to provide a
reduced level of fire cover across a bigger area. The more that are committed
to a major incident, or to simultaneous incidents, then the thinner the fire
cover becomes.
Vehicles
The concept of different vehicles for
different incidents is fundamentally flawed.
A properly equipped and crewed fire engine
can be sent to any call and the crew can begin to take effective action every
time. That provides full flexibility and ensures that, if the initial report is
inaccurate, then nothing is lost. Members of the public, especially when
stressed, do not always give accurate information on the nature or seriousness
of the incident. Similarly, automatic alarms do not give any indication of how
serious a fire is.
In many areas the proposal is that smaller vehicles,
that have yet to be designed, will be sent to all incidents. It is claimed that
this will be adequate for 70% of calls. This also means that it will be inadequate
for at least 30% of the most serious and life threatening emergencies. No evidence
is provided to support the Fire & Rescue Service’s claim that these
vehicles will be adequate for the other 70% of calls, so they could actually be
inadequate for 40%, 50% or even more.
Sending crews of just two or three to incidents,
in the full knowledge that they will not be able to cope with at least 30% of
serious incidents, is reckless.
Over many years, in different UK fire
services, there have been several experiments involving the replacement of
standard fire engines with smaller vehicles. All of them have ended in failure,
with the smaller vehicle ultimately being replaced with a proper fire engine.
The only exception is in locations with severe access difficulties, where
smaller vehicles are provided and crewed in addition to, not in place of, standard
fire engines. There is nothing in these proposals to suggest that this large
scale experiment will be any more successful.
Claims, made at the consultation meetings,
that firefighters will be able to decide what equipment they want on these new
vehicles are deceitful. If the vehicles are smaller it is obvious that many
requests from professional firefighters will be refused, because there is no
room on the vehicle, or because it will overload it.
It is also a nonsense to talk about
different areas needing differently equipped vehicles. The fundamental
equipment needed at a fire, at a road crash, for flooding or for other
emergencies is the same. It does not matter if that is in the centre of a city
or on a remote farm. Also, at busy times, and for major incidents crews can
find themselves in any area, so the flawed concept would then result in crews having
the wrong equipment for the area they have been sent to.
The concept of standard fire engines
carrying equipment that enables them to tackle, or begin to tackle, any
emergency, supported by specialised equipment carried on support vehicles where
necessary, has withstood the test of time. Not just in the UK, but across the
World. Significant evidence would need to be provided to justify a departure
from such sound practice. There is no such evidence in the consultation
documentation.
Fire Station Crewing
The concept of crewing fire stations with
differing numbers of firefighters according to type, number and timing of
incidents is seriously flawed. Incidents of any type, and of any severity or
scale, can occur anywhere and at any time. It is complete nonsense to propose
that some will be better and more quickly resourced than others.
An incident that requires five, nine,
twenty, fifty or a hundred firefighters, will need that number no matter where
or when it occurs. This is not about a supermarket that knows when their busy
periods are and varies their staffing accordingly. This is a lifesaving service
that needs to be able to respond to any emergency, at any time, and anywhere.
It is seriously concerning that the
proposals to have less firefighters available is at times when the risk to life
and the potential for more serious incidents is greatest. It is simply reckless
to reduce the effectiveness and speed of the response at times when people are
most vulnerable.
Council Tax
As a resident of West Sussex, who will be
affected by the Hampshire changes, I support a rise in Council Tax in West
Sussex to increase payments to Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service to maintain
the status quo.
It is clear that West Sussex Fire &
Rescue Service has not been fairly contributing towards the cost of support
from Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service. Less than £300 per incident,
irrespective of the number of firefighters and fire engines attending from Hampshire,
is wholly inadequate. With a significant area of West Sussex dependent on
Hampshire support, consideration should be given to an arrangement where West
Sussex pays a fair share of the actual operating costs for Hampshire fire
stations that provide first response in to West Sussex.
The additional payment should be such that
the current provision can be maintained at Emsworth, Havant, Horndean,
Petersfield and Liphook fire stations.
Proposals for Each Fire Station
This section is divisive, unfair and
improper.
Quite rightly West Sussex views are not
being accepted on Hampshire Council Tax increases. At the consultation meetings
people were also told that it would be improper to trade one station’s cuts off
against another’s, yet this trades one council area’s cuts off against another’s.
The responses to the questions for each
district cannot be evaluated fairly. The majority of people responding will
only be directly affected by changes in their areas, so they will be unfairly
inclined to oppose those, whilst supporting proposals that do not directly
affect them.
In addition, the numbers of people affected
by each proposal are not the same. Some districts have more than double the
population of others, which will also distort the responses.
These concerns apply even more to the
question about options for Andover, Gosport, Havant and Winchester. Only people
living in those areas should have been permitted to respond to the specific
question for their community.
Equality
These proposals unfairly discriminate
against the more significant effects 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 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. Yet the proposals will have
the most detrimental effect on the very rural areas that these people live in.
Information about you
I do not work for
Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service, but served in the fire service for 32
years. I was subsequently a local authority emergency planner working with all
agencies at local, regional and national levels until 2014. Before, during and
since my fire service career I have studied fire service management,
procedures, equipment and operations around the World. My comments are
therefore based on a sound and extensive understanding of the fire service and
of current threats and hazards.
The other questions in this section are
irrelevant to the consultation. To demonstrate equality, you need to show that you
have ensured that all sectors of the community have had the opportunity to
respond to the consultation. That is not demonstrated by asking for personal
details of only those who actually respond.
Saturday, 17 October 2015
Good and bad news from the County Council meeting
I had hoped to watch the live broadcast of the County
Council meeting on Friday, but apparently there was a technical problem and
they did not broadcast it. I have however had some feedback on the meeting from various people.
I was particularly interested in the meeting as the agenda included
a motion on keeping control of the Fire & Rescue Service and opposing
government plans to pass control to the Police & Crime Commissioner. It
appears that even the Conservative Councillors realise the proposals are
ridiculous.
Councillors were also shown Midhurst’s new fire engine and the new 6x6 vehicle.
No doubt they were told how wonderful the vehicles were and of course they
would not know anything different, just that these were two shiny new vehicles.
I am sure the Scania fire engine is fine, but I suspect it is the biggest fire engine ever
allocated to Midhurst. The extra water and equipment will I am sure prove
useful, but there are a lot of narrow roads on their patch, which may create
problems. As for the 6x6, well for an ill-conceived, poorly planned vehicle
that is unlikely to perform any of its various roles well, I am sure it looked
clean.
Worryingly it seems that Cabinet Member David Barling thinks
that availability in the Mid Sussex area is good. Councillor Andy Petch had
submitted a request for some statistics about fire cover in his area.
That ‘good’ availability only averages 94% for 3 of the 8 fire engines (one each at Burgess Hill, East Grinstead and Haywards Heath). For the other five fire engines the average is just 42%. So unlike other parts of West Sussex, not one with 100% availability. Goodness only knows how bad
things would have to get for Mr Barling to think there was a problem.
It also appears that they could not answer some questions
for lack of records and others took a very long time to compile. Bearing in
mind that this was basic performance information, you have to ask if the
Council is monitoring the fire & rescue service at all. One of the big
issues recently has been fire engines being moved to other areas for standby, because
of crewing problems. Clearly when they are retained (part-time) crewed pumps there is a
significant cost, but they clearly do not monitor that cost, because they have
no records of those standbys.
At the February meeting Councillors were told, in written
answers, that availability and response time failures would be published
monthly. They have not been and perhaps the answers, and non-answers, that Councillor
Petch received gives a clue to their reluctance to publish them. Not only are
the availability figures poor, but it seems that just in the Mid Sussex area
over six months, there have been ten failures to meet the response times for
critical fires and fifteen failures for critical special services. There have
also been 35 requests for East Sussex appliances to attend incidents in Mid
Sussex.
No wonder they don’t like people asking questions.
Incidentally, this is what they are replacing the Land Rover at Midhurst with. The Land Rover they use to go off road, to access narrow paths, to negotiate tight turns, to cross uneven ground, to cross light weight bridges etc. I cannot see this doing it anywhere near as well as the Land Rover or the Steyr Puch Super G's currently in service.
Wednesday, 14 October 2015
How many firefighters should be on a fire engine
West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service has just launched a much needed recruitment campaign for Retained (Part time) Firefighters with an excellent video. In it they show exactly how many firefighters should be in the rear cab of a fully crewed fire engine. Sadly that does not reflect today's reality, and it certainly does not reflect Hampshire Fire Authority's proposed cuts, which will also affect parts of West Sussex.
Labels:
cuts,
fire engine,
Hampshire,
rescue,
West Sussex,
WSFRS
Saturday, 26 September 2015
Deciphering the Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service Proposals (Cuts)
In case anyone is in danger of being seduced by the
reassuring platitudes in the cynically named “Planning for a safer Hampshire”, or
the sound bites from Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service officers, here are some
facts.
THEY SAY
|
THE TRUTH
|
Response times will stay the same or improve
|
A deception, as the current response time is for proper
fire engines with crews of at least four firefighters. Future response times
will often be for a converted van with just two firefighters. The response
time for a proper fire engine, with a proper crew, will be significantly
longer for incidents right across Hampshire.
|
Smaller vehicles can deal with 70% of incidents
|
They have not mentioned that the 30% that they cannot
deal with will be the most serious and most life threatening incidents. They
don’t mention that full crews on proper fire engines can deal with, or
initiate significant action at, 100% of calls. They don’t mention that calls
from the public do not always report the nature of the emergency accurately,
and they do not always report its severity properly. Firefighters arriving in
response to a call to a rubbish or a chimney fire can find it is actually a building
on fire.
|
We refuse to compromise the safety of Hampshire
residents
|
Fine words, but they have to be compromising safety by
replacing fully equipped and crewed fire engines with inferior vehicles and
inadequate crews. They must also be compromising safety by increasing
response times for a response that is capable of dealing with incidents.
|
We refuse to compromise the safety of our firefighters
|
The proposals represent an appalling breach of trust
on the part of fire & rescue service managers. By sending an inferior
vehicle, carrying just two firefighters, they know that at some point those
firefighters will be faced with an impossible dilemma. The choice between
helping the distraught parents of trapped children, by entering a burning
building to try and save them, or of following fire & rescue service
instructions and waiting until more firefighters arrive from the next town.
Any self-respecting firefighter will take the extra risk to try and save a
life and managers know that. Yet they are cynically creating a situation
where, if the firefighters succeed they will be praised, but if not they will
be condemned for breaking the rules. That is a disgrace.
|
We are committed to being one of the best fire &
rescue services in the country
|
They say that because they know it sounds reassuring.
However, the best fire & rescue services in the country have proper fire
engines with five or six firefighters on each. Hampshire will mostly have
converted vans with just two firefighters on them, so they know they have no
chance of achieving this commitment
|
It’s really important that we meet the needs of the
communities of Hampshire
|
It is important, but they know they cannot, or will
not do that. They say it to deceive people in to thinking that they will
listen to what the public want. They know most people will want proper fire
engines with full crews, but they have no intention of providing that to
everyone. Many communities will end up with a second or third class service.
|
Ensuring that we match resources to the risks
|
The risk of people losing their lives in a fire or
accident, or of losing their home or business, exists in every part of Hampshire.
No matter where they live, people deserve the same level of resources coming
to their aid quickly. Unfortunately the fire & rescue service are
ignoring the real risk and cutting resources. The most severe cuts are in
rural areas where the risk to the individual is actually greater, because it
already takes firefighters longer to get there. Just because calls are less
frequent in those areas, as there are fewer people, does not reduce the risk
to those people. The risk of death for people in rural areas and across Hampshire
at night will increase if these proposals are implemented.
|
There has been a significant reduction in the number
of emergency incidents attended
|
They did not increase resources when the number of
incidents doubled, trebled and even quadrupled, but they are dishonestly
using the recent reduction to justify cuts. Even though there are still twice
as many calls as in the 1950s and 1960s, when there were more fire engines
and more firefighters available. No fire service has ever decided how many
fire engines to provide, and where they should be based, simply on the number
of calls expected. Those decisions have always been taken to ensure that fire
engines can reach anywhere quickly, and so that larger fires and simultaneous
incidents can be properly resourced.
|
The latest technology to save lives and protect
property across Hampshire.
|
They know that it is firefighters that save lives, not
technology, but technology sounds impressive. They hope that people will not
realise that cutting crew sizes will endanger public and firefighter lives.
|
A smaller vehicle that could make a hole in the wall
of a burning room, and we would be able to pump water in straight away. This
would make it safer for people inside
|
The equipment has its uses, but the claim that it will
help save lives is a deception. The high pressure, abrasive lance, which cuts
through concrete, is actually hazardous to people inside. The manufacturers
have many years of reports on the effectiveness of their equipment from fire
services across Europe. They have confirmed that none of those reports
records people inside, or firefighter lives being saved with this equipment.
They also don’t mention that responsible fire services add this equipment to
their fire engines, so that crews have a range of options available to them.
They don’t stick it on vans as a substitute for proper fire engines.
|
Our standard fire engines (with crews of four to six
firefighters) are not always the most appropriate response
|
They are the most appropriate response, because they
can cope with whatever they find when they arrive. Unfortunately, they want
to gamble with firefighter and public safety by sending vehicles with less
water, equipment and firefighters that will often prove to be totally
inadequate for the incident they are faced with.
|
We propose to introduce four crewing models to
effectively match the risk of our stations
|
They misuse the term ‘risk’, when they are actually
talking about frequency of calls. If your home catches fire in a busy station
area, you may get a proper fire engine with five firefighters on it arriving
quickly, but if it catches fire in a quieter station area you may just get a
van with two firefighters on it. But don’t worry, they will be able to hold
your hand whilst you all wait for a proper fire engine to arrive from a fire
station further away.
|
More staff on duty when we need them, and less during
the periods of lower activity
|
Periods of lower activity require exactly the same
number of firefighters to attend incidents, as they do during busy periods.
They want you to think that, miraculously, incidents are somehow less severe
during periods of lower activity. They are not. In fact they are often more
severe in the quiet early hours, because no one sees the fire until it
becomes a serious one, so more resources are required, not less.
|
Incident statistics
|
The incident figures shown for each station are quite misleading,
as they do not show the actual workload for each fire station. They don’t
show calls to standby at other stations, relief crew calls, or calls in to
neighbouring counties. They also don’t show the community safety and
prevention work that the crews do. Emsworth for example are shown as
attending 66 incidents in 2013/14. No over the border incidents are shown,
yet in 2014/15 Emsworth attended 55 incidents in West Sussex. They also
provided cover at West Sussex fire stations on 19 occasions.
|
Wednesday, 23 September 2015
County Councillors again try to ignore Fire & Rescue Service concerns
Once again County Councillor Margaret Evans, tried to stop
me speaking during the “tell us your concerns” section of the Chichester South
County Local Committee meeting last evening. My concern – the effect on parts
of West Sussex of Hampshire Fire Authority cuts. I refused to be bullied and
reminded her that this is a matter that directly affects people in the
Committee’s area.
After explaining the dangers for West Sussex residents, I
asked a question, “Following the closure of Bosham fire station, the
reduction of fire engines in West Sussex from 46 to 35, and the 7% increase in
building fires in West Sussex last year, how will you, as County Councillors, ensure
that there is adequate protection for the Chichester South area, if Hampshire
cuts go ahead?”
Her answer - Well I am not a fire officer, so that would
have to be up to the fire officer, so I can’t really deal with that.
Leader of the Council, Louise Goldsmith, then said, “May I
also suggest that we do not comment on other authorities, because we just don’t
do that.” She later said, “Our Chief Fire Officer advises us accordingly, and
as a professional we take his advice”.
They both also insisted that I should respond direct to the
Hampshire consultation. Fortunately though there were some voices of reason and
concern at the meeting.
County Councillor Sandra James said, “It’s pretty
outrageous, as I sit on this panel, to listen to the leader and the chair say
it’s not our business. She spoke about how important Emsworth and Havant fire
crews were to the people in her division. She also asked for the Chief Fire
Officer to provide her with the information she had requested, and for a link
to the Hampshire consultation to be provided on the West Sussex County Council
website.
She received no answer from the Chairman or the Council
Leader to the first question, and it also became clear that they are not going
to put a link on their website. The Chairman of Westbourne Parish Council, who
said they are just one metre from Hampshire, pointed out that other parishes
are unaware of the “serious changes that will have dire effects on our
families”. His call for a link on the West Sussex website was also ignored.
So what does this say about the ruling group on the County
Council?
1. They ignore their legal
responsibility to ensure that West Sussex residents are properly protected.
2. They accept the advice of the Chief Fire Officer without checking if it is good or bad advice.
3. They dismiss anyone who dares to suggest that the advice they are given may not be in the best interests of West Sussex residents.
4. They won’t express any concern to the Hampshire Fire Authority, “because we just don’t do that.”
5. They bury their heads in the sand and cross their fingers, instead of properly reviewing the operation of the Fire & Rescue Service in West Sussex.
2. They accept the advice of the Chief Fire Officer without checking if it is good or bad advice.
3. They dismiss anyone who dares to suggest that the advice they are given may not be in the best interests of West Sussex residents.
4. They won’t express any concern to the Hampshire Fire Authority, “because we just don’t do that.”
5. They bury their heads in the sand and cross their fingers, instead of properly reviewing the operation of the Fire & Rescue Service in West Sussex.
How bad will things have to get before they begin to carry
out their responsibilities properly?
Thursday, 17 September 2015
Serious Fire Highlights Loss of Fire Engines
Last night’s serious fire in Bognor Regis is an important reminder of the need for adequate resources. The fire needed eleven standard fire engines from Bognor Regis (2),
Chichester (2), Littlehampton (2), East Preston, Arundel, Havant (Hampshire), Worthing and
Midhurst
The 1978 Woolworth store fire in Bognor Regis required 32 standard fire engines to contain and extinguish it, and it provides an interesting comparison when you compare resources available then and now.
Removed since 1978 have been the Hydraulic Platform from
Chichester, and fire engines from Bognor Regis (3rd), Bosham (station closed), East Preston (2nd), Midhurst (2nd), Petworth (2nd), Storrington (2nd), Lancing
(2nd), Findon (station closed), Keymer (station
closed), Horley (both fire engines removed), and Crawley (3rd).
Hampshire fire engines involved at the Woolworth incident, or standing by for other calls at West Sussex stations, were Emsworth, Cosham x 2, Havant x 2, Waterlooville, Petersfield, Fareham, and Portchester. Drastic cuts are of course now planned for these stations.
The Fire & Rescue Service keep using a recent drop in incidents to falsely justify cuts, so when thinking about resources that have been removed, it is worth remembering that in 1978 there were just 5,654 incidents in West Sussex. In 2013-14 there were 9,337 incidents, which is 40% more. Resources were not improved when calls increased, they have just been progressively cut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)