Conservative Deception on Fire Cuts

Another example of deception from West Sussex County Council under Conservative control. They produced a Modelling and Analysis Technical Report on the likely effect of the 2014 cuts. They summarised the effects as “slightly more cost in terms of life and property damage (i.e. 3 extra dwelling fire fatalities in 100 years, £80,000 extra property damage for other building fires).”

The true results, hidden in complex tables, were a total of 55 extra fatalities in 100 years, made up of 3 extra dwelling fire fatalities, 6 extra fire fatalities in other buildings, and 46 extra fatalities at special service calls (e.g. road traffic collisions). Extra fire fatalities, not in buildings, were not shown.

The actual extra cost of property damage for other building fires in 100 years is £8,011,100. The extra property damage for dwelling fires (people’s homes) was not shown.

Increases all resulting from longer response times, which we are already seeing. The modelling does not take account of the worsening availability of fire engines, which further increases response times, so the modelling may well be an under-estimate.

Our Fire & Rescue Service is not safe in Conservative hands

There was a time when politicians, even Conservative ones, felt obliged to maintain an effective fire service. From 1948, for around 60 years, Conservative Councillors on West Sussex County Council did just that. Chief Fire Officers had to fight for the service, but well evidenced business cases usually secured the necessary resources. Never excessive, but always adequate.

However, the last eight years has seen a fundamental change, where the Conservative Government and Conservative County Council have failed residents and firefighters. The safety of citizens should always be a government's first duty, but our Conservative politicians are failing in that duty. Unprecedented cuts have been made to the service and they have used false promises and deceit to try to justify their actions.

I hope that people will remember this betrayal when they come to vote.

Note: The above figures include Horley fire station, which was located in West Sussex after the 1974 boundary changes, but continued to be operated by Surrey County Council for a few years until West Sussex County Council took full control. It provided first response to parts of Crawley from 1974 until it ceased to be an operational fire station after the last round of West Sussex County Council cuts.

Stubborn County Councillors press on with dangerous cuts

It was disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that at today’s meeting of West Sussex County Council there were more false claims and deception about the fire service. Councillor Michael Jones had submitted an amendment that would have reversed the fire service cuts, but it was voted down.

I also understand that there were written questions submitted to the meeting about the fire service, but we did not get to hear them. They used meeting procedures to first move the written questions further on in the agenda and then excluded them completely, because of ‘a lack of time’. Even shabbier was refusing to allow responses to the written answers at the next meeting.

David Barling, the new Cabinet Member for Resident’s Services, said in his response that it is often about what they don’t tell you that you need to focus on. Well let us do that.

1. When Mr Barling told the meeting that professional fire officers had come up with the changes, he did not say they could only come up with changes that also saved £1.6 million pounds.

2. When he claimed that the Chief Fire Officer rejected his ‘offer’ of having that money back, he did not say it would be professional suicide to accept it.

3. When he tried to justify cutting fire engines to just 35, by saying there were less calls, he did not say that fire engines were only increased by one to 46 when calls increased from 5,000 to over 15,000. He also did not say that, whilst calls have only dropped back to just under 10,000, fire engines have already been cut to just 40.

4. When he said the Water Carrier from Littlehampton, where crewing is not a problem, would move to Petworth, he did not say that when it goes out on calls there will be more occasions when Petworth does not have enough firefighters left to crew their only fire engine.

5. When he said that these were not cuts, but a service for the future, he did not say that in future more people will have to wait longer for the fire service to arrive and firefighters will have to wait longer for assistance.

6. When he said it would not be done if they thought there was a risk, he did not say that all the evidence showed that more lives will be lost and property damage will increase.

Yes, you did get one thing right Mr Barling, we need to focus on what you did not say.

The fight goes on

Just a quick update in case people are concerned that I have not posted lately. The fight continues and a lot is going on in the background. Discussions have been taking place with interested parties on next steps, evidence is being gathered and correspondence has been continuing.

I won’t go in to detail as our suspicions that WSFRS/WSCC are monitoring social media have now been confirmed. They are clearly very worried by anyone who dares to express a different point of view, or exposes information they thought was hidden, or highlights the flaws in their proposed cuts.

They hope that we will get fed up and stop fighting. They are going to be disappointed! 

BBC South News coverage

I have emailed the BBC as they are still falling for the consultation deception about 'Horsham's 3rd fire engine moving to Littlehampton'. Of course it is actually one of the five being cut.

Interesting that all of the people they interviewed in Midhurst said the cuts were wrong. As one lady said 'they take no notice of what we say, and they just do it anyway'.

WSFRS had fed them the number of times the 2nd at Midhurst turned out this year, but not how many times it was needed. That of course is higher and the failure to get a crew on occasions directly results from their deliberate under crewing (establishment 15, just 3 more than a 1 pump station) and the new RDS contracts.

Lee Neale had the gall to mention the predictive data and then claim people would be safe. Of course he did not mention the additional and unnecessary death every other year and the £80,000+ of additional and unnecessary property damage that are predicted.

He also did not mention that fire deaths were falling in the UK, but that they have risen every year in West Sussex since he and Sean Ruth joined WSFRS in 2009! He mentioned the changes being based on professional judgement, so the increase in fire deaths must just be a coincidence then I suppose.