April 2016 Fire Cuts Update

Items covered

One of Eddie Howland's superb images
showing West Sussex firefighters at work

1. Deceitful West Sussex Support for Hampshire Fire Cuts.
2. Has Murphy’s Law scuppered Mr Barling’s ‘Super-duper’ 6x6?
3. Appeal Decisions Show Cabinet Member’s Claim of Openness is False.
4. Hampshire cuts detail.
5. County Councillors can’t get details on your Fire & Rescue Service.
6. Worst ever response times.
7. Government want Police & Crime Commissioners to take over Fire & Rescue Service.
8. Real statistics.
9. Petition thank you & Councillor investigation refused.
10. Real firefighters care.

Deceitful West Sussex Support for Hampshire Fire Cuts

Last September County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith insisted that West Sussex would not make any comment on the Hampshire cuts. Yet within weeks a West Sussex officer had been seconded to Hampshire for six months to help them promote their cuts. Then the Hampshire consultation report clearly showed that, not only did West Sussex comment, they actually supported the cuts.

Were we deliberately misled in September, or did the Chief Fire Officer ignore the Leader’s policies and instructions? The Leader’s subsequent lame excuse for this - “at the time we weren't going to respond, but we did and we are where we are”.

The West Sussex submission even stated concerns about increased response times and a less effective response in parts of West Sussex, west of Chichester and Midhurst. Councillor Goldsmith refused to give any assurance that Councillors will now take action to fill the gap created by the Hampshire cuts.

"Concerns within West Sussex - increases in response times; and changes in the number of 
firefighters and type of equipment" (Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service Consultation Report)

Most Hampshire fire engines near the border are to be replaced with converted vans, often carrying just two firefighters. Yet, task analysis shows at least four firefighters are needed for safe operations at all incidents.

Has Murphy’s Law Scuppered Mr Barling’s ‘Super-duper’ 6x6?

In 2014, when residents expressed concerns about losing the second fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington, they were told that much improved light, off road vehicles ‘would be in place’ before the cuts. Cabinet Member David Barling even talked about ‘super-duper’ vehicles, so where are they? 

Previous and existing light off road vehicles

The not very light 'super-duper' replacement (W H Bence photo)

Well the ‘super-duper’ 6-wheel drive version is reported to first have been overweight on the front axle and then, after re-building, overweight on the rear axle.

Is Murphy’s Law to blame, or is it the result of a poorly conceived idea, with inadequate research, and no business case, combined with poor project management?

All the indications suggest the latter, but WSCC is refusing to release all the information on the project. How much this fiasco has cost West Sussex residents has not been disclosed.

Murphy’s Law (if it can go wrong, it will go wrong)

Appeal Decisions Show Cabinet Member’s Claim of Openness is False

Cabinet Member David Barling has claimed that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service ‘prides itself on its openness’. Yet decisions by the Information Commissioner and the General Regulatory Chamber show that he is wrong.

Two Freedom of Information appeal decisions, regarding WSF&RS, have confirmed that the County Council failed to comply with the legislation. A decision on a third is awaited.

"the Council did not properly apply section 12", "section 16 had not been complied with"

"It did not seem to us that the Council’s estimate had been shown to be reasonable"

"The Council must disclose all information held by it which falls within the Appellant’s refined request"

Even more astonishing was the Council’s response to a FOI request submitted by someone to all fire & rescue services. Dozens of them happily provided the information and London Fire Brigade even make theirs available on the internet. Yet WSF&RS refused to provide it and claimed that it would "threaten national security".

A ridiculous claim. The more likely reason is their paranoia about releasing any data that will confirm WSF&RS’s deteriorating performance.

Hampshire Cuts Detail

All border stations, except Havant, are staffed by part-time firefighters, yet there will be 24 less of them. Proper fire engines (minimum crew 4) being lost are:

Horndean – their fire engine will be replaced with an Intermediate Vehicle. This is a smaller fire engine that carries less water, equipment and firefighters (minimum crew 2).

Emsworth, Grayshott, Liphook - their fire engines will be replaced by First Response Vehicles (minimum crew 2). These carry even less water, equipment and firefighters than the Intermediate Vehicle.

Waterlooville, Petersfield, Havant – One proper fire engine kept, with the second one at each station being replaced with a First Response Vehicle (minimum crew 2).

Claims about new technology are exaggerated. It won’t save your life and is of no use at most incidents – you need at least 4 firefighters!

WSF&RS Task Analysis - used to assess the minimum number of firefighters

needed at incidents, just to enable essential, simultaneous tasks to be carried out safely. 

No incident type required less than four firefighters. 

Building fires required not less than nine firefighters. 

County Councillors Can’t Get Details on Your Fire & Rescue Service

In February 2015, Councillors James Walsh and Michael Jones submitted questions on the service’s performance. They were told that the information would be provided monthly, but none has been published.

They asked for information about response times not being met, part-time firefighter availability falling below target and when less than 28 fire engines are available. Something County Councillors should monitor and information that should be available to the public.

They were also told that details of fire stations responding to calls would be restored to the incident newsletter on the Council’s website. Although this was initially done, within months they stopped providing any details at all on the WSCC website.

County Councillor Andy Petch asked for performance information affecting the residents he represents. Astonishingly, he was accused of wasting officer time!

Worst Ever Response Times

House fires 13% worse - Outdoor fires 17% worse

(Increased Response Time change for first fire engine 2013-14 to 2014-15)

Government figures released last year show that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service now has the worst response times in the south-east. Other fire & rescue service response times have deteriorated, but West Sussex, which once had the best response times, is now the worst.

The figures are average times for the arrival of the first fire engine. Yet the response time in many rural areas, and for second fire engines, appear to have increased significantly. Those response times have not been published.

Government Want Police & Crime Commissioners

to Take Over Fire & Rescue Service

This is the latest piece of nonsense from the Government that is likely to lead to further cuts. The idea is not supported by evidence and is just based on very naïve and seriously flawed ideas.

The police and the fire & rescue services necessarily have different functions, training, procedures, vehicles, IT, control rooms and location requirements. They do work together from time to time, and their procedures for doing so are effective, but most of their work does not involve the other service.

Police & Crime Commissioners are fully occupied in monitoring the police. They cannot take on the same role for fire & rescue without reducing their effectiveness at monitoring the police.

The system is also heavily dependent on the effectiveness of the individual. Some PCCs have been ineffective and putting them in charge of fire & rescue would be a disaster for both services.

With PCC elections in May it is worth mentioning that Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates in Sussex are on record as saying that they would not seek control of your fire & rescue service.

What is particularly worrying about these plans is that West Sussex County Council's mismanagement of the fire & rescue service only serves to help the Government’s case. If it is to be stopped, Louise Goldsmith and David Barling need to start running our fire & rescue service properly.

"The PCC webcasts her monthly Performance & Accountability Meetings with the Sussex Police Chief Constable. 
These meetings are an opportunity for the Commissioner to hold the Chief Constable to account
on behalf of the public  in an open and transparent way" (Sussex PCC website)

We can see and hear the Sussex PCC question the Chief Constable, but the meetings between the Chief Fire Officer and the Cabinet Member are held in secret. That is not effective scrutiny, accountability or monitoring of performance?

The National Audit Office also voiced concern last year - "The fire sector is different from other emergency services in not having an external inspectorate". Regarding local scrutiny they said, "There are shortcomings in these local arrangements", and "councillors generally lack independent technical support".

Real Statistics

There has been a lot of misleading spin about fewer calls. If you look at actual figures for the two incident types that most threaten life, and over a longer period, you will see a very different reality. These are ten year averages for the 1980s and for the last ten years in West Sussex.

Fires in the Home

Much smaller reduction than they claim

Road Traffic Collisions

More than doubled

Fire Engine Cuts

24% fewer fire engines available

Petition Thank You & Councillor Investigation Refused

Thank you to all who signed the petition against cuts to West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, and to those who worked so hard collecting signatures. Nearly 4,000 people signed, which prompted a County Council debate.

Sadly, Cabinet Member David Barling insulted petitioners by dismissing their concerns as ‘disinformation’. Most of the information supporting the petition was official County Council information, so either that was official disinformation, or he was just resorting to bluff and bluster.

Most despicable was his callous disregard for those who will die as a result of the cuts. Council research predicted an extra death every other year, information that they tried to hide. Now Mr Barling simply told Councillors to “put it out of your heads”.

That's a disgusted me having to listen to Cabinet Member David Barling 

disgracefully telling County Councillors to put extra deaths "out of your heads"

Independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP Councillors all voiced serious concerns, but the ruling Conservatives arrogantly ignored a proposal from Independent County Councillor Andy Petch for a Councillor Task Group to investigate. 

Only those with something to hide would oppose a proper investigation!

Conservative cuts and mismanagement have resulted in a rapidly deteriorating service. Poor fire engine availability, increased response times, training deficiencies and inadequate crewing are just some of the problems. Cutting fire crews by a quarter meant that this was sadly inevitable.

Mr Barling owes residents an apology for his disgraceful and disrespectful comments during the debate, and for covering up the service’s deteriorating performance.

Rest assured, we will continue to speak out on behalf of those who genuinely care about their fire & rescue service.

Real Firefighters Care

Despite cuts to West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, firefighters still work hard to help everyone. They are disillusioned with a lack of support from County Councillors and the Government, but when you are in trouble they will still do their utmost to help you. You can always rely on those firefighters who arrive on fire engines to help you – eventually!

Will rescue arrive in time? It did here - just.

For More Information (click on links)

See other posts on: wsfrscuts.blogspot.com

Or 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.

West Sussex Council’s Death Sentence Decision [Press Release]

A TRAGIC COMEDY OF ERRORS

Were it not so shocking, Friday’s County Council debate on fire service cuts would have been comic.

Most people, when adding 3 + 6 + 46, end up with 55, but not Councillors Lionel Barnard and Jim Rae. They think 3 + 6 + 46 = 3. These are the figures from their own technical report on the estimated number of extra deaths if the cuts go ahead and it is 55, not 3! Even the Chief Fire Officer appears unable to add up. In his Council report he only refers to fire deaths, but he adds 3 (fire deaths in the home) to 6 (other fire deaths) and also comes up with a total of 3. Why he got that wrong and ignored the extra deaths in non-fire emergencies is unclear.

It should be of great concern to everyone that people who are responsible for millions of pounds of public money cannot do sums that primary school pupils can manage.

Cllr. Rae had no defence for the cuts, so he repeated false and misleading figures and resorted to abuse. He even stupidly criticised Cllr. Michael Jones for speaking on behalf of the people he represents in Crawley. People who will shortly have the worst fire protection in the County, despite having the most incidents.

He also tried to pass the buck to the Chief and Deputy Chief Fire Officers. They have no choice but to work to Cllr. Barnard’s instructions, within his inadequate budget and with the damaging effects of previous cuts and neglect. Hundreds of West Sussex firefighters, who will have to risk their lives with inadequate resources, face public anger for poor response times, and carry the bodies out, have been ignored. They know these cuts will increase the risk to themselves and the public.

Cllr. Rae claimed no secrecy, but the consultation document said nothing about extra deaths, and the technical document only mentioned 3 extra deaths in the home. The other 52 deaths were hidden in a table of figures that had to be calculated to understand them. Something he clearly failed to do.

Cllr. Barnard also misled Councillors. He referred to a non-existent fire authority at Gatwick, and clearly showed he does not understand his responsibilities. The Airport Fire Service is only responsible for initial actions at an aircraft accident. The legal responsibility for providing an adequate response to all incidents at Gatwick is his, and he is failing in that duty.

‘Prevention is at the heart of everything’ proclaims Cllr Barnard, 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 premises inspected were found to be unsatisfactory. His latest cuts will further reduce prevention work by at least 5,000 hours a year.

He says he has known about Retained Firefighter recruiting problems since 2003. So what has he done about this serious problem? Sadly, all he mentioned was a recruiting sign at the end of the road near his home. Perhaps his prevention initiative will be to add another sign, ‘Don’t have fires’.

He did not mention that he has deliberately restricted the maximum number of Retained Firefighters to a level that makes it impossible to crew all their fire engines 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. He also did not mention that new contracts he introduced to ‘improve’ availability have actually made the situation much worse.

He claimed the ‘service is changing away from house fires’, which is not true. House fires in West Sussex have fluctuated between 491 and 654 for the last 12 years and there were 530 in 2012-13. Very similar to the 1980s when they fluctuated between 502 and 599.

He summed up his callous disregard for the public by saying that he would make the cuts, even if he did not have to save money. Sacrificing the lives of West Sussex residents for no reason is an absolute disgrace.

It was very noticeable that Conservative Councillors were very uncomfortable about being required to support these cuts. None of them spoke in support of Cllr. Rae, who prepared these savage cuts, and Cllr. Barnard who approved them.

The only other Conservative Councillor who spoke on the motion said, “Cutting other County Council Services may have caused some people inconvenience, hardship, anger and distress, but since my involvement these will be the first that will actually cost lives.” Councillor Andy Petch deserves high praise for putting public safety before party politics.

Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP Councillors were the only other honourable Councillors who roundly condemned these dangerous cuts. Many Conservative Councillors left before this critical vote.

Councillors Lionel Barnard and Jim Rae have deceived the Council and the public, embarked on reckless cuts, and reduced public and firefighter safety. They have been aided and abetted by just 26 of their colleagues who have put party interest before public safety. It is wholly undemocratic that, based on inaccuracies and deceit, these cuts have been approved by just 28 out of 71 Councillors.

Friday 17^th October 2014 will be remembered as the darkest and most shameful day in West Sussex County Council’s history.

WEST SUSSEX FIRE CUTS WILL COST OVER 55 LIVES

On Friday, County Councillors will be debating cuts that are based on misleading information.

No additional deaths were mentioned in the consultation document. Even the technical report, only admitted to ‘3 extra dwelling fire fatalities in 100 years’, but other deaths are hidden in the statistics. The Cost Benefit analysis reveals that the total number of additional deaths will be 55. The figures below are taken from that document. The calculations were omitted from the document, so they have been added.

Fire appliance Deployment Strategy	Dwelling Fatalities	Other Building Fatalities	Special Service Fatalities (eg road crashes)
Base Case	3.873878	2.150886	47.700663
Total FFR Proposal	3.901706	2.206813	48.163136
Increase for one year	0.027828	0.055927	0.462473
Increase for 100 years	2.7828	5.5927	46.2473

That is a grand total of 55 extra deaths. The cuts at Midhurst and Petworth will only save about £21,000 each, but these alone will account for 22 of those deaths.

The final count may well be more, as extra deaths resulting from the reductions in wholetime crewing have not been calculated, and the fatality figures used in this and the previous technical document were, with one exception, inaccurate.

Instead of cutting the service, the County Council should be investigating why, when fire deaths are falling in England, they are rising in West Sussex. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13 there was an 11% drop in fire deaths in England (323 down to 289), but a 600% increase in West Sussex (1 up to 7).

The Chief Fire Officer’s claims that the number of incidents is falling in line with national trends is also misleading. There has been a 27% drop across England (717,805 to 521,222) in the same period, but West Sussex has only seen a 14% drop (11,047 to 9,504). The reduction for fires is also poor, down 38% for England (249,237 to 154,433), but only 20% for West Sussex (2,675 to 2,148).

No one who has seen through the false claims in the consultation document has supported the proposals. Not mentioned in that document, or at the forums, were the real effects - more loss of life, more property damage, longer response times, poorer performance, loss of flexibility, less effective crewing, and failing to match risk and performance. The consultation was a disgraceful sham.

Much has been claimed about moving from ‘just response’ to ‘more prevention’. These hollow claims are without substance and are made every time there are cuts. In 2003 the then Chief Fire Officer said they would be “changing the service emphasis from one of intervention to one of protection and prevention”. Yet deaths are now increasing and West Sussex is lagging well behind the rest of England.

Another illusion is that ‘emergency response services must reflect changing demands’. NOT TRUE, the number of calls fluctuate for a variety of reasons from year to year. Looking at change over 30 years, fires are about the same (down just 1%), but total incidents have increased by 45%, and non-fire emergencies have increased by 78%. Despite these increases, the proposals will see fire engines cut by a total of 24%. Those with more experience know that there is no changing demand that justifies fewer resources. It does not matter if it is a fire, road crash, chemical leak or flooding, they all require one or more fully equipped and fully crewed fire engines as quickly as possible.

Another false claim is that the Crawley cuts will mean “resources more proportionate to risk and performance”. NOT TRUE, Crawley is not being properly protected. 15% of all West Sussex incidents are in Crawley’s area, yet they will only have 6% of the county’s fire engines (cut from 11%). Worthing, which has fewer incidents, will have 9% of the county’s fire engines. To make matters worse, when Crawley’s two appliances are at a call, the nearest fire engine to reinforce them, or to attend second calls will be over 5 miles away. By contrast Worthing, with three fire engines, has reinforcements available within just 3 miles, and another about 5 miles away.

County Councillors have a duty to protect the people of West Sussex. They should reject these proposals and hold an inquiry in to why we have been deceived.

Latest news links

Now we have a County Councillor shamelessly claiming that service reductions for 2015/16 "seemed unlikely to be the case here in West Sussex". Is he mad or just detached from reality?

Fortunately some County Councillors are still trying to get the truth across, as you can see from the Crawley & Horley Observer link. I have added comments to both, so scroll down if you want to see them.

http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/local/124m-to-be-shaved-off-west-sussex-budget-1-6348080

http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/crawley-councillor-says-fire-cuts-fight-is-not-over-1-6345044

West Sussex Fire Deaths Deceit

More deceit comes to light. The national fire statistics show that the figures for West Sussex fire deaths in the latest and the previous consultations were, apart from 2008-09, all lower than the actual figures. The error for the year immediately preceding each consultation may be forgiven, as they were estimates, but showing a lower figure for the other years is unacceptable. 

Did things improve last year? No, the national statistics show the estimate for last year as 7 deaths. At best this is just as bad as last year, which was the worst for 8 years. At its worst  the actual figure will be higher, which means the rise in deaths continue in West Sussex. This conflicts with the national trend, which is downward. So much for their claims that they are reducing risk!

Protests continue

Good to see in the "Midhurst & Petworth Observer" that Midhurst Town Council is calling for a full County Council debate on the cuts. Also good to see four letters condemning the cuts. 

Unfortunately there is one letter from Petworth's County Councillor that continues the myth, "the service will actually be improved". I don't know if she is deluded or deceived, but she is emphatically wrong. With judgement like that many of our County Councillors need to be very careful, as con men are likely to see them as easy prey.