Dangerous neglect of our Fire & Rescue Service

Nationally 10,000 firefighter jobs have been lost in the past six years. Response times are now the slowest they have ever been and delays are reported to have cost lives across the UK. You can read more on the FBU's website.

In West Sussex front-line fire engines have been cut by 24% in just six years. In addition, there has been a failure to honour promises to improve the availability of fire engines crewed by Retained (Part-time) Firefighters. "New and creative options" to achieve this have been replaced by changes that have made the position even worse.

The fire at the Selsey Academy last month was a shocking illustration of how neglected the service has become. Four of the six nearest fire engines were not available, including the one at Selsey, because of a lack of firefighters. 

Up until 2010, fire engines were allocated as follows

The Bosham fire station has been closed and that fire engine was permanently removed. Whilst the other six remain, they are not always crewed.

When the call was received to this fire only these two fire engines had crews

In addition, the standard crew on the Chichester and Bognor fire engines has been cut from five on each to four. How short-sighted that is becomes clear when you realise that for safe and effective operation, five firefighters are required at a car fire and nine firefighters are required at a building fire. So instead of sending one fire engine with five firefighters to a car fire, they have to send two, with four firefighters on each. Instead of sending two fire engines to a building fire, they now have to send three. With the cut from 46 to 35 fire engines to cover the County, in just six years, that strains resources even more.

For the Selsey incident, the third fire engine had to come from Arundel, which is nearly twenty miles away. I dread to think what would have happened if, instead of the Academy being on fire, it had been a house fire in Selsey with people unable to escape. If there were only a total of eight firefighters on the first two fire engines, a breathing apparatus search could not start until the Arundel crew arrived. Either that, or the Chichester and Bognor firefighters would have ignored safety procedures and started a search. That would have exposed themselves to greater risk and to the possibility of disciplinary proceedings.

It actually transpires that there were enough firefighters in Selsey at the time to crew their fire engine, but they were not all shown as available. This is because the only new, but not very creative, option WSF&RS came up with was a revised contract for Retained Firefighters. Instead of reporting when they are not going to be available, firefighters now have to say when they will definitely be available. They also have to do this several weeks in advance. This is not very flexible and has certainly not improved fire engine availability. In fact some fire engines that used to achieve 100% availability, now struggle to achieve 30% availability.

This incident was on a Sunday morning, when historically most crews would have been available, yet on this morning two thirds of the nearest fire engines were not crewed. Worse still, nothing had been done to alleviate the situation. 

Official figures show that they now fail to meet their generous response times for one in four critical incidents. I can now well believe the shocking unofficial reports from within the service of times when less than a third of the significantly reduced number of fire engines can be crewed.

This is a crisis, but the Cabinet Member continues to wear his blinkers and pretend that all is well. It is time that he let Councillors establish a task and finish group to investigate and halt the continuing deterioration in the Fire & Rescue Service's performance.

Selsey Fire Update

On Sunday I asked if we would ever get full details of the response to this fire. Well details of the initial response have now been released. 

WSFRS say that the first fire engine from Chichester (9 miles away) arrived 16 minutes after the call was received. The second fire engine from Selsey (around 200 metres away) arrived 17 minutes after the call, and the third from Bognor Regis (11 miles away) arrived 18 minutes after the initial call.

It is good that they have come clean on these times, as they did fail to meet their own generous response standard. For parts of Selsey the response should be one fire engine within 12 minutes and the second within 15 minutes. There is no explanation about the unusually long time it took the Selsey crew to arrive. Although they are Retained Duty System firefighters, they would still normally be on the road within 5 minutes.

Would a quicker response have saved the school? Perhaps not, but we will never know. What is well known though, is that there is a relationship between speed of response and lives and property saved. It must be very concerning for the residents of Selsey to realise that, if it had been a fire in someone's home and they were trapped at that time, help was 16 minutes away. 

The report tells us that 14 fire engines, 2 Aerial Ladder Platforms and other specialist vehicles were needed to deal with the incident, but not where they all came from. However, we do know that, as a result of cuts, the first aerial appliance had to come from Southsea (Hampshire), instead of Chichester. We also know that 3 of the 14 fire engines that would have been scheduled to attend ten years ago, have also been cut.

With extra distances to travel, more time is lost in assembling adequate resources. Did that result in more damage being caused? Again we don't know, but time is precious when trying to stop fires spreading.

Was County Council Leader really ignorant?

This news release was issued today: 

West Sussex County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith last night failed to properly answer questions on the Council’s double-dealing over Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service’s cuts.

At the Chichester South CLC meeting, retired firefighter Tony Morris referred to Councillor Goldsmith’s previous insistence that West Sussex would not make any comment on the Hampshire cuts. Yet the Hampshire Fire Authority consultation report clearly shows that, not only did West Sussex comment, they actually endorsed the cuts.

Mr Morris asked if the meeting had been deliberately misled in September, or had the Chief Fire Officer ignored Councillor Goldsmith’s policies and instructions. Councillor Goldsmith’s dismissive response was, “at the time we weren’t going to respond, but we did and we are where we are with that”.

The West Sussex submission expressed concerns about increased response times and a less effective response in parts of West Sussex, west of Chichester and Midhurst. Mr Morris also asked, “what action are Councillors going to take to fill the gap in West Sussex fire cover that the Hampshire cuts will now create?”

In her reply Councillor Goldsmith ignored that question. It was only after County Councillor Sandra James criticised the Leader for not giving a proper answer that Councillor Goldsmith agreed that a letter would be sent to Mr Morris.

After the meeting, Tony Morris said, “Councillor Goldsmith’s response was unconvincing. I cannot accept that she was ignorant of her Chief Fire Officer’s support for the Hampshire cuts. Especially as, shortly after she insisted they would not comment, a West Sussex officer was sent on a six month secondment to help Hampshire promote their cuts. It is also extremely worrying that the Chief Fire Officer seems more concerned with supporting a colleague in another County, than he is about protecting the residents of West Sussex.”

Comments sent to West Sussex Town and Parish Councils affected by the Hampshire fire cuts:

I know that many of you are concerned about the proposed Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service cuts and the effect that will have on response times in your areas. Some of you were at the Chichester South CLC meeting, when Louise Goldsmith (County Council Leader) emphatically said that West Sussex would not comment on those proposals. Sadly, a Hampshire Fire Authority report now reveals that, not only did West Sussex County Council comment, they actually endorsed the cuts.

I am sure you will also be concerned to hear that, following the consultation, the Hampshire cuts on the West Sussex border are unchanged. Instead of ten Hampshire fire engines close to West Sussex, there will only be three. The others are to be replaced with an Intermediate Vehicle and six First Response Vehicles, all of which will carry less equipment, water and firefighters. This comes after West Sussex closed Bosham fire station five years ago, and removed second fire engines from Midhurst and Petworth last year.

Hampshire concealed the figures for incidents they attend in West Sussex, and they have grossly exaggerated the benefits of new technology. The only information released about the new vehicles is that they will be smaller and will often respond with just two firefighters, instead of at least four. This is a large scale and dangerous experiment, which is not supported by evidence or trials. Protection for West Sussex residents near the Hampshire border will be significantly reduced.

Instead of West Sussex County Council offering realistic funding for the incident responses provided by Hampshire, they actually seconded an officer to Hampshire to help with the cuts. Active support for cuts, even though they admitted they were concerned about increased response times in West Sussex.

I am sure that you will feel let down, especially after Louise Goldsmith’s pronouncement about not getting involved with another authority’s business. You may wish to ask her how she will plug the gap when Hampshire make their cuts. Their Fire Authority meets on Wednesday to rubber stamp the plans.

Hampshire Fire Cuts Threaten West Sussex Residents

This photo is a stark reminder of why we need a speedy response by full crews on proper fire engines. 

A news release has now been issued:

Fire service cuts campaigners are warning that West Sussex residents, who live near the Hampshire border, will face increased dangers from an inadequate fire service response. West Sussex County Council pay Hampshire Fire Authority to deal with emergencies in that area, because their fire stations are nearer. Hampshire Fire Authority now say they plan to remove SEVEN of the NINE fire engines nearest to the West Sussex border and replace them with inadequate vehicles.

Two of those vehicles will be ‘Intermediate Vehicles’, which are small Fire Engines carrying less water, less equipment and less firefighters. The other five will only be ‘First Response Vehicles’, which carry even less water, less equipment and less firefighters. Instead of four to six firefighters on a proper fire engine, these will respond with as few as two firefighters.

Speaking for campaigners, retired firefighter Tony Morris said, “That may be OK for a dustbin fire, but for building fires these inadequate crews will only be able to watch and wait for help to arrive on proper fire engines. Many residents, in an area that includes Southbourne, West Marden, South Harting, Rogate, Milland and Linchmere, will be left with a second or third class service from Hampshire”.

Mr Morris urged people to respond to the Hampshire consultation, which is due to start on 14 September. He said, “This is a double blow for residents in this area after Bosham fire station was closed and second fire engines were removed from Midhurst and Petworth. Hampshire fire engines often provide support in the Midhurst, Chichester and Manhood areas, so proper resources will take longer to arrive there too. West Sussex County Council must also tell residents how they will properly protect people living in these areas, if Hampshire make these cuts”.

Commenting on Hampshire Fire Authority claims that “the safety of the public and our firefighters remains our absolute priority”, Mr Morris said, “It is rather like listening to ‘Del Boy’ on his market stall describing inferior goods as the ‘bees knees’. The difference of course is that one may see you waste your money on faulty goods, the other may cost you your home, your business, or your life.”

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts

Only 16 Fire Crews Available to Protect West Sussex

County Council claims, that fire service cuts would not downgrade the service to the public, have again been proved false.

Cuts in 2010, and earlier this month, have reduced the number of fire engines in the County from 46 to just 35. Assurances were given that the latest changes would improve the normal availability of crews, from the low to mid-twenties, up to around thirty.

Evidence shows that during the Easter weekend the number of crews available at one time dropped to as low as 20. The following weekend it dropped as low as 19, and the next weekend it was as low as SIXTEEN. The situation was in melt down with frantic pleas for part-time firefighters to do overtime, and fire engines parked up in laybys to try to cover several fire station areas.

The changes since 2010 are shown here for each District Council Area. Also shown is the desperate state of crew availability, based on the worst figures we have seen this month. “This shows how very badly the Council has let West Sussex residents down”, added the spokesperson.

·          Adur District - 1 fire engine removed, leaving 3. On occasions none available.

·          Arun District - 2 fire engines removed, leaving 6. On occasions only 3 available.

·          Chichester District - 3 fire engines removed, leaving 6. On occasions only 3 available.

·          Crawley Borough – 3 fire engines removed, leaving just 2.

·          Horsham District - 1 fire engine removed, leaving 7. On occasions only 1 available.

·          Mid Sussex District - 1 fire engine removed, leaving 8. On occasions only 2 available.

·          Worthing Borough – 0 fire engines removed, leaving 3.

In addition, the full-time crewed fire engines now usually only have 4 firefighters on them, instead of 5.  This limits the actions that the crew can take when they arrive. It also means firefighters may be forced to take greater risks, or leave the public in danger until reinforcements arrive. Training is also limited with only four firefighters on duty.

The County Council falsely allege that the West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts group has used inaccurate figures, even though they only use WSCC figures and Government figures. The group's concerns have again proved to be correct, whilst WSCC claims have again been shown to be false. No doubt they will respond with more lame excuses and further inaccurate claims.

Saturday 18 April 2015

The screen print below is from the service’s crew availability software and was provided by serving personnel who are dismayed by the deception. Pumps available is the total number of standard fire engines with crews available. Each one is shown as, for example, ‘40P1’. Those in green are available, those in black are not.

None available at Arundel, East Preston, East Wittering, Haywards Heath, Henfield, Hurstpierpoint, Lancing, Partridge Green, Selsey, Steyning, Storrington, and Turners Hill. Second crews not available at Bognor Regis, Burgess Hill, Chichester, East Grinstead, Horsham and Shoreham.

An appalling total of 19 not available.

Some coverage with a news item and a letter in the "Chichester Observer". 

The WSFRS response would be laughable if this was not so serious. 

‘The number of fatalities remains low’ – well that’s OK then, we don’t care about a few deaths.

‘Widely consulted on’ – a sham consultation that hid key facts, pretended everything would be rosy, and offered no alternatives.

‘Scrutinised and debated in full’ – the Councillor who “went through the proposals with a fine tooth comb” wrongly thought only 3 extra deaths were predicted, when it was actually 56. No proper debate or vote.

‘Deliberately taking figures out of context and making misleading claims’ – pot calling kettle black, except that, despite trotting this out every time, they have never substantiated their allegations.

‘Continue to show a long-term downward trend’ – 2009/10 UP, 2010/11 UP, 2011/12 UP, 2012/13 UP, 2013/14 UP – who are they trying to kid.

Adapting to meet future need - CUTS