Firefighters are gearing up for a major fight against life threatening cuts to the service across the country.
The FBU (Fire Brigades Union), in several regions have warned of the dangers.
In South Yorkshire a FBU statement said: ‘The Fire Brigades Union has warned South Yorkshire managers not to risk cutting the number of firefighters after a key fire death reduction target was not being met.
‘South Yorkshire is one of only five fire authorities not to have met the target. The national target is for fire authorities to have accidental fire deaths in the home of no more than 1.25 the national average.
Greater Manchester, Durham, Lancashire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire all failed to hit that target.
‘Although fire deaths have fallen overall, those five fire authorities have failed to keep pace with the reducing national average. Fire authority managers have plans to cut the number of frontline firefighters in South Yorkshire, while publicly presenting the plans as only being about shift changes.
Ian Watkins FBU Regional Chair said: ‘We’re not keeping up with most of the other fire authorities. Fire deaths are being cut by a combination of emergency response rescues, better fire detection and prevention work.
‘These new figures show this is not the time to launch a round of cuts to the number of frontline firefighters, which is at the heart of what is being proposed.
‘It’s not just about cutting the number of firefighters able to respond to fires. The cuts will also harm our ability to respond to all other emergencies including extreme weather events.
‘We are not making these points lightly. Councillors must take a close look at what is being proposed and question whether frontline cuts can be justified, because we don’t think they can.’
Firefighters have asked for the matter to be raised in Parliament.
The regional FBU statements continued: ‘A new multi-million plan for York’s fire services will waste money and not solve the underlying problems of recruiting and keeping firefighters working on the retained duty system.
‘The scheme, estimated to cost between £3.5 million and £5 million, involves a complex shifting of people and resources, refurbishing the central fire station and building a new fire station to the south of the City near the University.
‘The union warns that s recruiting students to work as retained firefighters at the proposed new fire station were unrealistic. The students could not be available during lengthy University holidays and there would be concerns about their reliability and availability during term-time.
Ian Watkins continued: ‘They know they have got a problem regarding the recruitment and retention of Retained Firefighters in and around the City of York.
‘They failed to address this same problem back in 2000. They are now planning to sack the nine Firefighters at Huntington, build a new fire station to the south of the City and then recreate this same problem in years to come.
‘Simply shifting the problem around the City and hoping it gets better sometime in the future is wasting taxpayer’s money. The problem needs to be solved not ignored.
‘The local FBU have put a solution forward that would safeguard the people of York for the future, keep the nine Firefighter posts at Huntington and maintain an adequate fire cover provision for the York area without compromising public safety.
‘Moving crews and resources away from the City Centre is dangerous. Time will be added to emergency response times which ultimately will endanger life. Rapid response prevents rapid escalation of fire. The high reach appliance and the rescue boat will not be as available as they are now.
Watkins warned: ‘No proper work or profiling has been done on whether potential south York sites can recruit firefighters working the retained duty system, who have other jobs. To suggest that we can recruit firefighters from the student population is far-fetched.
‘Students are not at the university all year round and are only there for a few years, so they could not build up enough experience. I believe even the students would accept there would issues of availability and reliability because of their focus on studies and experiencing University life.
‘We’re not opposing this for the sake of it but because it does not make sense. The Fire Authority is strapped for cash and seems intent upon building a new fire station for the sake of it. This is not a wise way of spending those scarce resources,’ Watkins concluded.
On South Yorkshire the FBU statement added: ‘The current problems centre on the inability to recruit and keep enough firefighters working retained duty. These firefighters are on-call at home or work and are alerted to emergency incidents by pager.
‘They then make their way to the fire station and from there to the incident by fire appliance. A whole-time firefighter is fire station-based and responds directly from the station.’
The union also says the Fire Authority has done no research as to the likely availability of other sources of retained firefighters south of the City. The same mistake was made at Huntington.
Huntington Fire Station – which works on a retained duty basis – was given the go-ahead in the late 1990s.
The FBU warned then it would face serious recruitment and retention problems, which would mean the station would switch to a whole-time firefighter system, with nine retained firefighters losing their jobs.
Huntington will have whole-time firefighters, one fire engine and a high-reach Aerial Ladder Platform all taken from York Central (Clifford Street) fire station, but only enough firefighters to crew one of these appliances at a time, making the fire engine unavailable.
York Central (Clifford Street) Fire Station will lose firefighters, the high-reach Aerial Ladder Platform and a fire engine. Only one fire engine and a Water Rescue Unit will remain.
South York Fire Station (proposed) would be crewed by firefighters working retained duty. No work has been done on the likelihood of being able to recruit retained firefighters. Recruiting from the student population, is unrealistic.
At Acomb Fire Station there would be no change. Two fire engines, one crewed by whole-time firefighters and the other crewed by retained firefighters.
Meanwhile, legal moves by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council to halt the closure of Windsor fire station at night reach the High Court in London on February 17 2009.
The FBU said: ‘The council is seeking a judicial review of the closure decision arguing that the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service failed to undertake a proper public consultation and failed to assess the risks surrounding a closure.
‘Windsor Fire Station protects an area which attracts seven million visitors a year, as a result of the Royal residence, Windsor Castle, plus LEGOLAND, one of the UK’s leading theme parks. Despite the £40 million fire at Windsor Castle in 1992, Brigade Chiefs plan to use Slough fire station to cover the area.
‘FBU members have concerns about the safety of firefighters and the public within east Berkshire, since Slough may NOT be available to cover Windsor as they are the second busiest station in the county.
Windsor FBU has undertaken a high profile campaign, attracting an unprecedented level of celebrity support.
In the North East, Northumberland Fire Crews have told councillors to scrap the PFI (Private Finance Initiative), saying taxpayers could be left with a costly way to pay for a worse service.
The plans would see the loss of two fire stations and 28 frontline firefighter posts, 1 in 6 of Northumberland’s 164 station-based, full-time frontline firefighters, leaving fewer to deal with emergencies. 15 part-time firefighter posts would be created.
The union is calling for a re-think of three-year-old County Council backed plans to close fire stations at Blyth, Cramlington, Ashington and Morpeth. Two PFI-funded fire stations would be built in Pegswood and West Hartford.
Union leaders say the three-year-old plans are outdated and out of touch with today’s economic reality.
Colin James, FBU Brigade Secretary said: ‘It might make sense to those financial institutions making profits from providing the PFI money and to those who want cuts to local fire services.
‘But it does not make sense for local public services, local fire crews or the taxpayers who will be footing the bill.
‘This plan was drawn up at a time when the economy was booming, property values were higher and borrowing was simpler.
‘The current reality is that we are in a recession and can’t afford grandiose PFI-backed schemes.
‘PFI deals tie public finances into a rigid and expensive long-term contract. We are burdening future generations with long-term debt to fund new buildings delivering a worse fire service,’ James said.
