IMPROVED SCRUTINY
I would like to start on a positive note, as a key procedural
change is that debates on fire & rescue service matters can now be
viewed online, both live and via recordings on the County
Council website. The level of scrutiny and transparency seems to be
improving and, as that was a weakness when fighting off the Police & Crime
Commissioner’s takeover bid, it must be welcomed. However, as Councillor Michael Jones questioned at the meeting, it is not yet clear
if the improvement will be sufficient, but it is clearly a step in the right
direction.
There are also signs that improved openness and genuine consultation
may replace the secrecy and sham consultations we have seen in the past. Readers
may recall concerns being voiced about times when more fire engines were
unavailable than were actually crewed. The response from senior officers and councillors
at the time was denial and attacks on those who revealed the information. The
information originated from concerned firefighters and WSCC then took action to
restrict firefighter access to the crewing information and they also threatened disciplinary action.
ONLY 10 FIRE ENGINES AVAILABLE OUT OF 35
On Friday, new Chief Fire Officer Gavin Watts showed the
meeting this slide, which shows that the availability of fire engines is even worse than we
believed. I welcome such honest transparency, as Councillors cannot begin to fix anything if the extent of the problem is hidden from them, but the situation is shocking. Previously, when the number of fire engines was cut from 46 to 40 and then to 35,
we were told that the changes would help ensure that at least 30 fire engines would
always be available. Now we see that as few as 10 can be available, which is bad enough, but coinciding with times of greater demand should alarm everyone.
Deputy Chief Officer Neil Stocker told Councillors that there is a national problem of attracting and keeping Retained Firefighters. There is, but that must not stop efforts to find local solutions. He also
said that people not working in the communities where they live is a major
factor undermining good daytime cover. Yet the chart shows that daytime cover is
worse on Saturdays and Sundays, so there must be other significant factors affecting
availability. Perhaps things such as revised contracts and other management
decisions that have previously been criticised by Retained Firefighters.
RETAINED FIREFIGHTERS – JUST 52 PENCE PER HOUR
Neil also highlighted how Retained Firefighters give an
average of 4,500 hours of cover on top of their day job, and earn just 52 pence
an hour for providing that cover. Relying on some people volunteering to serve the
community for such little reward is not good enough, and it was therefore pleasing
to hear some Councillors support that view. Among them Councillor Heidi
Brunsdon, who said that more must be done to provide tangible incentives such as
tax breaks, family breaks etc.
I have spoken about the crewing crisis in the past and sadly
this chart confirms that West Sussex County Council is not meeting their legal
obligation to provide an efficient service. The legislation does not say fire
authorities only have to provide an efficient service when they have enough Retained
Firefighters, it is a 24 hours a day, 365 days a year requirement.
It is ludicrous that a service, which several Chief Officers,
Councillors and Government Inspectors have previously agreed needed 46 front-line
crews to protect the people of West Sussex, can now be left with just 10 to
protect more people and to deal with more incidents. When asked if the service
was adequate, the Chief Officer spoke about resources being moved around to
maintain cover. That is true, but it is patently not adequate or effective cover.
This situation has deteriorated over several years, yet Government and Fire Authorities have failed to take meaningful action. Lives and property are at increasing risk and concerted action must be
taken locally and nationally.
IMPROVEMENTS OR MORE CUTS
The draft Integrated
Risk Management Plan will be out for public consultation in May and it is
important that people read and comment on it. Whilst I don’t question the
sincerity behind the strategic priorities, I see little hope of them being
delivered, especially with regard to emergency response. Sadly, we have seen in
the past how so called 'improvements' are actually cuts that lead to a slower
and less effective response.
Councillor Daniel
Purchese said of the IRMP, "there is potential for some serious cuts that the
public might easily miss". I have to agree and concerns include:
Standard crewing cut from five to four – not an improvement
and it will not, as claimed, reduce the consequences of emergency incidents.
When you realise that the driver and officer-in-charge have specific functions at incidents and that it is the rest of the crew that undertake the critical sharp end stuff, such as attacking the fire, it amounts
to cutting that capability by a third on every incident. It is also not an efficient use of resources, as more fire
engines have to be used to get a safe number of firefighters to incidents, which leaves less available for other emergencies.
Looking at crewing fire engines with fewer than four
firefighters ‘when necessary’ – this is simply unsafe for firefighters and the
public. Other fire authorities have been pontificating about how they can use technology
to safely crew with less, but there is no evidence that this can be achieved.
No technology is a proper substitute for a trained firefighter. There have already been incidents, where this concept has been experimented with, and the result has been small fires developing in to serious ones as a direct result of inadequate crewing.
A review of response standards – sounds OK, but as the service can’t meet the
generous standards now, there is a serious danger that standards will be cut and a
proper response will take even longer to arrive. It may then look better on paper, but the
reality for the public will be worse.
Review
the fleet of special appliances - these have already been cut to the bone and this opens the door to more
cuts and reduced effectiveness.
Revise
our response to automatic fire alarms – this increases the risk of an
inadequate response, or no response, to actual fires. Nationally there have been several
examples of serious fires being attended with inadequate resources, because of
such policies, and I know of at least one example of a fire death that resulted
from not attending an automatic fire alarm call. Not forgetting Grenfell of
course, where policies had removed an aerial appliance from the response. Had
that been on the initial attendance, more lives could have been saved. There might even have been no deaths, as the aerial appliance might have enabled them to stop the devastating external fire spread.
COUNCIL
LEADER COMPLAINS ABOUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Of
course the underlying problem is inadequate Government funding for the fire
& rescue service. You know things are really bad when Louise
Goldsmith, WSCC Leader, feels compelled to criticise the Government on their funding of councils. She said in January that “It is wrong for us, and
county councils across the country, to continue to have to be reliant on taxing
our residents in the current piecemeal way”. For once, I have to agree.
ARE
THE IRMP FIGURES ACCURATE?
I mentioned improved openness earlier, so I was rather disappointed to
see that the fire death figures quoted in the draft IRMP differ from the national figures.
National figures are usually more accurate, as they check fire &
rescue submitted statistics against other sources. It is always worrying when locally published statistics do not reflect official national statistics, so I hope that accurate
figures will be published in the consultation copy of the draft IRMP.
