Excellent case made to reject the cuts, but a shameful decision!

I have not long been back home after a very long afternoon. I must really thank those Councillors who spoke for the motion to reject the fire service cuts, they did us proud. They were Councillors Michael Jones, Chris Oxlade, Lionel Parsons, Andy Petch, Ian Buckland, Sue Mullins, James Walsh, Nigel Dennis and Peter Lamb. I would also like to thank Tony Hicks for sitting with me through the more than two hours of other items until we got to the FRS cuts motion.

There wasn’t actually much of a debate as all the speakers, except the Cabinet Member and his Deputy, spoke in favour of the motion to reject the cuts. Lionel Barnard and Jim Rae were unable to defend the cuts and simply trotted out the same old lies. It was rather like someone covering their ears and repeating ‘can’t hear you’ every time someone tried to give them a reality check. Councillor Rae, in the absence of any real defence, also resorted to abuse of the proposer. 

Not surprising I suppose, after the Leader of the Council was similarly abusive to the proposer of another motion the majority group did not like. It was quite incredible to hear her, during a motion on how the County Council is run, bring up child abuse in Rotherham, terrorism and Ebola. I really thought she was losing the plot, as did many of the Councillors. 

I was particularly saddened to see again, in the Chief Fire Officer’s report on the motion, the falsehood that ‘the modelling and analysis does identify a slight increase of three fire deaths … over the next 100 years’. His technical report clearly shows 9 fire deaths and 46 special service fatalities. The three that he and Messrs. Barnard and Rae keep referring to are just the extra fire deaths in the home. They keep ignoring the 6 fire deaths in other buildings and the special service deaths.

Although the motion was lost, the final vote was perhaps better than may have been expected. 18 for, 28 against and 2 abstentions. The vote was a recorded one, so we will be able to see who the Councillors were who decided to put their party before the lives of people in West Sussex.

What were the County Councillors who reviewed West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service really told?

Well today is the day we find out which of our County Councillors care about public safety, and which of them are prepared to sacrifice the lives of their electors. My latest email to them was:

What were the County Councillors who reviewed West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service really told?

20 questions that need to be answered

Were they told that:

1. Fire deaths have fallen in England, but risen in West Sussex every year since 2008-09.

2. The reduction in the number of incidents in West Sussex is only half that achieved across England.

3. Crawley has the most incidents of any station in West Sussex and that, following previous cuts, the number of deaths in their response area is increasing.

4. Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington had their establishment cut below that necessary to crew their fire engines at all times.

5. The Chief Fire Officer’s failure to address recruiting and retention of Retained Firefighters has resulted in nearly half the county’s fire engines being unavailable at times.

6. The risk assessment used is designed for assessing the risk to workers in the workplace, not the risk to the community from natural and man-made threats.

7. Using only three years historical data to determine critical fire risk is inadequate and unreliable.

8. That the average cost of providing the Fire & Rescue Service in the UK is £50 per person per year, but only £34 per person in West Sussex.

9. That Government research has shown that a one minute increase in average response times will cost the country 78 extra deaths and £85 million more property damage each year.

10. That despite financial restraint and no business case, the Chief Fire Officer is upgrading officer transport from small family cars to more expensive and more polluting 4x4s.

Were they told that the changes will:

11. Cost one extra life every two years, and at least 55 in the next one hundred years.

12. Cost 11 lives each in the Midhurst and Petworth areas for a saving of only £21,000.

13. Increase many response times, which will expose the public and firefighters to greater risk.

14. See fire engines travelling further to incidents and spending more time away from the areas they are supposed to protect.

15. Increase the number of times crews of only four are deployed, which will mean they cannot send crews in to a building wearing breathing apparatus until another crew arrives.

16. Reduce prevention work by at least 5,000 hours each year.

17. Not improve flexibility at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington in respect of their 4x4s, but removing their second fire engines will significantly reduce flexibility.

18. See Crawley with the worst resource to workload ratio in the County.

19. Cut fire engines by a total of  24%, even though the number of incidents last year was two to three times more than in many previous years.

20. Bring West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service in to disrepute and increase the likelihood of litigation, including the risk of corporate manslaughter charges.

  

If they were not told, then they were misled.

If they were told, then they are being reckless.

In either case other County Councillors should stop these dangerous cuts

Email your County Councillor before Friday

Not too late to email your County Councillors (or all of them) with your views. Addresses here.

Or email all of those that need convincing these cuts are unnecessary and dangerous:

bill.acraman@westsussex.gov.uk, patricia.arculus@westsussex.gov.uk, david.barling@westsussex.gov.uk, lionel.barnard@westsussex.gov.uk, andrew.barrett-miles@westsussex.gov.uk, liz.bennett@westsussex.gov.uk, pete.bradbury@westsussex.gov.uk, michael.brown@westsussex.gov.uk, heidi.brunsdon@westsussex.gov.uk, richard.burrett@westsussex.gov.uk, peter.catchpole@westsussex.gov.uk, philip.circus@westsussex.gov.uk, mick.clark@westsussex.gov.uk, michael.cloake@westsussex.gov.uk, duncan.crow@westsussex.gov.uk, janet.duncton@westsussex.gov.uk, margaret.evans@westsussex.gov.uk, peter.evans@westsussex.gov.uk, christine.field@westsussex.gov.uk, michael.glennon@westsussex.gov.uk, louise.goldsmith@westsussex.gov.uk, peter.griffiths@westsussex.gov.uk, trixie.hall@westsussex.gov.uk, paul.high@westsussex.gov.uk, stephen.hillier@westsussex.gov.uk, jeremy.hunt@westsussex.gov.uk, sandra.james@westsussex.gov.uk, anne.jones@westsussex.gov.uk, graham.jones@westsussex.gov.uk, amanda.jupp@westsussex.gov.uk, debbie.kennard@westsussex.gov.uk, liz.kitchen@westsussex.gov.uk, bob.lanzer@westsussex.gov.uk, gordon.mcara@westsussex.gov.uk, peter.metcalfe@westsussex.gov.uk, janet.mockridge@westsussex.gov.uk, pieter.montyn@westsussex.gov.uk, roger.oakley@westsussex.gov.uk, simon.oakley@westsussex.gov.uk, john.o'brien@westsussex.gov.uk, lionel.parsons@westsussex.gov.uk, ashvin.patel@westsussex.gov.uk, andy.petch@westsussex.gov.uk, nigel.peters@westsussex.gov.uk, joan.phillips@westsussex.gov.uk, jim.rae@westsussex.gov.uk, ann.rapnik@westsussex.gov.uk, john.rogers@westsussex.gov.uk, 
david.sheldon@westsussex.gov.uk, bernard.smith@westsussex.gov.uk, brenda.smith@westsussex.gov.uk, tony.sutcliffe@westsussex.gov.uk, bryan.turner@westsussex.gov.uk, graham.tyler@westsussex.gov.uk, deborah.urquhart@westsussex.gov.uk, steve.waight@westsussex.gov.uk, brad.watson@westsussex.gov.uk, derek.whittington@westsussex.gov.uk, sujan.wickremaratchi@westsussex.gov.uk

County Council Fire Cuts Debate 17 October

It would be very helpful if people could show their support for Michael Jones, who is proposing the motion to abandon the cuts, by going along to the public gallery at the full County Council meeting on Friday (17th) afternoon. I will be going and it would be good to see others there.

Please note that the meeting is at County Hall North, Chart Way, Horsham, RH12 1XH. The afternoon session starts at 2:15.

You may see from the agenda that tickets are required, but I have checked and that only applies to the morning session, when fracking is on the agenda. It would be helpful if you can let me know if you are able to attend.

It should be an interesting debate and an opportunity to see who cares, and who does not care about public safety.

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

600% Increase in Fire Deaths in West Sussex

Well it just gets worse. During the 'consultation', the Chief Fire Officer made various claims including, "fire services have significantly reduced the number of people killed in fires". Well, not in West Sussex! Between 2008-09 and 2012-13 there was an 11% drop in fire deaths in England, but a 600% increase in West Sussex.

“In the last five years we have reduced the levels of risk considerably across the county.” I very much doubt the friends and relatives of the 20 people who died in fires during those five years would agree. These graphs tell a very worrying story.

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!

West Sussex Labour councillors push county fire service cuts decision to full council debate

Labour county councillors are challenging Tory-controlled West Sussex County Council over its decision to further cut the Fire and Rescue service in the county, by putting forward a motion for debate at the next Full Council calling on the cuts to be abandoned.  Instead of the decision being made by only one councillor, all councillors will have to vote on whether they support the cuts.

Labour councillors have stepped up the pressure on the council because of public concern and objections from some firefighters that the cuts are likely to put residents and fire crews at increased risk.

The Cabinet Member for Residents' Services Lionel Barnard (Con, Henfield) approved a decision last week on behalf of the county council to make further cuts to West Sussex Fire and Rescue Services.

• The Tory controlled county council had announced that it intends to implement a further £1.6 million of cuts this year on top of £2.5 million already cut in 2012;

• This will include four fire engines (in Crawley, Midhurst, Storrington and Petworth) and 18 firefighters being lost, with an overall reduction of 37 staff in the Service overall;

• Horsham fire station will also lose one of its fire engines, as the appliance is being permanently moved to Littlehampton and not being replaced.  Crawley is losing up to seven firefighters and all ten of its retained firefighters.  This has caused concern that the north of the county will be left particularly exposed, as there will only then be guaranteed night time cover from Horsham and Crawley stations, and

• The previous cuts in 2012 by West Sussex had already seen the closure of fire stations at Bosham, Keymer and Findon, the loss of 6 fire engines, a reduction of approximately 50 personnel in the number of officers available to respond to Incidents and a major reduction in support staff who provide key support to the front line service.

Proposer of the motion to council, Labour County Councillor Michael Jones (Southgate and Crawley Central) said:

"The fight is not yet over.  If the West Sussex Tories want to push ahead with this worrying decision, I believe they must show they have the support of a majority of the entire council, not just one man, or a dozen councillors on a scrutiny committee.  The leadership has not listened to reason on this subject, only listening to the parts of the consultation they wanted to hear.

"The county has already lost significant numbers of firefighters.  Any further reduction to staffing or operational capabilities in West Sussex Fire and Rescue is in danger of putting both the public and firefighters at risk.  It cannot afford to lose any more."

The resolution proposed by Cllr Jones and seconded by Cllr Peter Lamb (Northgate and Three Bridges) states:

"This council recognises the significant public concern and opposition to the recent decision by the Cabinet Member for Residents' Services to implement £1.6 million of cuts to West Sussex Fire and Rescue Services (WSFRS).

This council believes that these cuts will increase risks to safety both to members of the public and firefighters right across West Sussex, and requests the Cabinet Member abandons the process, and instead retains WSFRS at its current capacity and levels of resilience.

The council requests the Cabinet pays for this, and also the plan to make Littlehampton a 24-hour immediate response fire station, by making use of part of the millions of pounds in revenue available from budget underspends made this year across all departments of the county council."

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.