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.

West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service Stop the Cuts April 2015 Update

Cuts Implemented

It was no joke on April 1^st when 5 fire engines, 21 Full-time firefighters and 15 Part-time firefighters were removed from fire stations.

Initial indications are, as predicted, that some responses are taking much longer than before. Fire engines are also now being regularly sent out with just four firefighters on them, instead of five.

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 Council’s own prediction is that an extra life will be lost every other year, and there will be an extra £80,000 property damage each year as a result of these cuts.

False Council Claims

What today’s radical fire service changes will mean for West Sussex residents

You may have read claims in local papers that the service “won’t be downgraded in any way”. That is a dishonest claim, especially when their own predictions were for more deaths and property damage as a result.

Claims that the resources required “will be sent out” is very misleading. They may be sent, but they will often have to travel further, take longer to arrive and expose the public and firefighters to greater danger.

Petition Update

Nearly 2,000 people have signed the ‘Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex’ petition, with more names on petition forms waiting to be returned and counted.

We are very grateful to those who have worked hard collecting names. It is very clear that not only are people appalled by the cuts, many were totally unaware that they were being implemented.

If you still have completed, or partially completed, petition forms please return them (to arrive no later than 24^th April) to: “Fire Cuts Petition, 48 Little Breach, Chichester, PO19 5TY.”

Names can still be added via the internet on the WSCC Epetition page - “Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex” 

Delays at Horsham Fire

VIDEO: Fire breaks out at Horsham fish and chip shop during Piazza Italia

Had this fire been before the cuts, two fire engines would have arrived in around five minutes.

However, one of them was removed on 1^st April, so a second fire engine had to come from Crawley. This took three times longer to arrive. 

Worthing Full-time Crews Moved from the Town

The number of times full-time crews have been sent out of the town to cover crew shortages at other stations has increased. That leaves Worthing reliant on their part-time crew and on firefighters from other stations, which takes longer.

In March a disabled Worthing woman had to wait 9 minutes for rescue after Worthing’s full-time crews had been sent to cover rural areas. Worthing’s part-time crew and crews from Littlehampton and Shoreham were sent to the fire. 

New Group Won’t Meet Crewing Need at Part-time Stations

The claim is that they will be used, “as and when they are needed”. However the reality is that these firefighters, who were removed from busy fire stations, only work daytimes, Monday to Friday. Weekend and night-time needs are ignored.

Last weekend, despite frantic attempts to persuade part-time firefighters to work overtime, only 19 of the 35 fire engines were available for long periods. It is clear evidence of the woeful and ongoing failure of the County Council and Fire Service management to provide enough firefighters to protect the people of West Sussex.

No fire engines were crewed at Arundel, East Preston, East Wittering, Haywards Heath, Hurstpierpoint, Lancing, Partridge Green, Shoreham, Steyning and Turners Hill.

In addition, the second fire engines at Bognor Regis, Burgess Hill and East Grinstead were without crews. Not forgetting of course that, since 2010, a total of eleven fire engines, that could have been available, have been removed by the County Council.

 No Improvement at Petworth

A ‘new-look’ fire service for Petworth

More false claims in this article, which said “We are posting six whole-time firefighters in Petworth, working Monday to Friday.”

This has not happened and, since the cuts took effect, Petworth’s only remaining proper fire engine has been without a crew during the day, Monday to Friday!

The Water Carrier, which is not new, has been moved from Littlehampton where crewing was not a problem. However, Petworth has crewing difficulties, so there is no guarantee that the Water Carrier, one of only two in the County, will be available when required.

It is also now further away from the areas it is most used in, so will take longer to get to many calls. If they can crew it, there will often not be enough firefighters left to crew their fire engine, so residents will have to wait for help from other towns.

Missing 4x4 Vehicles

For nearly a year County Councillors have been claiming that new 4x4 vehicles would mitigate the effects of removing fire engines from Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington, that they would be in place in 2015, and even that they were being trialled.

Yet a Freedom of Information reply last month revealed this was untrue. They were not being trialled, no decision had been made on the vehicles to be bought, and there is no business case to support their purchase.

New 4x4s are being ‘spun’ as some great improvement, when in fact it is nothing more than part of the normal vehicle replacement programme.

The official response from WSFRS said no decision had been made on where the new 4x4s would go and the first could not be delivered before 2016. They also keep adding to the equipment load, which could see the 4x4s too big to access areas the current 4x4s can or, if the vehicles are small, they may be overloaded. 

 Crawley & Gatwick

Crawley has been particularly badly hit by cuts. From four full-time and one part-time crewed fire engines in 2010, the Borough now only has two full-time crewed fire engines. This is the worst ratio of fire engines to population and to incidents attended of any area in West Sussex.

This also has serious consequences for the response to any aircraft accident at Gatwick. Crawley can no longer crew both fire engines and the specialist rescue vehicle and new procedures mean that, if an accident occurred, a recue vehicle would have to travel from Worthing.

Crewing failures during a recent fire highlighted this vulnerability when only 6 of the nearest 22 West Sussex fire engines were available. Had this been a large fire in Crawley, and ten fire engines had been needed, most would have come from Surrey and East Sussex, including two from Brighton.

Fire service denies being over-stretched in Crawley

The Political View

This group has no political agenda and our only concern is public safety. However, it has become very clear that the cuts are political.

Independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and UKIP County Councillors have all seen the dangers of these cuts, but Conservative Councillors have steadfastly stuck to the party line and cut frontline services.

Local MPs have taken no action to ensure we are protected and Government Ministers have steadfastly refused to do their primary duty and protect lives

Parliamentary Candidates in the May General Election have stated their support for the fight against these cuts, including Green Party, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Patria, UKIP & Independent candidates, but no Conservatives.

"It is the job of politicians to serve the public they represent. I believe that forcing swinging cuts on an emergency service is contrary to this." - Jasper Richmond

Green Party candidate for Chichester 

“I agree with your concerns and support you all whole heartedly.” - Hazel Thorpe

Liberal Democrat candidate for Worthing West.

Sussex Police Cuts

After a public meeting with the Chief Constable and the Police & Crime Commissioner, we were struck by how different the approach taken by the Police was, compared to that taken by the County Council on fire service cuts. In particular, they were very open and honest about the effect of the cuts.

The P&CC said her residents came before her political party policy, and she had already given the public the option to increase tax to protect services. The Chief Constable said how emergency response would be protected, with the same number of officers. It would even be improved by providing new technology to avoid the need to return to police stations to complete paperwork.

This contrasts starkly with West Sussex County Council’s approach of hiding details of the worst effects, making false claims, holding a sham consultation that had no alternatives, and ignoring all concerns and views. 

Manhood Peninsula Left With No Fire Engine

Once again, on the 7^th April, Selsey had the only fire engine available on the Manhood Peninsula, but the part-time firefighters were called in and sent to Midhurst to protect the Midhurst and Petworth areas. This was done despite a full-time and part-time crew being available at both Chichester and Bognor Regis.

Usually, professional Control Room Staff would move a fire engine from a station that had two available, so that they maintain the best distribution of fire engines for a speedy response. However, WSFRS have ignored best practice and told them not to, so that the full-time crews can do other, non-emergency response work!

Part-time Firefighter Comment -  “My boss doesn’t object when I am called away for local fires, but he is not happy when I leave work to sit at another fire station for hours on end.”

Firefighter Comments

Serving firefighters fear for their jobs if they comment on the cuts publicly. Among the comments made to this group in confidence are:

“Morale within the ranks is shockingly poor.”

“They keep talking about prevention being important, but they have just cut hundreds of hours from our prevention work”.

“Saying we were consulted is a joke. They didn't listen, my shift system has been changed and child care now costs me more. It’s worse for others, some have been moved and others have had their pay cut.”

"Bosses are claiming things are good but they are not"

“We are being forced to ride with crews of only four, which means we can’t do all the jobs needed at shouts, unless we take more risks”. (Note - Shouts are a fire service term for incidents)

County Council Dirty Tricks

There have been disgraceful attempts to suggest this group has provided inaccurate and false information, and that some people have ‘other agendas’.

Most of the information used by this group has come from the County Council or from Government Departments. We have provided it in good faith and are not responsible if the Council and Government figures differ. Other information has come from the media, or from firefighters and has been checked wherever possible. In fact we have heard some quite serious allegations, but have not repeated them as they have been uncorroborated.

We are, however, aware of false and inaccurate information being given to the public, the media, to MPs and to County Councillors by WSCC and WSFRS. Examples include figures for fire deaths provided to County Councillors being different to those provided under a Freedom of Information request, and claims that fire engines were being moved when they are actually being cut. Despite claims from the Leader of the Council that the Council is open and transparent, we have encountered a reluctance to provide information and even had Freedom of Information requests refused on technicalities.

As for other agendas, that is simply a lie. All those associated with this group have genuine concerns for public safety. For many that is based on years of experience as firefighters, both full-time and part-time in West Sussex. We are not ‘butterfly’ officers flitting from service to service to further our careers. Most of us have lived and worked in West Sussex for many years, we know the risks, we know the people and we know how damaging these cuts will be.

Those on the group who have not been in the fire service are concerned citizens who, like many West Sussex residents, have seen through the spin and are not prepared to stand idly by and watch a once fine Fire & Rescue Service downgraded for political reasons.

Public and Former Firefighter Comments

“Cutting the fire service is ridiculous, is the Council stupid?”

“I knew nothing about taking our fire engine away.”

“It is disgraceful that cuts are being made at ground floor, but I still see new officer cars that could be a lot smaller and more cost effective.”

“I am just sick of officers giving the public a load of BS.”

“There is a dire need for a review of the existing availability system which appears to work against having pumps on the run.” (Fire engines available)

“Our firefighters are wonderful”

“Why should I get a worse service, just because I live in the country?”

“That is stupid, we need our fire engines."

Media Indifference

We have been asked why we do not get the media to correct the Council’s spin and "get the truth out there". The simple answer is we have been, but for whatever reasons a number of press releases and letters have not been used. We understand the media have many pressures and conflicting priorities, especially the local press, but firefighters and others concerned about the cuts have said that the reporting seems unbalanced.

Whilst claims from the County Council have had wide coverage, with few if any probing questions from the media, views of those opposed to the cuts have had only limited coverage. The Council has also been given a right of reply to all of our statements, but we have not been asked for our views on their claims.

Among press releases issued by the group are:

·  Appalling lack of fire cover in West Sussex - Recent fires in Crawley and Worthing expose serious failures to properly crew fire engines in the County.

·  False 4x4 claims - Claims by the Fire & Rescue Service, following the recent Ambersham Common fire, are “window dressing to cover up cuts”.

·  Fire proves that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service has been downgraded & firefighters are incensed by false claims from senior officers about cuts that took effect on the 1st April.

There have been some notable exceptions, and we are grateful to those in the media who have tried to report both sides of the debate on these dangerous cuts. All we can do is assure those who are concerned that we have engaged, and will continue to engage, with the media. We will provide the information, but can only hope that they will help to ensure that the public learn the truth.

Major Fires

Fire at Chichester city centre Travelodge

There has been a lot of hype from the County Council about fewer fires and that we are all safer.

The reality is that, despite some improvements, many fires, crashes and other incidents still occur. Even well maintained fire stations can catch fire, as happened at Arundel.

Only this week ten fire engines were needed at a major fire in Chichester. This highlights the need for adequate resources. The cuts have seriously reduced the service’s ability to respond to large incidents, to storms & floods, to simultaneous incidents, as well as increasing the response time to many incidents.

Real Deterioration in the Protection of West Sussex Residents

These are screen shots from the Fire Service Crew Availability System, sent to us by concerned insiders. Standard Fire Engines are shown with a ‘P’ in their identification. Green if crewed (eg 42P2) and black if not (eg 60P1).

Before the cuts

You will notice that the five fire engines being removed in April were crewed and available on the evening of 31^st March.

Yes, there were occasions that four of them could not be crewed, but when they were they helped save lives and property. Now they are unavailable permanently.

The fifth one, removed from Horsham, was actually busy and attended over 600 calls in 2013/14. The part-time crew that will now take their place are often not available (Only 52% available in 2013/14).

After the cuts

Despite assurances that there would be little or no effect, this sample screen shot for the evening of 4^th April shows how much worse things are now.

Five fewer fire engines to be crewed and ten of those left were without crews.

2010 – 46 fire engines

2015 – 35 fire engines

Firefighter Comment: “Senior Managers are ignoring Standard Operating Procedures that are meant to keep us safe”

Join the discussion on Facebook: West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts

Freedom of Information Requests at: WhatDoTheyKnow

WSCC Cabinet Member Deception Continues

Senior County Councillors have repeatedly said that they would mitigate the effects of removing fire engines from Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington by providing new 4x4 vehicles. Now, following a Freedom of Information request, it appears this information was at best misleading and at worst deceitful.

At the October County Council meeting both former Cabinet Member Lionel Barnard and his former Deputy Jim Rae insisted that Councillors need not worry as the 4x4s would be uprated. Councillors were told that the Chief Fire Officer and the Cabinet Member had given undertakings that the 4x4s at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington would be upgraded.

New Cabinet Member David Barling told Councillors at the February meeting that the ‘super-duper new 4x4 vehicles' were being trialled and will be put in place. He also advised Councillors to focus ‘on what they don’t tell you’. Very apt in this case as the FOI has revealed that:

• The vehicles are not being trialled. So far officers have only visited other brigades to view their 4x4s.
• No reports have been submitted on these visits.
• They do not know what vehicle they will be buying.
• No decision has been made on which stations will receive them, although they do say the first is ‘likely to go to Midhurst’.
• The first one will not arrive until 2016.
• They have not yet prepared a business case for these ‘super-duper new 4x4 vehicles' that Councillors claimed would ‘be in place’.

The full reply and an outline functional requirement can be viewed on the WhatDoTheyKnow website.

An open letter to County Councillors

Dear County Councillor,

 

At last week’s County Council meeting Cabinet Member David Barling helpfully pointed out that, “It is often about what they don’t tell you that you need to focus on”. He is quite correct that there were a number of extremely relevant things that you were not told.

 

You were told that the changes were developed by a professional team, but you were not told that they were only allowed to come up with changes that also saved £1.6 million pounds. So not the best protection for the people of West Sussex, not fit for the next decade, just the best they could come up with on an inadequate budget. You were also not told that hundreds of professional firefighters say it is wrong.

 

When Mr Barling mentioned fewer incidents, he did not tell you that the number of incidents has never been a key factor in determining the number or location of fire engines. When West Sussex had 6,000 incidents there were 45 fire engines, yet when there were over 15,000 incidents there were just 46 fire engines. When incidents dropped back to around 10,000, fire engines were cut to 40, and now that incidents are between 9 and 10,000, they will be cut to just 35. Ten less than when far fewer incidents were dealt with.

 

He did not mention that the key factor  in determining the number and location of fire engines  is response times. When fire engines were cut from 46 to 40, response times went up and West Sussex residents in desperate need now have to wait, on average, 30% longer for help to arrive than those in East Sussex. Further cuts will increase this significantly.

 

When Mr Barling said that there is a problem with keeping retained firefighters, he did not say that the Deputy Chief Fire Officer has stated this is not a problem. Lee Neale is on record as saying that the retained establishment is continuously monitored and maintained at the appropriate level. He has also said that WSFRS had twice as many applicants as retained firefighter vacancies.

 

You were not told that some people applying to be retained firefighters have been turned away, even when their local station has crewing problems. This is because the County Council has barred the service from recruiting enough firefighters to properly crew all stations. This has resulted in the ridiculous situation of some stations having 14 firefighters to crew one fire engine round the clock, whilst others have to struggle with just 7.

 

Mr Barling said that the fire engines being removed were used irregularly by retained firefighters. You were not told that this was because of inadequate crewing levels and that they were actually required much more frequently. Fire engines had to be called from other areas to cover for these crewing failures, which reduced cover in those areas and increased the response times significantly.

 

Mr Barling even added Horsham to the list, but did not tell you that this fire engine was crewed by wholetime firefighters and attended 626 incidents in 2013/14.

 

You were not told that experience has shown that when retained stations are cut from two to one fire engine, the availability of the remaining fire engine suffers. This is clearly evidenced by East Preston and Lancing, where the first fire engines were close to 100% availability, but are now only available for 56% and 73% respectively.

 

You were previously told that the new retained contract would improve firefighter and fire engine availability. You were not told that the contract was untested before being introduced and that it has actually resulted in a dramatic drop in availability.

 

You were not told that the new wholetime crewing system has not been trialled or tested and that there is no evidence to support the claim that this will not reduce performance.

 

Mr Barling said that the new ‘super-duper’ 4x4 vehicles will enable ‘our people’ to get off road, but he neglected to say that they already had 4x4 vehicles at those stations and could get off road now. He did not tell you that the so called ‘high tech equipment’ could not in any way replace a proper fire engine. He also neglected to say that a previous new ‘super-duper’ 4x4 vehicle, trialled at Midhurst in the 1970s, proved to be inadequate. There is no evidence that this will be any different.

 

Mr Barling said that the fire service had listened to the people of Littlehampton and were improving the service they receive (4 minute better response time at night). He did not mention that they did not listen to the people of Bosham, East Preston, Findon, Keymer and Lancing in 2010, and are not listening to the people of Crawley, Horsham, Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington now. All of whom have, or will have to wait longer for help to arrive on many occasions, both day and night.

 

When Mr Barling mentioned the Horsham fire engine being removed, he did not tell you that this will result in a 4 minute increase in response times in the area both day and night. Worse still, the second fire engine will often not respond at all. It will be crewed by retained firefighters who, in 2013/14, were only available for 52% of the time.

 

Mr Barling also rather bizarrely claimed that ‘every second, every minute’ the fire authority is moving fire engines around to areas of greatest need. Not only is that a gross exaggeration, but the movements that do take place are not to meet demand, but to areas where inadequate crewing has meant several fire engines are not available. Covering up failures instead of properly resourcing the service.

 

The most serious omission was that Mr Barling did not tell you that all the national and local evidence shows that these cuts will increase response times, increase deaths and increase property damage. Clearly an increased risk for the public and firefighters and certainly not a service fit for the next decade.

 

Some of you have opposed these cuts, but for those who have not, it really is time to put your residents’ safety before your party politics.

 

Yours sincerely,

Tony Morris 

A brief reminder of the damaging cuts that this petition is aimed at stopping

1. Removing five fire engines from Crawley, Horsham, Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington. It is this that will cost an extra loss of life every other year and an extra £80,000 of property damage every year.

2. Cutting the number of firefighters on every wholetime station, which will seriously reduce their ability to maintain proper crews of five firefighters on fire engines. This will mean that some fire engines will either be unavailable, or will be left with inadequate crews of only four. The number of extra deaths and property damage from this is not known, as WSFRS failed to assess or model this cut.

Anyone who does not understand why crews of four put firefighters and the public at risk should read the FBU Response to Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Services ‘IRMP Proposals for Change’. WSFRS has not complied with national guidance, or Health & Safety risk assessment requirements.

Previous cuts have resulted in the lowest number of fire engines and crews to protect West Sussex since 1939! Fire deaths are increasing in West Sussex, whilst they have been falling nationally. West Sussex has beaten every other fire service in the southeast, including London, by being the worst for deaths per head of population for each of the last two years.

Firefighters need the support of the County Council to reduce these appalling figures, not cuts. Cutting fire engines and firefighters will just make things worse.

Please sign the “Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex” petition. Find it online by searching for ‘West Sussex Epetitions’, and tell your friends, families and work colleagues.

Newspaper coverage continues

Just some examples of how on line versions of newspapers provide opportunities to keep the issue alive in their comments section:

Nick Herbert MP

Francis Maude MP

WSCC Flood Prevention

Plus another example of newspapers picking up on the story:- 

Fire service cuts condemned
Monday, 10 November 2014

WEST Sussex Fire and Rescue 'Stop the Cuts' campaigner Tony Morris has condemned the county council’s decision to cut the service budget by £1.6m as a “death sentence”. 

A motion to overturn the decision by Michael Jones, the Labour member for Crawley, was rejected by 28 councillors. 

The cuts include the loss of two fire engines at Midhurst and Petworth, and the loss of three firefighters at both Bognor and Chichester. 

For full story, see this week's Liphook Herald.

Remembrance a time to reflect on future as well as past

A well written and thought provoking article in the West Sussex Gazette

"Indeed I am still rather amazed that ‘savings’ of £1.6 million have been passed by West Sussex Country Council for its Fire services without much in the way of anger. Whilst others nod in understanding at the outrage in the adjustment of working lifetimes and pensions to Firefighters."

BBC South Today

BBC South Today coverage here. Intro - 15 seconds in and the main item - 7 minutes 25 seconds in

BBC lunchtime coverage audio

I have managed to upload the audio from the lunchtime BBC coverage to YouTube

http://youtu.be/vwD9iwM59e4

Did your County Councillor vote for the cuts?

The 28 Councillors who voted FOR the cuts were:

Lionel Barnard (Henfield), Liz Bennett (East Grinstead Meridian), Michael Brown (Fernhurst), Richard Burrett (Pound Hill & Worth), Peter Catchpole (Holbrook), Michael Cloake (Worthing Pier), Janet Duncton (Petworth), Margaret Evans (Chichester South), Peter Evans (East Preston & Ferring), Christine Field (Lindfield & High Weald), Louise Goldsmith (Chichester West), Paul High (Worthing West), Jeremy Hunt (Chichester North), Amanda Jupp (Billingshurst), Debbie Kennard (Shoreham), Bob Lanzer (Maidenbower), Janet Mockridge (Southwick), Pieter Montyn (The Witterings), Roger Oakley (Worthing East), Simon Oakley (Chichester East), John O’Brien (East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wood), Ashvin Patel (Bognor Regis West & Aldwick), Nigel Peters (Arundel & Wick), Jim Rae (Roffey), John  Rogers (Cissbury), Bryan Turner (Broadwater), Steve Waight (Goring), Brad Watson (Southwater & Nuthurst).

The 17 Councillors who voted against the cuts were:

Ian Buckland (Littlehampton Town), Mick Clark (Saltings), Michael Glennon (Lancing), Trixie Hall (Durrington & Salvington), Graham Jones (Felpham), Michael Jones (Southgate & Crawley Central), Peter Lamb (Northgate & Three Bridges), Sue Mullins (Gossops Green & Ifield East), Chris Oxlade (Bewbush & Ifield West), Lionel Parsons (Sompting & North Lancing), Andy Petch (Hassocks & Victoria), Ann Rapnik (Bersted), Robin Rogers (Northbrook), David Sheldon (Horsham Tanbridge & Broadbridge Heath), Brenda Smith (Langley Green & West), Tony Sutcliffe (Nyetimber), James Walsh (Littlehampton East).

The 2 Councillors who abstained were:

Bill Acraman (Worth Forest) and Nigel Dennis (Horsham Hurst).

The other 24 Councillors were either not at the meeting or left before this vote.

Letter sent to all County Councillors tonight

Dear Councillors,

I am sure that many of you will have been disappointed by the misleading statements and false claims made about the Fire & Rescue Service proposals at the County Council meeting last week.

I have identified 20 of the most serious ones and provided an explanation of why they were misleading or false below. The facts shown are from the consultation supporting documents and other West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service or Department for Communities and Local Government documents.

Please review them and, if anyone believes this information is inaccurate, please let me have any evidence to support that belief. There has been far too much speculation, wishful thinking and misdirection during this process, it is time for the plain, simple truth.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Morris

1. There will only be 3 extra deaths in 100 years, and no secret was made of the extra deaths.

This is the most disgraceful cover up and deception. The public consultation document did not mention a single extra death. It is only in the technical document that it says there will be 3 extra fire deaths in the home in 100 years. However, figures on the very last page reveal that there will also be 6 extra fire deaths in other buildings and 46 extra deaths in non-fire incidents. 3 + 6 + 46 = 55 extra deaths resulting from the changes. The Chief Fire Officer’s report to the meeting also inexplicably ignored the non-fire deaths and just said there would be 3 extra fire deaths, when in fact it is 3 + 6, which makes 9 extra fire deaths. This detail has been hidden and, despite now being exposed, the deceit continues.

2. Consultation widely available.

There is no evidence that more than a very small number of West Sussex residents were aware of the consultation. Those who did know were not told the truth. The consultation document suggested these savings could be achieved without affecting performance, which is not true. Even if people took the trouble to read through the 280 pages of supporting documents they would not have seen the true effects and the total number of extra deaths, unless they also did some sums.

3. Forums held and presentations given.

Information about the real effects was withheld at these meetings and misleading and false information was given. For example, at the Chichester South CLC meeting, they were told that the number of fire engines was not being reduced, when in fact five are being cut.

4. The scrutiny processes were rigorous.

Processes took place, but as Councillor Rae said they are not professional firefighters. They had to rely on the Chief Fire Officer’s proposals, which had to fit the reduced budget. There was no one with the necessary professional expertise to scrutinise his suggestions, to offer alternatives, or to identify the full effects. Since the proposals became public there has been overwhelming professional opinion confirming that the proposals will see firefighters and the public exposed to a much greater risk.

5. Mr Barnard does not recognise significant public concern.

He chooses not to recognise that there is significant concern amongst those who understand the real effects of these cuts. The only people not concerned are those who are blissfully unaware of the increased danger they will be in as a result of longer response times for many incidents.

6. The service is changing and needs to reflect a modern approach.

The service already has a modern approach and it is disrespectful to the principal officers to suggest otherwise. Reducing fire crews and fire engines is not modernisation, it simply reduces the ability of the service to meet demand, especially during increasingly frequent periods of high demand. There is simply no justification for reducing resources to the lowest level since the service was formed in 1948, especially when there are over three times as many calls, more complex incidents, and additional duties have been placed on the service.

7. Prevention is at the heart of everything the Fire & Rescue Service does.

Yet the number of fire safety audits has fallen from over 3,000 in 2010-11 to less than 1,400 in 2012-13. Worryingly 34% of the latest inspections also found premises to be unsatisfactory. Mr Barnard’s latest cuts will, from just one proposal alone, cut prevention work by more than 5,000 hours a year (Proposal 5).

8. The Chief Fire Officer would not put the public or his personnel at risk. This is professionals redesigning their professional service.

This shows that Councillors Rae and Barnard do not understand risk. The Chief Fire Officer necessarily puts firefighters at risk every day, and the public are also at risk every day. His job is to reduce the risk as much as possible, but his ability to do so is dependent on support and funding from the County Council. Better funding means more prevention and improved response times, which means more lives and property saved. Reduced funding means less prevention and longer response times, which means more lives lost and more property destroyed. Firefighter safety depends on their fire engines being fully crewed and supporting fire engines arriving quickly. The public and Firefighters will clearly be at greater risk if these cuts go ahead. It is not being professionally redesigned to meet need, just to fit an inadequate budget.

9. There was no ‘call in’.

This is a complete red herring, as the call in process cannot be used to oppose a decision.

10. Several references were made to the advantages of the 4x4 vehicles. Easier to get two people there on a 4x4 than it is to wait until you fill a fire engine.

Mr Barnard, despite not being a professional firefighter, suggests that a small 4x4 vehicle is an adequate replacement for a full sized, properly equipped and crewed fire appliance. It may be easier to get two people there on a 4x4, but that is of no use when you need a full crew and the equipment on a fire engine. There may be some incidents where only the crew is required from a second fire engine, but that is not known when the call is received. The only responsible approach is to send two proper fire engines to building fires. Failure to do so will see a repeat of the tragic incident in Wales where two Retained Firefighters lost their lives. National guidance followed that said two fire engines with an absolute minimum of 9 firefighters must be sent to all house fires. Removing fire engines and reducing crews will result in unsafe working practices. No upgrade of the 4x4s is going to see them carry the extra water, hose, ladders, or the rescue and other equipment that is often required.

11. Unsubstantiated and unfounded scaremongering.

A disgraceful slur from Mr Rae, as there is every good reason for residents and firefighters to be concerned. The evidence to support that concern is to be found in the official documentation. Hundreds of professional firefighters have confirmed there is good reason to be concerned. Serving firefighters have done so through their union representatives, as they have been told not to speak publicly, and many retired firefighters have also spoken out about the dangers.

12. Councillor Rae complained about only hearing, ‘Crawley, Crawley’.

Councillor Jones actually said that the cuts will affect all areas, but there is good reason for Crawley residents to be concerned. They will be left with the worst fire cover in the County, despite them having the most incidents of any station area each year (1,483 last year), and having the busiest fire station in the County, responding to an annual average of over 2,100 calls. Yet they will have only two fire engines, the same as Littlehampton which only had 430 incidents in their area last year and on average they respond to just 830 calls per year.

13. Mr Rae quoted statistics for the number of mobilisations made by the 2^nd and 3^rd fire engines that are being removed.

Mr Rae’s deception continued, as he only spoke about actual mobilisations, not how often they were actually needed. The ongoing failure of West Sussex County Council to ensure adequate numbers of Retained Firefighters means that all too often, when these fire engines have been needed, there are not enough to crew them. Fire engines from stations further away have to be used, which then reduces the fire cover in that area. The real demand for these second and third fire engines has been hidden. Mr Rae also conveniently forgets that on the occasions they have responded, they have saved lives and property. Having these fire engines available between 35% and 60% of the time is not good, but instead of improving the situation, Mr Rae intends to make them unavailable 100% of the time.

14. Mr Barnard referred to Gatwick’s fire service. He also said that Gatwick Fire Authority made no objection.

There is no Gatwick Fire Authority. The Fire Authority responsible for Gatwick Airport is West Sussex County Council. Gatwick Airport is only responsible for immediate response to aircraft accidents and for having an emergency plan. The County Council has a legal duty to provide fire and rescue services to the airport for all incidents, and to provide the bulk of fire and rescue service resources as part of the Airport’s emergency plan. Up until 2010 there were 5 West Sussex fire engines close to the airport to support that plan. Now there will be just 2. Gatwick Airport answers to its shareholders and they need all the support they can get for their second runway proposal. They are not going to risk upsetting WSCC by objecting to these cuts. Especially as it will be WSCC who will have to explain an inadequate and slow response to the Airport at a public inquiry or inquest. An aircraft accident will put hundreds of lives in jeopardy. The number who survive will initially depend on luck, but will then depend on how quickly sufficient numbers of West Sussex Firefighters arrive. Removing resources and increasing response times to such a high risk location is grossly negligent.

15. There is a constant review and if new homes are built they will get the fire cover they need.

The suggestion that fire cover will be increased to protect new developments is a nonsense. Thousands of new homes have been built since 1974, yet the number of fire stations has not been increased. Instead they have been cut from 28 to 25 (effectively 24, as Horley no longer has any fire engines). No extra money has been set aside to provide fire cover for new homes. The only fire cover new homes will get is that which is already available from an increasingly over worked and under resourced service.

16. There has been a problem with Retained recruiting for many years.

It is quite disgraceful that Mr Barnard has been aware of this serious problem since 2003, but has done nothing to remedy it. In fact he has taken advantage of it by saying that, as crews are often unavailable, he will take their fire engines away. He has also imposed limits on the number of Retained Firefighters at stations that fall well below the number necessary to crew all their appliances round the clock. Mr Barnard's only reference to any action taken to address this crisis was that there is a recruiting poster near his home. It is his neglect that has resulted in nearly half the County’s fire engines being unavailable on some days. Such a shocking situation should be the subject of an urgent investigation. All the factors that contribute to this problem must be thoroughly investigated and workable solutions researched and implemented.

17. People will not be satisfied unless there is a fire engine at the end of every street.

This appears to be Mr Barnard’s fanciful notion, as no one has ever suggested there are demands for any such nonsense. Public expectations are quite moderate. They want no more than the level of resources that they have always had. Mr Barnard is failing the public and spuriously suggesting it is their expectations that are unreasonable.

18. The service is changing away from house fires.

Not true, as house fires in West Sussex during the last 12 years have fluctuated between 491 and 654 (530 in 2012-13). Very similar to the 1980s when they fluctuated between 502 and 599.

19. Risk is being reduced. Cars and roads are improving all the time.

As far as fires are concerned, the risk is increasing in West Sussex with fire deaths going up every year since 2008-09, despite the national figures going down. This should also be subject to an urgent investigation. Some old risks may reduce, but they are replaced with new ones. One of the latest has been electronic cigarettes and their chargers. The situation with road traffic collisions (RTCs) has been blurred, as not all attendances at RTCs are recorded. For some bizarre reason, if crews attend a RTC and report no action taken, it is erroneously recorded as a false alarm. National reports also indicate that the recession has seen a reduction in traffic and they expect that, as the economy picks up, traffic will increase and so will the number of crashes. The number of RTCs attended is still high, even with the manipulation of figures to suggest that the number is lower.

20. You will find this more than fair and adequate for a county of this size.

The size of the County has not changed since 1974, but the population has increased by 23%. Up until 2010 adequate cover was rightly considered by Councillors and professional Chief Fire Officers to be 28 fire stations with 46 fire engines and crews. It is reckless nonsense to suggest that with a larger population, which is going to continue to grow, just 24 fire stations with 35 fire engines and crews is adequate or fair.