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.
No comments:
Post a Comment