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.
|