Cuts and fire death concerns

Fair Pay

It is good news that firefighters and their employers have reached agreement on pay and avoided a strike. Both sides have been pragmatic, with the employers offering more than many other public sector employers, and firefighters accepting an offer that is less than would cover their inflation losses.

However, the Government has not given fire & rescue authorities additional funding to cover the cost. At the recent Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee it became apparent that the County Council has not set aside enough to cover the pay rise. Cabinet Member Duncan Crow said it will be challenging and Chairman Kevin Boram said the budget is tight.

I sincerely hope that Councillors listen to Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton, who reminded them that the service was 'lean'. 

The cuts in 2010 did leave the service lean, but the additional cuts in 2014 left it far too lean. Further cuts would seriously damage the service's response capability, and jeopardise improvements made since 2018, when HM Inspectors rated the service 'Inadequate', or 'Requiring Improvement' in every category. Inadequate funding played a significant part in those dreadful judgments.

County Councillors must fund the pay rise without further endangering West Sussex residents

Fire deaths

The County Council, in 2010 and 2014, falsely claimed that closing fire stations and cutting a quarter of frontline fire crews were 'improvements'. Despite having no evidence to support the claim, they assured residents that increased prevention work would save more lives. Despite a modest reduction in the number of fires in the last five years, the number of fire deaths has increased alarmingly.

Source Home Office Fire & Rescue Service statistics

With such concerning evidence, it was disturbing to hear the Chief Fire Officer, at a previous Select Committee meeting, incorrectly claim that the committee was informed of all fire deaths. The only fire deaths reported in the quarterly committee reports are those that occur in the home (dwellings), and where the fire was caused accidentally.

If the Chief Fire Officer did not intentionally mislead the committee, why did she get this very important detail wrong? Excluding fire deaths in other buildings, in road vehicles, in other outdoor locations, and in dwellings, when the fire was started deliberately, cannot be acceptable.

Source - FRSSC quarterly reports and Home Office Fire & Rescue Service statistics

The committee can't scrutinise properly unless they are informed of all fire deaths

Inquest questions remain unanswered

After hearing of firefighter concerns, I attended a recent Inquest into a West Sussex fire death. Although I learnt more about the circumstances of this tragic incident, some of those concerns were not addressed. 

A fundamental concern must be the adequacy of regulations. The fire occurred in the early evening, on the ground floor of a recently constructed block of retirement flats, with fire detection and connection to a careline alarm provider. Fire Investigation Officers concluded the most likely ignition source was a faulty, or damaged, trailing lead for a lamp. This then ignited a very new recliner chair that apparently met all current regulations.

Yet, despite the occupier being awake and ambulant, sufficient smoke was produced to incapacitate him. So much smoke that, even with the benefit of a thermal imaging camera, the victim was not located by firefighters immediately after they arrived. According to Area Manager Dave Bray, he was not located until two breathing apparatus teams were involved in a methodical search.

Whilst the occupier's apparent decision to try and put the fire out was relevant, it was disappointing to hear Mr Bray suggest that the victim's age was a factor in that decision. In my experience, people of all ages instinctively try and extinguish a small fire. Most succeed in extinguishing the fire, some don't but then escape, some suffer injuries in the process and, sadly, a few do not survive. 

Mr Bray did helpfully make the case for sprinklers, as a way to help avoid such deaths in the future. The Coroner indicated that she would submit a Prevent Future Deaths report that would raise the benefits of sprinklers.

Response delays

Mr Bray insisted there were no delays in the service's response, yet evidence suggests that there were. The wholetime crew in the town concerned had been mobilised to another incident, shortly before this call was received. Consequently, the town's retained crew was sent to this incident, together with the wholetime crew from a town five miles away.

Mr Bray told the Coroner that retained crews had five minutes to turn out and that they arrived in 11 minutes. However, he didn't tell the Coroner that it is only a two minute drive from the fire station to the incident. 

If there were no delays they should have been there in seven minutes, not eleven.

The Coroner was also told that the incident the wholetime crew were attending was 'an emergency'. I have been told it was not an emergency, and there are questions about why they were sent to it. The Inquest was not told the nature of that incident, or that the wholetime crew was located very close to the fatal fire.

In such circumstances, when West Sussex had its own fire control, control staff would have quickly radioed the wholetime crew to ask if they were in a position to attend the life threatening incident. That did not happen. It is alleged that, when the crew became aware of the serious incident, they requested permission to attend. It is also alleged that the Surrey based Joint Fire Control initially refused permission, insisting that incident details must first be completed on their in cab computer.

This suggests that, instead of control operators being able to use common sense and initiative, they are tied to inflexible procedures, an inflexible mobilising computer system, or both.

Although I believe my information was reliable, it was not first hand, which is why I hoped the Inquest would uncover the truth. As it did not, the service should investigate the full circumstances and ensure the removal of any obstacles that may have delayed the wholetime crew being immediately sent to this tragic incident.

'Computer says no' is unacceptable, Fire Control Staff must be free to use their initiative to save lives

Inadequate Response Targets

Mr Bray also told the Coroner that the service met their response targets. However, he did not tell her that West Sussex targets are lengthy, and differ according to where you live in the County

The targets set by the County Council do not ensure that the service is effective at saving lives and property, they are simply intended to mask the inadequate resources provided by the Council.

Research has shown that the optimum response time for life saving is no more than 10 minutes. Yet, West Sussex County Council has decided that for 66% of West Sussex the target time for the first fire engine will be a lengthy 14 minutes, for 34% of the County it is 12 minutes, and only 0.2% will receive the optimum life saving 10 minute target. 

West Sussex County Council's lengthy response times for critical fires

Green diamonds are fire stations and their designated number

Incredibly, if the first fire engine takes longer than those times for up to 11% of critical fires, the County Council can still claim to have met their target.

Nationally, the number of fires and fire deaths are reducing, although the percentage of fire deaths to fires is increasing. Slower response times are inevitably playing their part in that. Sadly, it is even worse in West Sussex where both the number of fire deaths and the percentage of fire deaths to fires are both increasing.

If West Sussex County Council genuinely want to reduce fire deaths, they must improve resources and bring response times down

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow failing to properly protect West Sussex residents

Not responding to fires does not improve resilience

Once again, West Sussex County Council uses dishonest spin to try and cover up their failure to provide an effective fire & rescue service. There is no evidence that the latest policy of not attending automatic fire alarm calls in some premises will improve effectiveness and resilience. 

However, it will inevitably result in some fires, which have been detected by automatic fire alarms, not being attended until they have reached much more serious proportions. It also increases the risk to life of the public and firefighters.

The 'get out, stay out, get the fire brigade out' slogan of just a few years ago was developed after tragedies. Incidents where, instead of calling the fire service and evacuating when the fire alarm operated, people went to investigate and were overcome by a fire and subsequently died.

WSCC is encouraging people to take action that may result in their death

Ignoring the first call and allowing fires to develop to more serious proportions will also threaten neighbouring buildings and present a greater risk to firefighters, when they finally arrive. 

Other consequences of not attending automatic fire alarm calls include unsafe conditions not being identified, firefighters not being familiar with hazards in those buildings, and a drop in income for retained firefighters. 

With the recession, any reduction in income for retained firefighters is likely to result in more leaving the service. Not only a waste of the money invested in training them, but a further degradation of fire protection for residents.

They say this only applies to "retail or public assembly premises", which they describe as low risk, yet there have been fire deaths in such premises in the past. Lives may well be lost in the future as a direct result of this retrograde step. 

This policy is ill considered and will have serious repercussions. I wonder if Councillor Crow has considered how he would justify, in a Coroner's Court, his policy decision that resulted in the service not responding immediately to a fatal fire? I suspect he has not. 

Gambling that an automatic fire alarm call will be false, is gambling with lives 

The real reason West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is less effective and resilient

Since 2010, West Sussex County Council has closed 4 fire stations and removed a quarter of frontline fire engines and crews. Despite previous assurances that this would improve the availability of the remaining fire engines, it has got progressively worse. 

At night, over three quarters of the County's fire engines depend on retained fire fighters who have to be called into their fire station when there is an emergency. The Council's original commitment, ten years ago, was that 88% of fire engines crewed by retained fire fighters would be available. When they failed to achieve that, instead of fixing the problem, they just dropped the commitment to 75%!

Disgracefully, they have failed to achieve that low standard every year since 2012/13. Latest figures show an obvious and worrying downward trend. 

(The two quarters above 70% in this chart result from pandemic measures that temporarily improved availability)

So, as the Cabinet Member responsible for the Council's legal duty to provide an effective fire & rescue service, what is Duncan Crow's response? Excuses, followed by more excuses. It is apparently everyone's fault except his! 

It is time for Councillor Crow to stop making excuses and provide West Sussex residents with more reliable protection

Incidents and fire deaths increasing

It is worth noting that the number of incidents attended by West Sussex firefighters is increasing. Not only is there a clear upward trend, but 2022-23 looks set to show a significant increase. Even before the spate of wildfires in the summer, the first quarter showed a 6% increase compared to the previous year. 

Desperation from the recession and ludicrously high energy prices are likely to drive people into using less safe ways of cooking, heating and lighting their homes. These invariably increase the number of fires in the home and will put lives in danger. 

There are already signs of increasing fire deaths, with full details suppressed by West Sussex County Council. The reports submitted to the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee only show accidental fire deaths in the home, which gives a distorted impression.

Last year, the committee was only told of 2 accidental fire deaths in the home, yet the total of all fire deaths in West Sussex was 6 (Home Office figures). Worryingly, the first six months of this year has already seen 3 accidental fire deaths in the home.

In the three years before the Council's fire service cuts there were 8 fire deaths

In the most recent three years there have been 14 fire deaths

Personnel in West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service continue to do their utmost to protect everyone, despite real terms wage cuts and inadequate resources. It is not their fault that the service is less effective and resilient.

It is the County Council that is failing West Sussex residents

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.

Cuts Will Cost Lives

This is what Councillors seem oblivious to and senior officers seem to have forgotten about. 

This rescue in Suffolk at the weekend involved two ladders, at least six firefighters engaged in the rescue and at least eleven firefighters at the incident when the rescue was carried out. 

Crews of four don't cut it and Hampshire's proposed crews of two in a van are a sick joke.

Incidents like this don't happen every day, but no one knows where or when they will happen. 

There is absolutely no doubt, cutting resources will cost lives. Well done to the firefighters involved.

If further confirmation that cuts cost lives is required, just read this:

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

Environmental & Community Services Select Committee

If anyone else wishes to email their concerns to the members of the  Environmental & Community Services Select Committee, their addresses are:

andrew.barrett-miles@westsussex.gov.uk, 
heidi.brunsdon@westsussex.gov.uk, 
dennisn@westminster.ac.uk, 
graham.jones@westsussex.gov.uk, 
michael.jones@westsussex.gov.uk, 
roger.oakley@westsussex.gov.uk, 
simon.oakley@westsussex.gov.uk,
joan.phillips@westsussex.gov.uk, 
john.rogers@westsussex.gov.uk, 
graham.tyler@westsussex.gov.uk, 
derek.whittington@westsussex.gov.uk, 
philip.circus@westsussex.gov.uk

You are welcome to use any or all of my points in the previous post.

More misleading and inaccurate information from the Chief Fire Offcier

The Environmental & Community Services Select Committee meet on Thursday to consider a report from the Chief Fire Officer about the cuts. You will not be surprised that the report contains inaccuracies and misleading information. I have emailed the committee members to point the worst of these out (see below). The numbers below refer to the paragraphs in the CFO's report that can be found with the agenda on the WSCC website http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/cttee/ecs/ecs180914age.pdf

Dear Committee Member,

At Thursday’s meeting I believe that you will be taking, for the first time, decisions that are matters of life and death. I would therefore be most grateful if you would read these comments alongside the report by Sean Ruth (Executive Director Communities, Public Protection and Chief Fire Officer).

Para.	Claim	True or false	The reality
1.4	“There has been an increase in the average response times to building fires in England”	True	The closure of fire stations and reductions in the number of fire engines across the UK have increased response times. Some deaths have been attributed to these closures and cuts. These proposals will make that situation worse.
1.4	“The severity of fires and numbers of casualties has decreased”	Partly true	Despite some decreases, the cost of fire damage has increased. The number of fire deaths in West Sussex has increased every year since 2008-09.
1.4	“National trends over the last decade” etc.	Misleading	The number of incidents fluctuate annually, so just looking at the figures for two years, ten years apart, does not give you a trend.
1.4	“WSFRS has followed the national trends”	False	The changes in West Sussex have not been shown in this paragraph, because they are less impressive. If you take the last 30 years and look at a more reliable four year average at each end of that period, the figures are: Total incidents attended up 45% Special services, including road crashes, up 78%. Fires have dropped, but only by 1% Fire engines have already been cut by 13%.
2.3	Removing a fire engine from service at Horsham will, “improve Service performance”.	False	Improving response times for Littlehampton’s 1st fire engine at night will come at the cost of poorer response times both day and night in the North of the County.
2.4.4	Cutting the number of firefighters at immediate response stations will, “maintain existing crewing levels where possible”.	Worrying	‘Where possible’ indicates that the CFO knows this proposal will see reduced crewing levels more often, so he has built in a get out clause.
2.4.4	Cutting the number of firefighters at immediate response stations will, result in “no reduction in response standards”.	False	There is no evidence to support this contention. It has not been analysed or risk assessed. Common sense says that with fewer firefighters there will be more occasions when fire engines become unavailable. The cuts will reduce the ability of stations to withstand absences resulting from leave, promotions, transfers, sickness, injury, jury service, parental leave etc.,
2.5.5	Removing the 2nd fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington, will have a “minimal impact on performance”.	False	Even the overly optimistic Modelling and Analysis Technical Report concedes that this proposal will result in ‘more cost in terms of life and property damage’. A full analysis using more data is likely to show that cost will be much greater.
2.5.5	Removing the 2nd fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington, will “improve flexibility”.	False	Removing the 2nd fire engine significantly reduces flexibility. There is no improvement in flexibility offered by the 4x4s, as these stations already have them.
2.6.2	Removing the 3rd fire engine at Crawley will have “minimal impact on Service performance”.	False	Even the overly optimistic Modelling and Analysis Technical Report concedes that this proposal will result in ‘more cost in terms of life and property damage’. A full analysis using more data is likely to show that cost will be much greater.There has also been a recent increase in fire deaths and fire rescues in Crawley.
2.6.2	Removing the 3rd fire engine at Crawley will be “more proportionate to risk and operational demand”.	False	Crawley has the highest number of calls in West Sussex and more occasions when more than one call has to be dealt with at the same time. It is already under resourced and this will make the situation even worse. It will also reduce cover in other areas when their fire engines have to deal with calls in Crawley.
2.10.2	Remove the 2nd fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington will save £63,000	Not sure	The documents issued with the consultation suggested that the saving for each station would be £41,400 (total £124,200). Which is correct? If the saving is only £63,000, surely there are alternatives to avoid the extra deaths and property damage.
2.10.2	Reductions in management and Support Services will save £290,000	Not sure	No detail has been published, so it is impossible to know if this figure is correct
2.10.2	Total saving = £1.6m	False	Proposal six is an increase in spending of £220,000, and proposal 8 will incur additional costs arising from overtime and recall to duty payments. The saving cannot therefore be £1.6m.
3	“Alternative Options Considered”	True, but worrying	It was quite right to rule out the other crewing options, but why was that the only alternative considered?
5.2.2	“There were only two specific alternative proposals submitted”	Misleading	Alternative proposals were not requested. Had they been there may well have been more.
5.2.2	Merger - this has previously been considered by the County Council.	Misleading	Previous consideration is not a reason for excluding this option. There has been time to overcome any obstacles to a merger with East Sussex, and time to consider a merger with Surrey or Hampshire. A responsible review would have looked at these options as they would be highly likely to save over £1m without affecting service provision.
5.2.3	A full report on the consultation feedback will be presented to the select committee meeting by ORS	Misleading	Whilst ORS have done a professional job, their research has been undermined by the misleading information and omitted information provided by WSFRS. Consequently, for example, forum attendees and consultation respondents were not aware of the additional cost in terms of life and property damage associated with some of the proposals, or that claims of West Sussex becoming safer omitted the increase in fire deaths. The samples at the forums were extremely small, so are not representative. For example, the FBU response gives the views of around 30 times the number of staff who were at the staff forum. ORS says that consultation with informed audiences is especially valuable. The 300 or so firefighters represented by the FBU are clearly well informed, so their views should be given considerable weight.
5.3.1	“The figures for fatalities in West Sussex for the last three years have risen from 4 in 2010/11 to 6 in 2013/14.”	False	There were only 3 fire deaths in 2010/11. Actual figures were: 2008-09 = 1 2009-10 = 2 2010-11 = 3 2011-12 = 4 2012-13 = 6
5.3.2	“The Service do not believe that it has deliberately been misleading or provided inaccurate information”.	Misleading	So is ‘the service’ saying it accepts that it has been misleading and has provided inaccurate information, but did not do so deliberately? Deliberate or not, omitting information such as the predicted increase in lives lost and property damaged from both the consultation document and at the forums has denied people the full facts.
5.3.3	Proposals one, two, three, five, six and eight” will improve service delivery.	False	The limited night time improvement from proposal one at Littlehampton is offset by the reduced service delivery at Horsham both day and night. Proposal six may offer limited improvement, but that will be more than offset by the reduced service delivery from proposals one, two, three, four and five.
5.3.3	There will be some improvements to service delivery and improvement in the Service’s resilience through proposal eight.	Unclear	There is nothing new in this proposal, so it is unclear how there will be an improvement. If there is any improvement, it will be more than offset by the reduction of 5 fire engines.
6.0	Resource Implications and Value for Money	Unclear	The additional costs are vague, but it looks like far more will be spent to achieve these cuts than will actually be saved.
8.1	Equality Impact Report	Misleading	The Equality Impact Report has completely failed to consider the more significant effects of proposal 3 on the rural poor, rural elderly and rural ethnic minorities, and the more significant effects of proposal 4 on the elderly, poor and ethnic minorities in Crawley Borough.
8.5.1	The Service has met with the Gatwick Airport Fire Service Manager, who raised no objections to the proposals.	Misleading	I have no reason to doubt this, but he has no responsibility for fire cover at Gatwick. It is West Sussex County Council that is responsible, so he no doubt would not wish to interfere.
8.9	The Service believes that its proposals, when implemented, will improve emergency cover in certain rural parts of the county.	Misleading	This is unbelievable spin, as there is no evidence to support the claim.

  

There are also some unanswered questions that you may wish to have answered: 

• Why were some proposals not analysed and risk assessed, especially as the consultation suggests that they all were?
• Between 11 and 17% of attendances fail to meet the standards, so why are they not investigated and reported to County Councillors?
• How bad are the worst examples of those attendance failures and why did they occur?
• Why has WSFRS not followed WSCC initiatives to significantly reduce senior and middle management positions?
• If money is short, why are officer cars being replaced with more expensive and more polluting 4x4xs?
• Why is it suggested that the 4x4s are for flooding, when they are not designed for flooding and standard advice is for them not to enter flood water?
• Why are there twice as many cars in WSFRS, as the proposed number of fire engines?
• Why has WSFRS not followed WSCC policy on reducing travel by car in favour of using public transport?
• At the restaurant fire in Petworth on 12 September why were the nearest available fire engines Arundel, Selsey, Haslemere and Horsham.

Inaccurate fire death figures

It seems that the Chief Fire Officer and I have both had trouble getting the figures right. Although fire deaths have been rising, the original figures I used were not entirely accurate and for this I apologise.

However, now the Chief Fire Officer also seems confused by the data. In his new report to the Environmental & Community Services Select Committee he states (at 5.3.1.) that in 2010/11 there were four fire deaths. Yet his Modelling & Analysis Technical Report, issued as part of the consultation, says it was three.

Having rechecked the figures in the Modelling & Analysis Technical Report, and the Response Infrastructure Technical Report, issued with the previous consultation, the correct figures are shown below. 

From this you will see that there is still a worrying rise in fire deaths.

The Chief Fire Officer is always keen to take credit for any reduction in calls and risk. For example:

• “In the last five years we have reduced the levels of risk considerably across the county.”
• The prevention and protection role, “has helped to significantly reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in fires in the home and reduced the demand on our services”.

You would naturally think he would also accept some responsibility when the figures go up. Not a bit of it. Regarding the increase he says, “the main causes have been primarily due to social isolation, mental health issues and individuals choice of life style”. 

So, nothing to do with cuts in fire safety or the number of fire engines then! Suggesting that it is the fault of the victims really is a new low.

'Safer' - really?

Quote from the West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service consultation document: "In the last five years we have reduced the levels of risk considerably across the county." This graph, using their official figures, shows a different reality.