Simon's support for the Fire Service pays dividends!

Below is my response to the consultation which the Combined Fire Authority undertook, on their proposals to radically alter the face of fire-fighting in the town.  I'd been lobbied by several local FBU comrades, and I have to say that I agreed wholeheartedly with what they'd had to say to me.  I'm not a member of the Combined Fire Authority, but I know a few folk that are, and I shall asked them to make the right choice, and to support the firefighters, and not the bureaucrats!  I'm pleased to say that they listened - and that the bureaucrats ditched their plans to cut the number of fire appliances. 

I've had a number of messages of thanks from local Firefighters and Trade Unionists, including these;

Dear Mr Blackburn
Just a quick note to say thank you very much for your rapid response to my email and for your excellent support. It is greatly appreciated.


Thank you for your response. I have read the e-mail you sent out and your article in the Morning Star and I thank you for both. I am very concerned that these cuts are going to be voted in by people who haven't taken the effort to fully understand the implications or just conveniantly blame Central Government....Thanks again.

This was what I had to say to the Combined Fire Authority!

I write, in my capacity as an elected member of Blackpool Council, to oppose the current Emergency Cover Review proposals.  I note that your report (page 107) concedes that “The area (Blackpool) continues to be categorised as ‘very high’ and ‘high’ fire risk...”

I understand that the vehicle which is under threat, L30P2, has facilitated the rescue of almost 450 people in the three year period from 2006-2009, whilst sadly attending incidents where some 20 casualties died.

I gather that the proposed RIU is not equipped in a way which would facilitate the type of life-saving rescues carried out in Blackpool over recent years, which have utilised the 10.5m ladder, which the RIU would not possess.  I represent the Brunswick Ward of Blackpool – which has, at its heart, the Queens Park Estate – comprising five 1960’s Tower Blocks.  Having personally visited Lakanal House in Camberwell, earlier this year, shortly following the tragic fire which claimed six  lives, left a further 20 injured, and many more homeless, I am very concerned about any loss of cover (not least cover at height) which these proposals could bring.

I also dispute the intellectual clarity behind the statement (page 36) that “Small fire calls will be ‘stacked’ meaning that where the RIU is dealing with a small fire and another similar call is received, the first incident will be resolved following which the RIU will proceed to the second. Importantly, if this cannot be achieved within an acceptable timeframe, a response to the second call will be made by the nearest available conventional fire engine. Calls to automatic fire alarms will not be stacked and an immediate attendance will always be made.” Given that your report further identifies that unwanted automatic alarms are a major source of false call-outs (indeed, the report seeks to mobilise this argument to lobby against the retention of the second conventional engine) it strikes me as odd that you would wish to ‘stack’ real fires (however small), yet respond immediately to automatic alarms, which, according to your own figures are frequently false alarms.

Given that the cost of the RIU is only marginally less that the cost of a ‘traditional’ fire engine (some £30,000) and yet, despite the claims made about its functionality (page 36) it is nonetheless clear that the RIU is simply not capable of tackling the job as effectively as L30P2.  I am also unclear about how the RIU crew will get from the RIU to the Ariel Ladder Platform, in the event that this is required?

I am further concerned that the “Introduction of the RIU will provide cost savings of £320,000 per annum as 48 rather than 56 staff will be needed at Blackpool central station.” – which I take to mean 8 job-losses -whether these are described as ‘natural wastage’, a ‘recruitment suspension’ or ‘voluntary redundancy’ is of little consequence, as the Nett effect will be 8 less fire-fighters protecting the people of our town – using a vehicle which is not as adaptable, nor as proven, as the one they have at present.

All told, this represents a poor deal for the Blackpool resident.  Even if these changes were to bring about the level of savings claimed, I assume that the Council Taxpayers of Blackpool would not gain in any meaningful way from a saving which would, undoubtedly be spread across the whole county – so in effect, the people of Blackpool would be trading 8 full time Blackpool fire-fighters for a few coppers off their Council Tax Bill (and the Council Tax Bills of people in Preston, Blackburn, Burnley and the like, who would not be losing any fire-fighters, but would be gaining a few pence nonetheless).

This is not a deal which I think any of us are prepared to accept.  I respectfully suggest that the Combined Fire Authority look elsewhere for their savings, as Blackpool is simply too high-risk an area to be tinkered with at the present time.