Fire and Rescue - Gary Phillips Chief Fire Officer - Andy Hickmott Portfolio Holder - Councillor Caborn (Community Safety)

2014/15 to 2017/18 Savings Plan - One Organisational Plan

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Target Actual to Forecast Target Actual to Forecast Target Forecast Target Forecast Reason for financial variation and Original OOP Estimated Estimated Date Impact on Savings Proposal Title Date Outturn Date Outturn Outturn Outturn any associated management Reference Start Date End Date Service realised £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 action

FRS-A Implement a new delivery model based on the relocation of 01/01/2015 31/03/2018 31/03/2018 fire engines and the reallocation of staff, reducing the number of wholetime firefighters by 39 posts and the retained (on-call) staff by 36

238 95 238 709 398 709 1,397 1,397 1,750 1,750

FRS-B Reduction of fire control staff as part of a joined control 01/04/2014 31/03/2018 31/03/2018 arrangement with Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue There has been 6 months slippage Service in the delivery of our joint project 35 35 35 87 35 35 136 100 136 136 with Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service.

FRS-D Reduction in smoke alarm fitting 01/04/2014 31/03/2015 31/03/2015 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

FRS-E New crewing arrangements for the small fires unit 01/04/2014 31/03/2015 31/03/2015 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57

FRS-G A reduction in fire engines, clothing, protective equipment, 01/04/2014 31/03/2018 31/03/2018 operational equipment and training in line with the 36 0 36 102 0 102 118 118 133 133 reduction in staff numbers

FRS-H Savings delivered through the implementation of the 01/04/2014 31/03/2018 31/03/2018 previous Improvement Plan (agreed by Members July 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 2010)

FRS-C Reduction in staffing in Fire Prevention Team 01/04/2015 31/03/2016 31/03/2016 0 0 0 84 0 84 84 84 84 84

FRS-F Removal of an Area Commander post from the senior 01/09/2015 31/03/2017 01/09/2015 management team within the Service (25% of current 0 0 0 35 0 35 80 80 80 80 establishment)

Total 505 326 505 1,213 629 1,161 2,011 1,975 2,379 2,379

Target 505 505 1,213 1,213 2,011 2,379

Remaining Shortfall/(Over Achievement) 179 0 584 52 36 0 SHAPING THE FUTURE

Shaping the Future of Warwickshire’s Fire & Rescue Service Public Consultation Survey

Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service are consulting with the public on proposals to change the way we deliver our front line services. This is in response to the reduction in funding over the next two years and we are planning to use our resources more effectively to meet these challenges. We hope you will see we have the safety of the public as our priority and we will do our very best to ensure that we provide the best possible service within the budget available. Please take time to look at our proposals and provide us with your feedback.

If you have access to a computer please complete this survey online by visiting www.warwickshire.gov.uk/fireandrescue

Otherwise, please complete and return this survey by 20 June 2014.

Freepost RTHY-ETXY-LEUH Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service Consultation Warwickshire County Council Shire Hall Warwick CV34 4RL or hand it in at any Warwickshire Fire Station or Warwickshire County Council Library.

F&R survey.indd 1 29/04/2014 11:26 Introduction

At the Full County Council meeting on the 6th February 2014 the medium term savings plan for the next four years was agreed and this included total savings of around £2.4 million for the Fire & Rescue Service. The impact of reducing the Fire and Rescue Service budget has informed a review of how we deliver our services.This has given us the opportunity to see how we can: Improve our initial response to life risk emergencies across the county with fewer firefighters (life risk incidents are defined as presenting immediate or high risk threat to human life). Improve the availability of our fire engines. Match the number of the fire engines to the changes in demand and risk during different times of the day. Save money.

Our Plan

This consultation will cover the first two years of the savings plan and aims to achieve just under £1.3 million of the required savings. A two stage approach will allow us to review the changes made in the first two years, and use the outcomes of that review to inform our proposals to meet the balance of the savings required in the last two years of the plan. This will also enable the second stage of the plan to be developed and implemented within the next Integrated Risk Management Plan for 2017-2020.

Stage One:

In the first two years (2014/15 - 2015/16) of the savings plan we will propose changes to the way that we use whole-time Firefighters, the way that we spend our money on prevention activity and a review of our strategic management team.

Stage Two:

In the final two years (2016/17- 2017/18) of the savings plan we will propose some further changes which may include a review of the Retained Duty System. A second consultation process will be completed before March 2016 for stage two of the plan.

It is within this context that we invite you to consider the following proposed changes for stage one of the plan, and to give us your thoughts and ideas. Please visit our consultation web pages where we have placed the supporting information including, demand analysis, proposed new response model profile, financial profile and demographics that we have used to develop these proposals. Your comments and ideas will help us to develop our current Integrated Risk Management Action Plans for 2013-2017. To have your say please read through the 3 proposals below and let us know your views through this survey. Alternatively please send your comments to: Freepost RTHY-ETXY-LEUH Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service Consultation Warwickshire County Council Shire Hall Warwick CV34 4RL or email: [email protected] The closing date is Friday 20th June 2014

1. Are you....? A member of staff A member of the public

F&R survey.indd 2 29/04/2014 11:26 Understanding the demand for response services and reviewing when and where...

The Fire & Rescue Service will contribute around £2.4 million to help to balance the County Council’s budget in the period 2014-2018. We plan to save just under £1.3 million in the first two years.

We have looked at alternative ways of responding to emergencies, where we place fire engines, how we crew them and how we can best meet the changes in demand on our services. By changing the way we work we can remove 30 whole-time firefighter posts and a senior management post.

Analysis of the demand for responding to emergencies shows that the peak demand for response activity is between 10am and 10pm. Road Traffic Collisions and building fires present the biggest risk to life and property in Warwickshire.

Any changes we may make in stage one will inform any proposals we make in stage two of the plan.

In stage one we propose to:

7. Develop a pool of firefighters to crew special appliances and resilience fire engines during periods of exceptionally high activity levels such as wide scale flooding. 8. Remove 30 whole-time firefighter posts and a strategic manager post.

An overview of the proposed locations of our fire engines as described in proposals 5 to 7, and how this compares to our current arrangements can be found in the proposed new response model profile by visiting www.warwickshire.gov.uk/fireandrescue. A paper copy is available on request by telephoning 01926 423231.

2. How do these proposals make you feel?

Not at all concerned Not very concerned Fairly concerned Very concerned No opinion

Do you have any comments on the proposed changes?

F&R survey.indd 3 29/04/2014 11:26 Reviewing our response standards

Our current response standards to emergencies are 10 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas. These standards are based on the risk of fire, but the majority of life risk incidents are Road Traffic Collisions, which occur evenly over urban and rural areas.

We believe that by having an immediate response at more locations we can respond more quickly across wider areas of the County, and therefore provide a significant improvement in the response to Road Traffic Collisions and other life risk emergencies in rural locations.

In stage one we propose to: 1. Get a fire engine to life risk emergencies across the County within ten minutes on 80% of occasions: which is an increase of 6% on current performance across the County. 2. Get a second fire engine to all life risk emergencies across the County within 15 minutes on 80% of occasions. We have not had a performance measure for the second fire engine before.

3. How do these proposals make you feel?

Not at all concerned Not very concerned Fairly concerned Very concerned No opinion

Do you have any comments on the proposed changes?

F&R survey.indd 4 29/04/2014 11:26 Tackling Risk: Prevention (community fire safety)

In stage one we propose to remove one management post and one administrative post from our Fire Prevention department. This will ensure that we still have staff in place to educate the public and promote messages that keep the public safe from fire and other emergencies.

We will continue to deliver home fire safety checks, but we propose to reduce our spending on smoke alarms by utilising the stock that we have built up and target the fitting of smoke alarms to the most vulnerable people within Warwickshire.

We have reviewed our approach to working with vulnerable young people, carefully considering the arguments for and against the support that we provide. We will continue to work with vulnerable young people through our partnerships with Warwickshire Young Carers (caring to succeed project) and the Schools across Warwickshire that we visit to deliver safety messages. However, we cannot continue to provide the same level of support because of budget and staff reductions. We acknowledge the popularity of the Young Firefighters Association and we also recognise the commitment of both the Young Firefighters and their Instructors. However, tough decisions need to be made and activities need to be targeted at the most vulnerable sectors of the community. This is consistent with the risk led approach as set out in the integrated Risk Management Plan 2013-2017.

Therefore, we propose to stop providing support to the Young Firefighters Association in November 2014.

4. How do these proposals make you feel?

Not at all concerned Not very concerned Fairly concerned Very concerned No opinion

Do you have any comments on the proposed changes?

F&R survey.indd 5 29/04/2014 11:26 Equality Monitoring Questions

Warwickshire County Council and Warwickshire’s Fire & Rescue Service are committed to promoting and achieving equality and fairness for all. The information requested below helps us monitor and understand the profile of our customers, staff and members. It is confidential and anonymous and it cannot be attributed back to you. Therefore, the equality monitoring questions we need to ask are listed below:

5. Are you....? Male Female

6. How old are you....? Under 18 18-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75+

7. Do you have a longstanding illness or disability? (Longstanding mean anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect you over a period of time)

Yes No

8. How would you describe your ethnic origin?

White-English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British White-Irish White-Gypsy or Irish Traveller White-Any other background Mixed-White and Black Caribbean Mixed-White and Black African Mixed-White and Asian Mixed-Any other mixed background Asian or Asian British-Indian Asian or Asian British-Pakistani Asian or Asian British-Bangladeshi Asian or Asian British-Chinese Asian or Asian British-Any other background Black or Black British-African Black or British-Caribbean Black or Black British-Any other background Arab Any other Ethnic Group

9. What is your religion?

None Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh

Prefer not to say Other (please specify)

10. Do you consider yourself to be....?

Heterosexual or straight Gay or lesbian Bisexual Other Prefer not to say

11. Please provide us with your full postcode:

F&R survey.indd 6 29/04/2014 11:26

Outcomes of the Shaping the Future Public Consultation March 24th – June 20th 2014

Contents Introduction ...... 3 Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………4 On-line Survey Feedback ...... 4 Respondent Locations ...... 13 On-line Survey Conclusions ...... 14 Deliberative Forums ...... 15 Gaining Participation ...... 15 Overview ...... 15 Deliberative Forums Key Question Summary ...... 16 Deliberative Forums - Conclusion ...... 17 Public Roadshows …………………………………………………………………… 18 Additional Responses ...... 19 Letters and E-mails …………………………………………………………………..19 Fire Brigades Union Response…………………………………………………….. 20 Retained Firefighters Union Response……………………………………………20 Other FRS ………………………………………………………………………….. 20 Petitions ……………………………………………………………………………… 21

Overall Conclusions ...... 21 Appendix 1 – Online Survey ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.24 Appendix 2 – Deliberative Forums Summary ...... 31 Appendix 3 – Specific Questions Raised at the Groups ...... 32 Appendix 4 – FBU response ...... 39 Appendix 5 – RFU response ...... 47

Introduction Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service (WFRS) consulted with the public on proposals to change the way its services are delivered over a 12 week period commencing March 24th 2014. The proposals have been designed to respond to a reduction in funding over the next two years, whilst providing the best possible service and keeping the public and firefighters safe.

The consultation covered the first two years of the WFRS Savings Plan 2014-2018; and described the proposed changes to achieve just under £1.3 million of savings. A two stage approach will allow us to review any changes made in the first two years and use the outcomes to inform the proposals for meeting the balance of savings (a further £1.1 million) required in the last two years.

The consultation used three path-ways to discuss the current proposals:

• On-line o Information on the WFRS website o On-line questionnaire; open to all • Deliberative Forums – by invitation o Seven public forums o Two business forums • Roadshows – open to all

The table below shows the source and number of responses to the consultation received:

Source Responses

On line Survey 758

Public Roadshows 125

Deliberative Forums 66

Letters / emails 65

Total 1014

During the road shows and deliberative forums people were encouraged to complete the on-line survey or take a paper copy and return it to WFRS for processing.

A total of 1014 people participated in the consultation exercise. Fewer people chose to participate in this consultation than during the WFRS Improvement Plan consultation exercise in 2009. This may be associated with a number of factors, eg:

• No proposals to close fire stations this time • Acceptance that change is required to meet the financial challenge • Public and business expectation that whatever is decided a fire engine will arrive when needed

This report will focus on the responses received during the 12 week consultation period in order to provide a reference point of opinion for and against the proposals. The responses have been analysed independently with no bias towards or against the proposals.

Executive Summary Over 1,000 people chose to participate in the public consultation for the proposals to change the way WFRS delivers its services over the next two years. This level of response is in line with other public consultations within the public sector.

There were three main ways for people to interact and provide their views:

• Online Survey • Deliberative Forums • Roadshows

Submissions via other routes have also been included in this report including a full 17 page review from the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), 65 e-mails and letters and two petitions. Each section of the full report draws conclusions for that specific route with an overarching conclusion at the end.

There would appear to be a low level of understanding relating to the activities and resources of WFRS with very little appreciation of the costs and budgets involved, as was demonstrated by the deliberative forum results. Respondents were surprised at the low number of fatal fires in comparison to road traffic collisions (RTCs) causing serious injury or risk to life.

The deliberative forums did support the move to have shift patterns altered to provide better resource availability during the busier 10 am to 10 pm time frame. Although the practicalities of this were questioned in the FBU response.

One interesting conclusion was that the respondents were unconvinced that prioritising RTCs would save more lives. This was supported through a view that fire engines should be based in urban areas rather than spread more equitably across rural areas to meet the demand from RTCs.

The online survey respondents were a mix of staff and non-staff. The responses from the staff were typically more concerned about each of the proposals than the general public and in both cases the majority of respondents expressed concern at each of the key questions asking how they felt about the proposals.

The FBU response argues against cuts to WFRS in a document that looks at the process from a more technical level than the majority of public participants were able. Fundamentally the FBU raises concerns about the ability of crews of 4 on a fire engine to tackle certain fires scenarios without risk to the crew and/or the public, and the impact on firefighter and public safety of removing the second fire engine from fire stations in the major towns within the County.

A range of submissions from other Fire and Rescue Services (FRSs) were received wishing WFRS good luck and understanding the need to reduce costs. Staffordshire FRS has invited the possibility of sharing resource on fire prevention; an area which is subject to a reduction of posts and expenditure under the proposals.

Local concerns have been expressed by both Councillors and members of the general public who have chosen to communicate their views directly by letter or e-mail. A significant number of correspondents are concerned with the changes around Studley and Alcester. Their views appear to be related to promises made during the changes in 2010; people feel that the proposals renege on the commitments made at that time. This is coupled with concerns about the loss of funding for the Young Firefighters Association (YFA) and the benefits the YFA may bring in the future. There are also local concerns around the proposal to reduce the number of fire engines in urban areas, especially in Nuneaton.

Across all routes there was a level of concern at projected new house building, population and traffic growth, with people unsure as to whether this had been incorporated into the proposals.

A number of ideas were offered for WFRS to consider, in particular the use of a crewing model known as Day Crewing Plus, and merging with another Fire and Rescue Service.

Overall the proposals would appear to generate a negative feeling from the general public with 76.4% of respondents being fairly or very concerned by the proposals. However, this is not unusual when consulting about matters of public safety. The levels of concern are not specific to either a staff or public respondent.

A degree of not understanding what emergencies WFRS is responding to or how it is funded or supported by staff levels, potentially feeds this concern. This could lead to either wider engagement to make it clear why the changes would be of benefit or a revision to the proposals to respond to the key concerns that have been raised.

On-line survey feedback The on-line survey was hosted through Survey Monkey and was accessible via a link on the WFRS consultation webpage. Paper copies of the survey were made available at all WCC libraries and Fire Stations. All surveys received in paper form were inputted into Survey Monkey.

758 people responded to the on-line survey, although not everybody chose to answer all of the questions. The percentages quoted are based on the number of people who chose to answer each question. The full questions can be seen in Appendix 1.

Question 1 Are you a member of staff or the public?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count A member of staff 17.4% 118 A member of the public 82.6% 560 answered question 678 skipped question 80

The question is not specific in ascertaining whether the respondent is specifically a member of the Fire and Rescue Service or Warwickshire County Council. This may mean that the ‘public’ response may contain members of staff. It should be noted that it is not possible to split the views between ‘staff’, ‘public’ and not stated.

80 (10.5%) of total participants in the survey chose not to respond to this question.

Question 2 Responding to emergencies

This question set out the requirements in helping the County Council balance the budget for 2014-2018 including the eight Stage One proposals in detail. It is in this question that it was proposed to remove 30 wholetime firefighter posts and a senior management post, and in which the key elements of the proposed new response model were communicated. Respondents were asked to comment with regard to how they felt about the proposals and make comment on the proposed changes.

How do these proposals make you feel?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Not at all concerned 9.6% 62 Not very concerned 11.2% 72 Fairly concerned 19.9% 128 Very concerned 56.5% 364 No opinion 2.8% 18 Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? 306 answered question 644 skipped question 114

85% of participants chose to answer about how the proposals, outlined on the WFRS website, made them feel. 7

20.8% of respondents were either not very or not at all concerned by the proposals and 2.8% of respondents had no overall opinion. This means that 76.4% or over three quarters of respondents were fairly or very concerned by the proposals, with 56.5% of respondents specifically answering that they were very concerned.

If we look more deeply into the data we can see that the concern is higher from members of staff (85.7%). More than three quarters of the public (75.5%) also showed concern.

306 respondents chose to comment with regard to the proposed changes. Their comments have been grouped to allow quantitative analysis of their views.

29% of comments believe that the proposals will increase risk and threaten safety, lives and businesses. Whilst nearly a quarter of those commenting believe the Service is already understaffed and more firefighters/engines are needed.

How do these proposals make you feel? – comments provided in free text box Increased risk/threat to safety, lives, businesses 28.8% 88 Need more firefighters/engines 23.5% 72 Response time will decrease 16.7% 51 Needs to be a 24hr first class service/not cuts 15.0% 46 Should be ashamed/lunacy/concerned 12.4% 38

“the cut backs already imposed, and those now proposed, may save money but I strongly believe that at some stage in the future this will be at the cost of lives”

There were a limited number of supportive comments by 10% of those adding a view.

Some people had conflicting views on the proposals.

“Whilst I agree with improving the service to rural areas I am concerned that reducing the availability in urban areas could become a risk to life”.

Question 3 Response Times

This question outlined the current response standards and the proposed new response standard for the Stage One proposals, specifically to “Get a fire engine to risk to life emergencies across the county within 10 minutes on 80% of occasions”.

It also outlined the new target for a second engine to arrive within 15 minutes on 80% of occasions.

How do these proposals make you feel?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Not at all concerned 15.6% 94 Not very concerned 14.6% 88 Fairly concerned 19.5% 118 Very concerned 46.5% 281 No opinion 3.8% 23 Do you have any comments about this proposal? 244 answered question 604 skipped question 154

20.3% of participants chose not to answer the question.

More people were less concerned about this aspect than other aspects of the proposals with 30.2% responding that they were not at all or not very concerned and 3.8% of people had no opinion.

However, two thirds (66%) of respondents were fairly or very concerned by the proposals, although overall fewer people were concerned in comparison to Question 2. Again a deeper review shows more concern by staff with nearly 80% of them specifying a level of concern. This drops to 63.9% of the public but this still represents three out of every five respondents.

244 respondents chose to comment on their views. Again the comments have been grouped to allow quantitative analysis of their views.

How do these proposals make you feel? - comments provided in free text box 10 minutes should be the target 26.2% 64 Increased risk, less resource, population growth 22.1% 54 Ridiculous/worse service 17.6% 43 Need more stations/engine coverage 16.8% 41 Good reasonable/improvement 14.3% 35 Will not work 12.7% 31

Unlike the specific proposals, the response time question has seen a mixture of views being expressed, both positive and negative.

Over a quarter of comments believe that 10 minutes should be the target time across the County; whilst one fifth of respondents believe that with less resource and population growth there will be increased risks.

“An improvement of 6% is a significant achievement and will improve outcomes with earlier interventions.”

17.6% of comments relate to the belief that the proposal will deliver a worse service overall with a similar number of people believing there should be more fire stations and fire engines.

“This means the vast majority of people who live in urban areas will be worse off and (it) will be less safe for fire service personnel as crews will be over stretched and minimised.”

14.3% of comments relate that the proposal is a reasonable improvement but an almost equivalent number of people believe that it will not work

“Immediate response from more locations is an excellent aim as are the improved timings. But is there provision within these figures for illness and other occasional unavailability of personnel? Are the figures computed with or without provision of tolerances to accommodate human frailty accountancy shouldn’t ignore this important factor.”

Question 4 Community Fire Safety

Question 4 looks at fire prevention and looks at both the reduction in staff within the Fire Prevention Department and the reduction in funding and/or support to community projects such as smoke alarms. The question specifically mentions the closure of the Young Firefighters Association.

How do these proposals make you feel?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Not at all concerned 14.9% 88 Not very concerned 18.6% 110 Fairly concerned 20.8% 123 Very concerned 41.3% 244 No opinion 4.4% 26 Do you have any comments about this decision? 225 answered question 591 skipped question 167

22% of participants chose not to respond to this question.

One third (33.5%) of respondents are not at all or not very concerned by this proposal with 4.4% having no opinion.

62.1% of respondents are fairly or very concerned although again this is fewer people overall than in the previous questions. The differences between the public and staff view on this question is negligible. With 62.1% of public respondents and 63.8% of staff respondents saying that this proposal, concerns them at some level.

Again 225 people have provided comments which have been grouped to allow quantitative analysis.

How do these proposals make you feel? - comments provided in free text box Retrograde step will affect the future 24.4% 55 Education/fire prevention very important 20.0% 45 Too many cuts 17.8% 40 YFA was good/brilliant 16.0% 36 Shame/disappointed/sad/angry 15.1% 34

Nearly a quarter of people commenting believe that the closure of YFA is a retrograde step which will affect the future.

“Are the young firefighters the service of tomorrow? Are they not the ones to promote fire safety to other young people?”

One fifth of comments highlight the importance of education and fire prevention.

“This will greatly affect the education of young people about fire and its risks”.

“The wider benefits that the YFA provide allied with the cuts to youth services will have a negative effect on young people”.

Nearly 18% of comments relate directly to cuts and the effects of them. 10

“We have already lost the funding for youth services and cannot accept this further cut”.

Monitoring Section

These questions relate directly to the demography of the respondents. This is used primarily to demonstrate that a good mix of people from the County, and in a couple of cases beyond, have had the ability to influence the proposition.

Respondents to the survey show a good mix by demographic profile with nearly a 50/50 split by gender.

Are you....?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Male 50.1% 285 Female 49.9% 284 answered question 569 skipped question 189

How old are you....?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Under 18 2.1% 12 18-29 13.1% 75 30-44 27.2% 156 45-59 33.4% 192 60-74 20.9% 120 75+ 3.3% 19 answered question 574 skipped question 184

The mix of able versus those with a long term illness or disability shows a slightly lower proportion of respondents with long term illness or disability than the general population for Warwickshire.

(source (http://hwb.warwickshire.gov.uk/files/2012/03/JSNA_Annual_Review_Disability.pdf))

Do you have a long-standing illness or disability? (Long-standing mean anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect you over a period of time) Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 14.8% 83 No 85.2% 476 answered question 559 skipped question 199

There is a mix of ethnicity in the respondents although similar to the ethnic profile of the County the respondents profile are typically White – English (92%).

How would you describe your ethnic origin?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count White-English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 92.0% 518 White-Irish 2.5% 14 White-Gypsy or Irish Traveller 0.0% 0 White-Any other background 1.2% 7 Mixed-White and Black Caribbean 0.4% 2 Mixed-White and Black African 0.2% 1 Mixed-White and Asian 0.4% 2 Mixed-Any other mixed background 0.0% 0 Asian or Asian British-Indian 1.4% 8 Asian or Asian British-Pakistani 0.0% 0 Asian or Asian British-Bangladeshi 0.0% 0 Asian or Asian British-Chinese 0.0% 0 Asian or Asian British-Any other background 0.2% 1 Black or Black British-African 0.0% 0 Black or Black British-Caribbean 0.2% 1 Black or Black British-Any other background 0.2% 1 Arab 0.0% 0 Any other Ethnic Group 1.4% 8 answered question 563 skipped question 195

What is your religion?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count None 34.7% 187 Christian 53.6% 289 Buddhist 0.0% 0 Hindu 0.7% 4 Jewish 0.6% 3 Muslim 0.4% 2 Sikh 0.6% 3 Prefer not to say 9.5% 51 Other (please specify) 29 answered question 539 skipped question 219

Do you consider yourself to be....?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Heterosexual or straight 84.7% 465 Gay or lesbian 2.4% 13 Bisexual 0.7% 4 Other 0.4% 2 Prefer not to say 11.8% 65 answered question 549 skipped question 209

Respondent Locations 521 respondents provided a postcode which has allowed the production of the map below. As you can see there are specific areas of response which match the population areas. One or two respondents were from outside of the area. This may be staff who travel in to work but without further analysis this could not be confirmed.

The map does demonstrate a range of respondents from both within and outside Warwickshire with clusters around the urban population areas.

On-line Survey Conclusions

The results from the on-line survey show a high level of concern for all of the proposals with a minimum of 60% of respondents fairly or very concerned by the proposals.

The proposals would appear to generate a negative feeling from the general comments with 76.4% of respondents being fairly or very concerned by the proposals overall. However, this is not unusual when consulting about matters of public safety. The levels of concern are not specific to either a staff or public respondent.

It should be noted that the proposed new standard of a ten minute response to life risk incidents across the County on 80% of occasions is supported; but people do not appear to believe it is achievable without increasing risk especially as population and traffic expands within urban areas across the County.

People are slightly less concerned about the reduction in the fire prevention; but concern is still expressed by 62.1% of respondents. Nearly a quarter of people commenting felt that this step would be detrimental to the future.

Deliberative Forums The decision was made to run deliberative forums rather than open public meetings because they provide for a greater and more dispassionate consideration of the issues and evidence in non-confrontational settings by informed participants. Public meetings about controversial issues are difficult to manage and do not readily provide a thoughtful atmosphere in which to examine the evidence and arguments deliberatively. They tend to become confrontational and do not enable the careful consideration of complex issues.

Gaining Participation Members of the general public were invited to specific forums. Nine forums were scheduled, with eight being completed. Unfortunately it was not possible to successfully run a forum in Stratford despite three scheduled dates being attempted.

Attendees were recruited by a number of methods: -

• In-street recruitment – representatives of WFRS standing in shopping areas local to the venue and asking if people would be interested • Telephone – a market research type approach was taken to contact people by telephone and invite them to attend the forum • WCC Community Forums – invitations were extended via e-mail to attendees of Community Forums • Email – businesses and individuals were sent an email with the details of the groups and asked to confirm their participation • Social Media (business) – Warwickshire Business Forum • Federation of Small Businesses – specifically within Warwickshire, which included an inclusion in the weekly updates that the forums were taking place • LinkedIn (business) – local groups utilised on LinkedIn to ensure maximum awareness

In total 200 members of the general public and businesses agreed in principle to attend the forums, although only 66 attended on the day/evening.

At the end of each group there was a question and answer session where respondents were able to give their views and opinions on the proposals.

Overview In total 66 people attended the groups, consisting of 63 members of the public and three representatives from the business community. Forums took place at Hatters Space Community Centre in Nuneaton, The Benn Partnership Centre in Rugby, The Sydni Centre in Leamington Spa, The Falstaff Hotel in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire College Trident Business and Technology Centre and The Royal Pump Rooms in Leamington Spa.

In the first exercise respondents were asked to estimate some of the logistics around running the Fire and Rescue Service. The next table shows the highest lowest and average results for the groups.

How many people die or How many How How many are seriously £££ to many How many How many people die in injured in Road crew one £££ to Fire Engines Fire Stations How many fires in Traffic fire engine run the in in Firefighters in Warwickshire Collisions in 24/7 per service Warwickshire Warwickshire Warwickshire Group each year? Warwickshire? year? per year ? ? ?

Highest 9116 50245 £1.1m £105.0m 105 30 4788

Lowest 7 50 £150,000 £16.2m 25 6 150

Average 1746 8470 £675,413 £39.8m 48 14 1433

Actual (2012/13) 1 299 @£1m £19.5m 22 16 436

• All respondents over estimated the number of people who die in fires in Warwickshire each year • There are a wide range of estimates for the number of people who die or are seriously injured in RTCs, both over estimating and under estimating • The majority of groups have underestimated the cost of crewing a fire engine (wholetime firefighters 24/7 per year) • Only two groups under estimated the cost of running the Service per year, with most highly over estimating • The number of fire engines in Warwickshire was over estimated by every group. • The number of fire stations was under estimated by most groups • The number of firefighters in Warwickshire was overestimated by most groups. The average represents an average of all participant answers

The table below shows the average staffing profile from the groups for the task to build your own fire service for Warwickshire.

24 12 24 12 hour hour hour hour WT WT RDS RDS Total

Average 5.7 6.1 10.9 9.5 30.9

Respondents were asked to state how many of each crew type they would employ if they were given a budget of £9.5m to staff the fire engines. They were told that a wholetime 24 hour crew costs £1m, a wholetime 12 hour crew costs £0.5m, a 24 RDS hour crew costs £100k and a 12 hour RDS crew costs £50k.

• Many respondents found the maths too difficult to calculate. Just 20 of the 47 people who attempted to complete the exercise managed to achieve a correct budget of £9.5m • The lowest total was £3m and the highest £77.5m. Due to the difficulty experienced Group 8 was not asked to complete this exercise. The average represents an average of all participant answers

• From the table we can clearly identify the lower level of wholetime firefighters, with the number of RDS crews substantially higher than in the current model. This is in line with the proposals put forward

Each group were then asked to list the locations where they would like to see these fire engines stationed. They were provided with a map of Warwickshire to assist them in this exercise.

The top ten locations stated are Nuneaton, Rugby, Leamington Spa, Stratford, Warwick, Atherstone, Coleshill, Southam, Bedworth and Polesworth.

The top five locations stated are all in urban areas that are currently covered by wholetime fire engines. Gaydon is only mentioned four times and Ryton On Dunsmore is not mentioned at all (the two proposed new station sites). Coventry is mentioned eight times but is not within Warwickshire.

The groups were asked a set of questions to gauge their views on the key aspects of the proposals. A show of hands was taken to record the views of the majority for each question. Where there was no outcome a “no response” result is given, where the group is fairly equally split in their views an “unsure” result is given.

The following table is a summary of results:

Do you agree to Do you agree that How do you feel increasing the number Do you think that resource about more fire of part time Should road traffic Warwickshire Fire availability should appliances being firefighters and collisions be and Rescue Service reflect demand for based in rural reducing the number prioritised over need to prioritise different times of areas and less in of full time house fires if it Group resources? the day or night? urban areas? firefighters? would save lives?

Group 1 Agree Agree No response Unsure Agree

Group 2 Agree Agree Agree Unsure Agree

Group 3 Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree

Group 4 Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree

Group 5 Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree

Group 6 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Unsure

Group 7 Agree Agree Disagree Unsure Agree

Average Agree Agree Disagree Unsure or Disagree Agree

Deliberative Forums Key Question Summary

• Most groups agreed that WFRS should prioritise resources. Group 3 disagreed because they felt that the Service should be able to respond equally well to all incidents. They thought the Service should be built around need rather than financial resources

• All groups agreed that resources availability should reflect demand. They were supportive of changes in shift patterns to achieve this • Most groups disagreed about basing more fire appliances in rural locations. The reasons given for this related to population centres requiring more resources and that urban areas were growing with new housing estates being built. There is likely to be some bias with the majority of respondents being town dwellers. They were generally satisfied with the current response model of 10 minutes in urban areas and 20 minutes in rural areas. They thought that the rural response times were an unavoidable effect of the geographical spread • Only two groups agreed about reducing the number of full time firefighters. There were concerns about having a large proportion of firefighters only on a part time basis. Some respondents were sceptical about the ability to recruit RDS crews with particular concern about the hours RDS firefighters would be available • Although four groups agreed to prioritise RTCs over house fires, they did so only if it could be certain that it would save lives. Most respondents felt that fires should normally be the priority. This was further explained by the emotive nature of fire, the historical view of a “Fire Brigade” and a view that road traffic collisions are more self-inflicted than fires. Respondents raised issues such as speed as a factor in RTC’s and believed more could be done in terms of education and law enforcement to reduce serious injury or fatality on the roads

Deliberative Forums - Conclusion

• A generally low level of understanding relating to the activities and resources of WFRS • Very little appreciation of the costs involved in operating the Service • When presented with a simplistic model of the challenge facing the Service the solution involved fewer full time firefighters and more RDS firefighters. However, the majority of participants were opposed to reducing full time firefighters and expressed concerns with doing so • Respondents were surprised at the statistics for fire and RTC incidents. They understood that the P1 incidents occur more in rural areas and that they are predominately RTC’s, but still placed fire stations in urban locations when asked to give their opinion. The majority of respondents were against locating fire engines in rural locations and were concerned about response times for fires in areas of high population • They agree that the Fire Service need to prioritise resources. They are in support of shift changes and a reorganisation of staffing to cover the key peak time of 10 am to 10 pm. They have concerns about a lower level of full time firefighters achieving this objective • A large number of participants remain unconvinced that prioritising RTC’s over fires will save lives. There is an intuitive fear about fire and a view that house fires are more important than traffic accidents. There is an apparent lower level of sympathy towards traffic accident victims and an element of property protection in evidence

Public Roadshows

Public roadshows were held at five locations across the County to provide an opportunity for the public to discuss the proposals with Fire Service staff and elected members. People were encouraged to feedback their comments via the survey; either electronically at the roadshow, or by returning a paper copy by freepost. Dates and locations were as follows:

6th May Royal Priors Shopping Centre, Leamington

10th May Co-op Car Park, Atherstone

14th May Ropewalk Shopping Centre, Nuneaton

15th May Clock Towers Shopping Centre, Rugby

17th May Bulls Head Yard Car Park, Alcester

125 surveys were completed at the roadshows, the analyses of which are included in the on-line survey section of this report.

Additional Responses

In addition to the ability for people to participate in both the deliberative forums and the on- line surveys, additional feedback has been provided in the form of letters and e-mails. There has been a 17 page review of the proposals submitted by the Fire Brigades Union, and a seven page response submitted by the Retained Firefighters Union.

Letters and e-mails

65 letters and e-mails were received from interested parties including local councillors, clerks to town and parish councils, retired and serving members of staff and the general public.

In the main the responses received showed concern at the proposals as they stand:

• Nine correspondents expressed a general concern for the level of reductions in the level of resources proposed for the Service • Almost half of all correspondents (28) expressed concerns for the proposed reduction in fire cover for the Alcester/Studley area, especially following the closure of Studley fire station in previous cuts. Having reduced cover at Alcester would mean Studley requiring support from Stratford which would make it impossible to meet the proposed response standards. Alcester residents also believe that the assurances gave with the closure of Studley are now being reneged under these proposals • Ten correspondents expressed concern for the proposals to stop supporting the YFA, especially the Shipston branch • Three correspondents expressed specific concern for the proposal to reduce the crewing level on fire engines to four riders • Five correspondents expressed concern for the proposal to remove the second fire engine from urban two pump stations, especially Nuneaton • Seven correspondents expressed concerns around the consultation process itself, especially around the decision not to hold a series of public meetings across the County

Another area of concern from the public and district/parish councillors was the proposed population increases and how these affected the proposals and response times. Had the increases been factored in when planning the staffing levels?

Several respondents highlighted that the plans specifically only cover years one and two of a four year plan and question what happens in years three and four and what if the initial data used is found to be flawed?

The Service received 14 Freedom of Information requests specific to the Shaping the Future proposals.

A number of ideas were suggested via e-mail. These included the use of a duty system known as Day Crewing Plus as an alternative way to reducing the number of firefighters within the organisation, merger with another FRS to achieve economies of scale, and the greater use of RDS firefighters due to their cost effectiveness compared to full-time firefighters.

Fire Brigades Union Response

The FBU have outlined a number of concerns with the proposals as they stand. Whilst this report does not seek to fully mention each of the specific points in detail it does acknowledge the complete nature of the FBU response in its 17 page document. This report will not comment on those elements being considered under the separate staff consultation process, but will concentrate on the FBUs response to those proposals consulted on with the public.

• The FBU argue that investment is required, not cuts. • A major concern to the FBU is the proposal for crews of four on fire engines, with the increased associated risks and a perceived delay in handling some incidents where a fifth member would be necessary; such as where crews need to enter buildings with breathing apparatus. The FBU highlight that whilst it is acceptable, and not necessarily unsafe in some circumstances to have a four man crew, it should not occur all of the time • The FBU argue that two fire engines should be maintained 24/7 in major towns across the County to ensure resources are kept where the most life risk is located • The FBU express concern that the proposals only cover the first two years of a four year savings plan • The FBU argue that the proposals represent ‘savage cuts’ which will ‘put members of the public at great risk’

A number of these concerns have been identified by the respondents in the on-line survey, although it is not possible to distinguish between the staff and public views.

RFU response

The RFU acknowledge that in order to achieve efficiency savings jobs will be lost, and that there has to be recognition that the public purse can only be expected to fund an emergency response proportionate to current risks.

The RFU response leans heavily on the argument that retained firefighters present a much more cost effective service than their wholetime colleagues, and argue that WFRS should concentrate their efforts on solving the RDS recruitment issues and invest more in the RDS service rather than trying to overcome the issues through greater use of more expensive wholetime firefighters.

Other FRSs

A number of other FRSs provided a formal response to the consultation. These generally offered understanding and support. The FRSs providing a formal written response include:

• Oxfordshire • Staffordshire • Hereford and Worcester • Derbyshire • Gloucestershire

Petitions

The Warwickshire County Council Petitions Scheme stipulates that petitions received in response to an invitation by the Council on particular proposals will be dealt with in accordance with the consultation arrangements and not by the Petitions Scheme. Petitions were received from Nuneaton and Bedworth and Shipston-on-Stour.

In Nuneaton and Bedworth people were asked to sign to:

“Save Our Fire Stations in Nuneaton and Bedworth

We, the community demand that Warwickshire County Council reconsider the positions on the removal of our Fire Engines for reasons of health, welfare and safety to the people of the Borough in which that they serve”.

This petition received 1533 signatures.

The petition in Shipston-on-Stour received 1800 signatures and was related directly to the closure of the Young Firefighters Association.

“Petition to save Young Firefighters Shipston-on-Stour

We the undersigned request that you reconsider your decision to close the Young Firefighters in Shipston-on-Stour. Young Firefighters teaches children of all ages and abilities responsibility, teamwork, care in the community, discipline and commitment as well as a full range of practical skills. We feel strongly that these young people are the future firefighters and citizens of Shipston and they should be supported and encouraged”.

Overall Conclusions

1014 individuals participated in the consultation process in one form or another, outside of the Representative Bodies and the petitions. This level of response is in line with other public consultations within the public sector.

In drawing conclusions from the various elements of the public consultation several points need to be considered:

• WFRS has been asked to make savings of around £2.4 million in order to help Warwickshire County Council meet its financial targets over the next four years • In order to meet the reductions difficult decisions with regard to staffing and service delivery need to be made • The proposals as they have been developed to date acknowledge this reduction whilst delivering what is suggested to be an improved response model

Both the quantitative and qualitative analysis would indicate that there is an understanding of the need to help the County balance its finances. However there is little in the way of supportive views with regard to the proposals as they stand. A majority of people participating have indicated that they have some levels of concern with them.

The on-line survey demonstrated a wide mix of feelings but there was a belief that the ten minute response time was good and should be a minimum target. This did not feed into a support for the proposals though. There were several comments that related a feeling that WFRS should actually be receiving increased funding to enable it to meet future needs. People specifically identified areas where there are planned increases in housing which will drive population and traffic increases. There were concerns as to how this could be handled with the reductions proposed.

The qualitative study also shows an acknowledgement for the need for WFRS to contribute savings for the reduced finances of the County. Although peoples understanding of both the budget and staffing levels for WFRS was significantly different to the reality and generally over-estimated.

During the forums people consistently believed that fire stations should be located in urban areas due to this being the area most likely to have fires: somewhat counter to the views of WFRS in the proposals. Additionally people appear to believe that fire should be given higher priority even if comparing a “no risk to life fire” with a “risk to life road traffic collision”. It is interesting that the participants didn’t choose the two identified locations for new stations in the proposals.

The feedback from the public and local Councillors tends to indicate a parochial element to their concerns. With respect to the Alcester and Studley areas in particular, people expressed that their views were not listened to when local closures occurred a few years ago, and that assurances given at the time are now being reneged upon.

The FBU response was thorough, emotive and argued that investment not cuts is necessary. As would be expected the response is more attuned to operational concerns and the safety of its members, though emotive language is used to describe the dangers to the public, “savage cuts to the Service now will put members of the public at great risk. People will die unnecessarily and suffer injuries which could have been avoided”. The FBU presents the argument that reduced crews would mean that certain incidents could not be effectively handled with crews of only four on a fire engine.

Overall, there is currently a negative view to the proposals as they stand. In part this could be due to a general lack of understanding of the nature of the risks within Warwickshire, and the means by which a modern Fire and Rescue Service has to manage those risks in a calculated and proportionate manner. This general lack of understanding was highlighted in the deliberative forums.

Appendix 1 – On-line Survey

Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service Shaping the Future - Consultation Survey

Introduction

At the Full County Council meeting on 6th February 2014 the medium term savings plan for the next four years was agreed and this included total savings of around £2.4 million for the Fire and Rescue Service. The impact of reducing the Fire and Rescue Service budget has informed a review of how we deliver our services. This has given us the opportunity to see how we can:

• Improve our initial response to life risk emergencies across the county with fewer firefighters (life risk incidents are defined as presenting immediate or high risk threat to human life). • Improve the availability of our fire engines. • Match the number of fire engines to the changes in demand and risk during different times of the day. • Save money. • Ensure the future proofing of the Fire and Rescue Service.

Our Plan

This consultation will cover the first two years of the savings plan and aims to achieve just under £1.3 million of the required savings. A two stage approach will allow us to review the changes made in the first two years, and use the outcomes of that review to inform our proposals to meet the balance of the savings required in the last two years of the plan. This will also enable the second stage of the plan to be developed and implemented within next Integrated Risk Management Plan for 2017-2020.

Stage One: In the first two years (2014/15 – 2015/16) of the savings plan we will propose changes to the way that we use whole-time firefighters, the way that we spend our money on prevention activity and a review of our strategic management team.

Stage Two: In the final two years (2016/17 – 2017/18) of the savings plan we will propose some further changes which may include a review of the Retained Duty System. A second consultation process will be completed before March 2016 for stage two of the plan.

Survey Questions Understanding the demand for response services and reviewing when and where we use our whole-time firefighters.

The Fire and Rescue Service will contribute around £2.4 million to help to balance the County Council’s budget in the period 2014-2018. We plan to save just under £1.3 million in the first two years.

We have looked at alternative ways of responding to emergencies: where we place fire engines, how we crew them and how we can best meet the changes in demand on our services. By changing the way we work we can remove 30 whole-time firefighter posts and a senior management post.

Analysis of the demand for responding to emergencies shows that the peak demand for response activity is between 10 am and 10 pm. Road Traffic Collisions and building fires present the biggest risk to life and property in Warwickshire.

Any changes we may make in stage one will inform any proposals we make in stage two of the plan.

In stage one we propose to:

1. Improve our initial response standards and fire engine availability by deploying whole-time firefighters at more response locations. 2. Have more fire engines and firefighters available between the peak hours of 10 am and 10 pm. 3. Change firefighters shifts to match peaks in demand. 4. Develop two additional response locations – Ryton-on-Dunsmore and Gaydon. 5. Have one fire engine with a whole-time duty system crew available 24 hours per day at Coleshill, Gaydon, Leamington, Nuneaton, Rugby, Ryton-on-Dunsmore and Stratford. 6. Have one fire engine with a whole-time duty system crew available 12 hours per day (between 10 am and 10 pm) at Rugby, Atherstone, Wellesbourne and Alcester. 7. Establish a new section of Retained Duty System firefighters at Rugby. 8. Develop a pool of firefighters to crew special appliances and resilience fire engines during periods of exceptionally high activity levels such as wide scale flooding. 9. Remove 30 whole-time firefighter posts and a strategic manager post.

An overview of the proposed locations of our fire engines as described in proposals 5 to 7, and how this compares to our current arrangements can be found in the ‘proposed new response model profile’ accessible via this link www.warwickshire.gov.uk/fireandrescue

How do these proposals make you feel?

Concerned Not Concerned

Not at all Not very Fairly Very concerned concerned concerned concerned No opinion

Do you have any comments on the proposed changes?

Reviewing our response standards

In stage one we propose to:

• Get a fire engine to life risk emergencies across the County within ten minutes on 80% of occasions: which is an increase of 6% on current performance across the County. • Get a second fire engine to all life risk emergencies across the County within 15 minutes on 80% of occasions. We have not had a performance measure for the second fire engine before.

How do these proposals make you feel?

Concerned Not Concerned

Not at all Not very Fairly Very concerned concerned concerned concerned No opinion

Do you have any comments about this proposal?

Tackling risk: Prevention (community fire safety)

1. In stage one we propose to remove one management post and one administration post from our Fire Prevention Department. This will ensure that we still have staff in place to educate the public and promote messages that keep the public safe from fire and other emergencies.

2. We will continue to deliver home fire safety checks, but we propose to reduce our spending on smoke alarms by utilising the stock that we have built up and target the fitting of smoke alarms to the most vulnerable people within Warwickshire.

3. We have reviewed our approach to working with vulnerable young people, carefully considering the arguments for and against the support that we provide. We will continue to work with vulnerable young people through our partnerships with Warwickshire Young Carers (caring to succeed project) and the schools across Warwickshire that we visit to deliver safety messages. However, we cannot continue to provide the same level of support because of budget and staffing reductions. We acknowledge the popularity of the Young Firefighters Association and we also recognise the commitment of both the Young Firefighters and their Instructors. However, tough decisions need to be made and activities need to be targeted at the most vulnerable sectors of the community. This is consistent with the risk led approach as set out in the Integrated Risk Management Plan 2013-17.

Therefore, we propose to stop providing support to the Young Firefighters Association in November 2014.

How do these proposals make you feel?

Concerned Not Concerned

Not at all Not very Fairly Very concerned concerned concerned concerned No opinion

Do you have any comments about this decision?

If you have any further comments or ideas that you would like to be considered please send them to: [email protected] or alternatively you can write to,

Consultation Team Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service Service Headquarters Warwick Street Leamington Spa CV32 5LH

EQUALITY MONITORING QUESTIONS

Warwickshire County Council is committed to promoting and achieving equality and fairness for all. The information requested below helps us monitor and understand the profile of our customers, staff and members. It is confidential and anonymous, and it cannot be attributed back to you.

Under the Public Sector Equality Duty section of the Equality Act 2010, we have a legal duty to understand the communities we serve, our customer profile and the profile of our staff and members. This Duty can only be met by effective monitoring of the protected characteristics as identified in the Equality Act 2010.

Therefore, the equality monitoring questions we need to ask are listed below:-

Are you male or female? Please tick one box only

Male Female

 

How old are you? Please tick one box only

Under 18 18 – 29 30 – 44 45 – 59 60 – 74 75 +

     

Do you have a long standing illness or disability? (Long-standing means anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect you over a period of time)? Please tick one box only

Yes No

 

How would you describe your ethnic origin? Please tick one box only

 White – English/ Welsh/ Scottish/  Asian or Asian British - Bangladeshi Northern Irish/British  White – Irish  Asian or Asian British - Chinese

 White – Gypsy or Irish Traveller  Asian or Asian British - Any other background  White – Any other background  Black or Black British - African  Mixed - White and Black Caribbean  Black or Black British - Caribbean  Mixed - White and Black African  Black or Black British – Any other background  Mixed – White and Asian  Arab  Mixed – Any other mixed background  Any other Ethnic group  Asian or Asian British - Indian  Asian or Asian British - Pakistani

What is your religion? Please tick one box only

 None  Jewish

 Christian  Muslim

 Buddhist  Sikh

 Hindu  Prefer not to say

Other (please specify)

Do you consider yourself to be … ? Please tick one box only

 Heterosexual or straight  Other

 Gay or lesbian  Prefer not to say

 Bisexual

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM.

Appendix 2 – Deliberative Forums Summary

Forum 1 – Hatter Space, Nuneaton

The main outcomes were:

• Number of people that die in fires highly overestimated – Lowest 10, Highest 1000 and average 290. • Number of people who die or seriously injured in RTC’s overestimated – Lowest 20, Highest 6000 and average 709. • Cost of crewing one fire engine 24/7 highly underestimated – Lowest £5k, Highest £850k and average £153k. • The cost to run the Service produced some wide ranging responses – Lowest £100k, Highest £60m and average £19.8m. • Number of Fire Engines generated wide ranging responses – Lowest 12, Highest 300 and average 105. • Number of Fire Stations generated a range of responses – Lowest 3, Highest 25 and average 10. • Number of firefighters in Warwickshire produced some wide ranging results – Lowest 40, Highest 4,500 and average 1416. • The exercise to build your own Fire Service for Warwickshire worked in terms of understanding the issues, but many found the maths difficult and most responses do not add up to £9.5m. On average respondents wanted 4.4 “24 hour Whole time” 5.2 “12 hour Whole time” 10.1 “24 hour RDS” and 9.1 “12 hour RDS”. • Most people were in agreement that WFRS need to prioritise their resources. • Respondents were in agreement that resource needs to reflect demand for different times of the day or night. • Questions were asked about how 30 full time firefighters would be cut from the service. DP responded that this would be through retirement over the next two years and that no new firefighters were being recruited. There was some concern about the age of firefighters in future if no new firefighters are coming into the Service. • Some general comments were made during the evening relating to Government cuts and why not cut the foreign aid budget first. • The group were generally very supportive of firefighters and the job they do.

Forum 2 – Benn Partnership, Rugby

The main outcomes were:

• Number of people that die in fires highly overestimated – Lowest 1, Highest 50000 and average 9115. • Number of people who die or seriously injured in RTC’s overestimated – Lowest 10, Highest 50000 and average 9136. • Cost of crewing one fire engine 24/7 was generally underestimated – Lowest £250, Highest £60m and average £824,504. • The cost to run the service produced some wide ranging responses – Lowest £100k, Highest £85m and average £16.2m. • Number of Fire Engines generated wide ranging responses – Lowest 6, Highest 60 and average 27.

• Number of Fire Stations generated a range of responses – Lowest 3, Highest 50 and average 14. • Number of firefighters in Warwickshire produced some wide ranging results – Lowest 50, Highest 50,000 and average 4788. • The exercise to build your own Fire Service for Warwickshire helped participants in understanding the issues, but again most responses do not add up to £9.5m. On average respondents wanted 6.6 “24 hour Whole time” 10.0 “12 hour Whole time” 11.5 “24 hour RDS” and 38.6 “12 hour RDS”. • It is worth noting that five participants would base a fire station in Coventry, which is outside Warwickshire. • Participants agreed that WFRS need to prioritise their resources. • Respondents were in agreement that resource needs to reflect demand for different times of the day or night. • Questions were asked relating to operational issues and how shifts work. • Some general comments were made during the evening relating to Gove. • Comments were made about basing fire stations at places like the airport and information relating to the plans for the Airport and Jaguar Land Rover were advised by the fire officers in attendance. • There was agreement about basing more resources in rural locations, however some participants requested further information about the response time targets and how they were determined. • The group were generally in agreement with the plans for full time and part time firefighters and understood the issues around using Retained Firefighters in terms of availability. • The group were in favour of prioritising RTA’s over fires as long as it was “In order to save lives”. • Some participants raised questions relating to Fire Prevention and were advised about what is available in terms of smoke alarms and education.

Forum 3 – Sydni Centre, Leamington Spa

The main outcomes were:

• Number of people that die in fires mainly overestimated – Lowest 1, Highest 100 and average 29. • Number of people who die or seriously injured in RTC’s underestimated – Lowest 30, Highest 320 and average 159. • Cost of crewing one fire engine 24/7 was generally underestimated – Lowest £24,000, Highest £1m and average £284,333. • The cost to run was mainly overestimated – Lowest £21m, Highest £50m and average £33.1m. • Number of Fire Engines was mainly overestimated – Lowest 20, Highest 60 and average 32. • Number of Fire Stations generated a range of responses – Lowest 12, Highest 40 and average 19. • Number of firefighters in Warwickshire produced some wide ranging results – Lowest 300, Highest 3,000 and average 800. • The exercise to build your own Fire Service for Warwickshire helped participants in understanding the complexity of the challenge, 75% of respondents achieved the budget of £9.5m. On average respondents wanted 5.0 “24 hour Whole time” 5.4 “12 hour Whole time” 7.9 “24 hour RDS” and 13.8 “12 hour RDS”. 33

• It is worth noting that two participants would base a fire station in Coventry, which is outside Warwickshire. • Participants agreed that WFRS need to prioritise their resources. • Respondents were in agreement that resource needs to reflect demand for different times of the day or night. • Respondents disagreed that RTC’s should be prioritised over fires if it would save lives. Further probing showed that respondents were undecided about priorities and needed further assurance and information in this area. • There was little agreement about basing more resources in rural locations. • The group were generally in agreement with the plans for full time and part time firefighters and understood the issues around using Retained Firefighters in terms of availability. • Technical questions relating to fires were asked and answered.

Forum 4 – Business Group, Falstaff Hotel, Leamington Spa

The main outcomes were:

• Number of people that die in fires was a little overestimated – Lowest 4, Highest 10 and average 7. • Number of people who die or seriously injured in RTC’s slightly overestimated – Lowest 320, Highest 500 and average 410. • Cost of crewing one fire engine 24/7 was correctly estimated – Lowest £1m, Highest £1m and average £1m. • The cost to run was highly overestimated – Lowest £100m, Highest £110m and average £105m. • Number of Fire Engines was slightly overestimated – Lowest 25, Highest 25 and average 25. • Number of Fire Stations was underestimated – Lowest 6, Highest 6 and average 6. • Number of firefighters in Warwickshire was underestimated – Lowest 200, Highest 200 and average 200. • The exercise to build your own Fire Service for Warwickshire helped participants in understanding the complexity of the challenge, respondents were £250k inside the budget of £9.5m. On average respondents wanted 7.0 “24 hour Whole time” 2.0 “12 hour Whole time” 12.0 “24 hour RDS” and 1.0 “12 hour RDS”. • Participants were more informed than in the public groups and the task to “Build your own fire service” was carried out with great diligence and professionalism. • Participants agreed that WFRS need to prioritise their resources. • Respondents were in agreement that resource needs to reflect demand for different times of the day or night. Debate around staffing to meet this requirement and locations for fire engines to reduce call out times took place. • Respondents disagreed that RTC’s should be prioritised over fires if it would save lives. Intelligent restructuring of resources including sharing other Fire Service and Emergency services facilities was suggested. This included the West Midlands Fire Service availability at Coventry. • The need to service RTC’s to save lives was recognised and comments relating to accident prevention on roads included the Fosse Way, M69, M6 and major roads. There was a recognition that the need to respond to RTC’s where lives can be saved is a priority.

• The group were generally in agreement with the plans for full time and part time firefighters and understood the issues around using Retained Firefighters in terms of availability. • Technical questions relating to fires were asked and answered.

Forum 5 – Business Group, Warwickshire College Trident Centre, Leamington Spa

The main outcomes were:

• Number of people that die in fires was a little overestimated – 25 stated. • Number of people who die or seriously injured in RTC’s underestimated – 50 stated. • Cost of crewing one fire engine 24/7 was underestimated – £150k. • The cost to run was overestimated – £30m. • Number of Fire Engines was overestimated – 80. • Number of Fire Stations was overestimated – 30. • Number of firefighters in Warwickshire was underestimated – 150. • The exercise to build your own Fire Service for Warwickshire helped the participant in understanding the complexity of the challenge, the respondent exactly spent the budget of £9.5m. The respondent wanted 4.0 “24 hour Wholetime” 8.0 “12 hour Wholetime” 10.0 “24 hour RDS” and 10.0 “12 hour RDS”. • The Respondent stated that they would spread more appliances into rural areas but couldn’t decide exact locations. They mentioned Gaydon as a good example of where to base additional appliances. Keep the existing locations, but base fewer fire engines at these to free up fire engines for the new locations. • As the respondent owned a storage business and was representing businesses they felt that commercial building fires were important to control. Getting one fire engine on site as soon as possible was more important than the time taken for a second appliance to arrive. • There was a recognition that saving lives in RTC’s has to be a priority to saving property damage from fire. • The work carried out by the Fire and Rescue Service to prevent fire was commended. Especially the site visits and risk assessment. • There was support for prioritising resources and ensuring that the Service is flexible around the demand, especially the time of day. Having “floating” engines parked up in rural locations ready to respond, rather than in fire stations (like the ambulance service do) was suggested. • Although the respondent was not keen to see the number of full time firefighter reduced by 30, it was accepted as they recognised the challenge faced and the need to use RDS firefighters for flexibility of service.

Forum 6 – Benn Partnership, Rugby

The main outcomes were:

• Number of people that die in fires marginally overestimated – Lowest 1, Highest 40 and average 17. • Number of people who die or seriously injured in RTC’s generally underestimated, but the average was raised by one very high estimate – Lowest 5, Highest 2,000 and average 327.

• Cost of crewing one fire engine 24/7 was overall underestimated, but 25% of respondents correctly stated £1m – Lowest £200,000, Highest £1.5m and average £767,714. • The cost to run the service was vastly overestimated by most respondents – Lowest £21m, Highest £250m and average £88m. • Number of Fire Engines was mainly overestimated – Lowest 20, Highest 200 and average 59. • Number of Fire Stations was mainly underestimated – Lowest 7, Highest 30 and average 16. • Number of firefighters in Warwickshire was closely estimated – Lowest 100, Highest 720 and average 434. • The exercise to build your own Fire Service for Warwickshire helped participants in understanding the complexity of the challenge. One respondent could not or would not give numbers of fire appliances. 62.5% of respondents achieved the budget of £9.5m. On average respondents wanted 4.2 “24 hour Whole time” 9.3 “12 hour Whole time” 12.1 “24 hour RDS” and 8.7 “12 hour RDS”. • Participants agreed that WFRS need to prioritise their resources. • Respondents were in agreement that resource needs to reflect demand for different times of the day or night. • Respondents agreed that RTC’s should be prioritised over fires BUT ONLY if it would save lives. Again they need more assurance that RTC’s are the priority for life saving with fire being more emotive. • There was disagreement about basing more resources in rural locations as they thought urban cover was more important. They were concerned that the cover for the towns would suffer. It was thought that basing fire engines on the edge of town industrial estates could be a solution, but with Rugby you would need a north and south based appliance to avoid being caught up in traffic in busy times. • The group were generally in agreement with the plans for full time and part time firefighters but were concerned about the issues around using Retained Firefighters in terms of availability and sufficient recruitment. • The group expressed concern about the cut in budget. They felt that this is a short term fix and that the County Council should look at cutting other services. The “horse crossing” which was recently introduced was cited as the County Council wasting money. It was also felt that there should be more central government funding (in place of foreign aid) and that the Fire and Rescue Service could be run as a National Agency instead of on County boundaries for efficiency. • Once again, issues relating to new house building and increased fire cover were raised.

Forum 7 - Royal Pump Rooms, Leamington Spa

The main outcomes were:

• Number of people that die in fires marginally overestimated – Lowest 3, Highest 50 and average 16. • Number of people who die or seriously injured in RTC’s generally underestimated, but the average was raised by one very high estimate – Lowest 30, Highest 400,000 and average 50,244. • Cost of crewing one fire engine 24/7 was overall underestimated, but 50% of respondents correctly stated £1m – Lowest £300,000, Highest £1m and average £706,250. 36

• The cost to run the service was mainly overestimated – Lowest £17.5m, Highest £60m and average £36.5m. • Number of Fire Engines was mainly overestimated – Lowest 15, Highest 50 and average 33. • Number of Fire Stations was mainly underestimated – Lowest 7, Highest 25 and average 12. • Number of firefighters in Warwickshire produced some wide ranging results – Lowest 130, Highest 2,000 and average 610. • The exercise to build your own Fire Service for Warwickshire helped participants in understanding the complexity of the challenge. Three respondents could not or would not give numbers of fire appliances. “Too simplistic” and “I can’t say” were stated as reasons. 50% of respondents achieved the budget of £9.5m. On average respondents wanted 6.2 “24 hour Whole time” 4.0 “12 hour Whole time” 71.0 “24 hour RDS” and 3.0 “12 hour RDS. • It is worth noting that the group contained a retired firefighter (West Midlands Brigade). They were the most informed and vocal to date. • Participants agreed that WFRS need to prioritise their resources. • Respondents were in agreement that resource needs to reflect demand for different times of the day or night. • Respondents agreed that RTC’s should be prioritised over fires if it would save lives. There was however scepticism as to the lifesaving effect. They need more convincing that RTC’s are the priority for life saving. • There was general disagreement about basing more resources in rural locations as they thought urban cover would be insufficient. • The group were split on the plans for full time and part time firefighters but understood the issues around using Retained Firefighters in terms of availability. • The group expressed concern about the cut in budget, feeling that things should stay as they are and that the Service should be driven by need rather than cost. • There were concerns that the plans were short term fixes and a longer term strategy is needed. • Issues relating to new house building and increased fire cover were raised. • Funding for young firefighters was mentioned as a means of engaging young people and a source of future firefighters. • Concerns about increases in household insurance due to insufficient fire cover were mentioned.

Forum 8 – Hatter Space, Nuneaton

The main outcomes were:

• Number of people that die in fires highly overestimated – Lowest 20, Highest 250 and average 68. • Number of people who die or seriously injured in RTC’s under estimated – Lowest 35, Highest 300 and average 135. • Cost of crewing one fire engine 24/7 mainly under estimated but the average skewed by two very high estimations – Lowest £12k, Highest £5m and average £1.17m. • The cost to run the service produced some wide ranging responses – Lowest £5m, Highest £275m and average £43.8m. • Number of Fire Engines generated wide ranging responses – Lowest 3, Highest 60 and average 29. 37

• Number of Fire Stations generated a range of responses – Lowest 2, Highest 25 and average 13.5. • Number of firefighters in Warwickshire produced some wide ranging results – Lowest 30, Highest 750 and average 324. • The exercise to build your own Fire Service for Warwickshire was not undertaken. • Some specific instances of Warwickshire FRS response were stated and assurances sought that after the changes the resources would be sufficient to provide the same level of response. • General comments were made during the evening relating to Government cuts and why not cut people at the County Council offices instead. • Operational practicalities of cover from other fire stations and the impact of RDS fire engines were raised and answered.

Appendix 3 – Specific Questions Raised at the Forums

At the end of each group, members of the public were asked if they had any specific questions relating to the proposed changes. The questions were responded to by uniformed staff at the time they were raised. We have included the questions below to provide evidence of the concerns raised.

Q You are going to limit the number of people who want to go into firefighting and there will be less career opportunities.

Q Its people being careful at home but being idiots on the roads isn’t it.

Q Could put more resources around road traffic accidents.

Q Is it fire regulations in houses and buildings that’s brought down the number of house fires.

Q Every building has a smoke alarm these days.

Q Is there anything you are actively doing about the number of new people coming in to the Service part time. Like an incentive.

Q There are six strategic manager posts altogether is there?

Q Providing there are enough people, at night, for health and safety purposes in each station (in response to shift changes).

Q Who decided that it had to be ten minutes for everyone (response time).

Q As ambulances have changed recently, is there a possibility of you not always attending with a huge fire engine, are there any other types you can use.

Q On the issue about fire engines being based in rural areas, you talked about setting something up in Gaydon and Ryton, presumably there is going to be a capital cost involved in purchasing land.

Q Presumably you have looked at America which is a very different kettle of fish, what about Europe are there any different models there.

Q The problem you have got with part time firefighters is that a lot of employers aren’t willing to let people go, so you have got a ceiling of people that you can use for that. And even if you were to make it a statutory public interest appointment, which it is for things like the TA and the judiciary – magistrates I should say, lifeboats that sort of thing. That would actually put some employers off taking people on.

Q If you stress the last few words (if it would save lives – priority for RTC’s) if that is correct.

Q If there’s two simultaneously, how do you know you are going to save lives. That must be a really difficult decision.

Q So this is becoming more a Rescue and Fire Service.

Q Does this mean less of what we would call fire engines and more rescue vehicles. 39

Q Is it mandatory to send a fire engine to most accidents.

Q Because you do wonder as you travel down the motorway, there is this fire engine and when you get there, there is not a huge issue. You have covered different types of fire engine earlier.

Q This is a consultation you say.

Q What percentage of people not liking it would it take to make the Fire Authority re-think.

Q When did the consultation start.

Q How would you go about explaining that (fire danger) to a child that is autistic and has also got learning difficulties. My son is autistic, has learning difficulties and has ADHD and sometimes has a habit of flicking lighters.

Q Do you do a round of school visits and things like that.

Q Have you or how have you managed to reduce the hoax calls.

Q Do you still supply smoke alarms.

Q I think it should be a longer period (covering the key time of 10 am to 10 pm). Maybe not 24 hours but maybe from 8am to midnight, something like that. To cover the morning rush hour.

Q It depends how many people are involved in the road traffic, how many accidents (priority for RTC over fires if it saves lives). A family of four in a fire versus a twenty car pile up, but it may not have any fatalities in it.

Q Speed limits have been dropped to 50 in many areas. I think some speed limits should be dropped even lower. By looking at the road, going to Leamington from Alvechurch, you turn off the Leamington Road, it’s actually a 50mph road but you can’t do more than 30, it’s ridiculous. The same in the towns, they are dropping those down to 20mph zones.

Q Can’t you get together with the Environmental Agency about the flooding thing, surely that should be their problem shouldn’t it. They have got a much bigger budget than you have.

Q Can’t you rent out fire engines for HGV training etc.

Q In your earlier slides you refer to retained firefighters and it sounds just like the life boat service. Is there any similarity there.

Q I think you could put a lot of resources into road traffic collisions which could result in lower accidents, getting rid of trees for example. That would reduce accidents and deaths on the roads. I don’t think Fire and Rescue should be the frontline for road traffic collisions, it should be drivers and their education and road maintenance.

Q How the fire service works with the Police and road safety. It’s a national matter not a local matter. It’s doing things with the road system to remove hedges and speed control, like the M25. Rather than sit back and say we need another fire engine.

Q Part of the issue with number five is, we have just looked at the figures of differentials with house fires and road traffic collisions. I think to actually convince Joe Public of the traffic collisions, I know we’ve got the figures which are glaringly obvious in front of you, but fire is more on your mind, more emotive. It’s a no brainer but it’s getting people to see that, a change of image slightly.

Q We are all very worried about response times, whether its home or business. I presume when you get a call in, there has been more than two vehicles involved in an accident on the M6, then engines appear from all over the place – Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Birmingham. It doesn’t matter, of course where they come from if they are not otherwise busy.

Q Collaboration with other Fire Services is where you get operational savings without having to reduce staff numbers. There must be scope for working with other Fire Services. Does it give an opportunity to combine the forces or is that a budgetary or political thing. I was thinking of saving fire engines.

Q Coventry doesn’t make any sense (not in Warwickshire) from a geographical or logistical point of view.

Q I think you should get more support.

Q I think you need to show that you can maintain response targets and improve on what we’ve all accepted in the past. I don’t think people actually complain that much about response and services so far. If they do they could, but if you improve things then no. I would be happy with the one fire engine arriving as it rescues me or stops me from being trapped in an RTA or whatever. With fire, get people out and calm down the fire and what’s left is just bits of wood. So there’s a reassurance element to that.

Q Just get to us as soon as possible.

Q So far I’ve talked about home, but I’m actually here with an FSB hat on. There are so many small businesses out there in the middle of nowhere, whether it be farms or industrial units. So the rural aspect needs to be there for the hidden bits of the county. From an FSB perspective it’s probably even more so than in urban areas where there are other things that can contribute. Things like fire safety visits.

Q The interesting thing from where I’m standing, in terms of the buildings we’ve got, we can certainly have concern for fire with the buildings. And I don’t know, it would be interesting to understand the stats, the quicker you get there as to what impact you have on the fire taking hold. I’m looking at the property damage element but I understand that you need to be sympathetic around the resource to the county, it’s not just about an individual need. But there is an argument somewhere down the line that says that you get to a point where you are just trying to mitigate the surrounding damage, because once a fire does take hold they can’t really do a lot to stop it. It’s more about mitigating damage to other things.

Q The other argument is to have a specialist team and split them up (house fires versus RTC). I don’t know how specialist road traffic incidents are versus fire. Maybe it’s not so specialist to require this.

Q In all fairness, things like flooding, you know they’re coming or when they do come you have an idea with the Environment Agency doing a lot. This time, with the exception of certain areas, I think that was largely mitigated by prevention measures. A flood happens over a longer period of time so you don’t need that emergency response.

Q I think given the evidence we have seen today it would make sense to do that (basing more fire engines in rural locations).

Q I can understand the reasoning particularly as you now have more specialist areas that are creeping in that would work really well (more part time firefighters). Given the choice of course, you would feel more comfortable with full time firefighters in place, but if you have got to do it with what has been put forward then you have got to do it.

Q I’m sat between an individual requirement and a communal requirement. So as a business owner, and I think I would speak on behalf of a lot of business owners, obviously they would want to mitigate damage that’s been done through a building fire. Therefore they wouldn’t necessarily want to see road traffic accidents prioritised. And I’m the business audience tonight and that’s where I suppose I’m at. The only thing I suppose that there is there is that there is an argument to say that there are insurances in place in the event for these things to happen. There isn’t an insurance for people losing their life.

Q A lot of work has been done since deregulation in 2008, 2010 the reforms which took place over us becoming more self-disciplinary and not putting the responsibility over to the Fire Service in terms of the audits and management of it. We are now having to do all that ourselves, do our own risk assessments and then get externally audited depending on risk. I think it’s probably helped us become more aware because it’s less about somebody else’s issue. It is more about our issue, there is a heightened awareness, so we went out and got an individual trained through the ROSPA course to enable us to become more aware within the business and took on a lot more. Now in doing things like that I think that’s helped as well to mitigate the issues that lead to potential fires in business premises, because I think we are better now than we were when we were reliant on the Fire Service coming in and slapping us on the wrists, because we live and breathe it a bit more now. So I think that’s, certainly in our own business environment we are in a better position now. Q I think it’s a mixture of the fire systems you are putting in are more advanced all the time and in your day to day operations you are a bit more aware of the potential of that not to happen. Leaving pallets next to a warehouse, leaving stuff under stairs. I’m sure that has an impact on the risk of a fire taking place. So the education system over the last few years and the way they have gone about doing it probably has been successful. It does mitigate a little for the priority towards buildings. But given the size of the rates, when you consider what businesses pay and what they get back for it in terms of, and this is not related to fire, waste disposal, street lighting – you get very very little and there is a little bit of an irk that a rural based business is paying well in excess of £100k rates per year and then to have a cut out and say is that going to impact on that. On the other hand the approach that you are taking there is actually supporting the rural area a little bit more in itself. I can see that that’s not going to make us any worse off than we are at the moment. Q I think the reflection that there aren’t many businesses here is a shame because it shows the interest levels but businesses do pay a substantial amount in business rates around the area and it does go into the coffers overall and a split out of that is always up for debate, of course it is. I think the fire service for business is pretty significant, because they don’t need it until they want and know it’s there and where does all that money go otherwise. 42

Q I would have to say on the evidence we have seen tonight, that the road traffic accident stuff and preventing loss of life etc, I can understand where they are coming from and I would understand what they were doing there. Q I’ve reached the conclusion that I don’t think you need to change anything. I think you are already doing a fantastic job on very little money. Q Well from the information provided then yes. But if you have one or the other, if you go down the rural route that suggests you will have fewer in the urban areas. While as I think you should have more in the rural areas and the same (as now) in the urban areas. Q But according to the graphic you showed earlier most of the life threatening ones were in the rural areas and not in the urban areas. Q You will have to pay people to relocate (firefighters). Q Only if it will save lives, yes (prioritise RTC’s) Q In the paper there was an article about the funding being taken away from the young firefighters service. I would have thought it was quite important to get the young people involved in fire prevention. Q It has not been recognised that over the years that you have been training them (young firefighters) that it has contributed to lowering the statistics and the success of your service. It is very dangerous. Q How long is this plan scheduled to last for, this current review and consultation you are looking at. Because obviously there is a lot of housing that is going to be built in Warwickshire and obviously with a general election next year budgets may change again. You suddenly think that you’ve done the best with what you’ve got, then come the next general election they ask you to cut your budgets even further. Q It’s obviously not Warwickshire Fire Service fault, but it shows a lack of fore planning and foresight for what this county will need for the next ten years. For anything on this sort of scale anybody has got to look at a ten year timescale. These things take a long time to change anyway, but if you are not looking ten years ahead you are going to have the same problem in ten years’ time. I know you get about 50 people applying for every firefighters job, which is good but you have got the training costs which go with that. If you suddenly cut staff and then you have got to recruit there’s all those training costs. As with Warwick a fire station is closed and then suddenly you could do with one on that site because of traffic around Warwick is getting bad. There’s only two roads between Warwick and Leamington and you do need a fire station on that side of Warwick. It would be a good idea to have a retained fire station there again but we can’t buy the land now. Q What you are saying is that you need more cover in response times in more rural locations. Q I feel that the fires service is an important part of the local community and I do not like the idea of the young firefighters scheme being closed down because I feel the young are getting a raw deal. Their resources are being kicked all the time, youth centres are being withdrawn and if they take the fire service facility away for young training it is most important for giving them some basis in society and they have got something to do. To go and train and enjoy themselves on drills, but it gives them experience and a feeling of belonging and I think this is terribly wrong if this is finally closed.

Q It’s short termism just like politics isn’t it. Q If you take the fire service away somebody has got to start paying for it. At the moment I suspect that the insurance companies are thinking hello we don’t like this idea about people’s homes not being defended by the fire service and people having road accidents. They are not going to take it as a hit they are going to put the costs on to the policy holders, so the public will be paying for it in the end. Q If insurance companies see that you are not achieving your response times then insurance costs are going to go up. Q If this is happening across the country there will be less full time firefighters across the country, is that going to decrease the fire service ability to respond to serious major incidents. Q These part time firefighters are on call and get paid when they are actually called out. Do your costing take into account that the part time firefighters are going to be used more often than they are now. Q Can I just say that full time now is supposed to be 37.5 hours, so in essence that is not really that long so if you are going to cut back peoples full time salary by whatever amount to make them part time they are going to have to do something else to keep up their level of income for their family for whatever commitments they have and are they then going to be as committed as they would as a full time person. It’s all very well siting in an office saying we have got to do this or that. We should be saying we don’t need to save, we should be having a proper up to date fire service. We should not have to be told we can’t have this and we can’t do that. Somebody is sitting in an office somewhere saying we will make them go less, so presumably this is happening to every county in the country, whether it is happening in Wales or not I don’t know as they have Welsh Assembly Government and I know they have their own ideas. But to me it just seems that we are sitting back and saying and taking it because we have lost so much. We have lost the hospital, we don’t have a proper A&E, we’ve lost children’s ward, we have lost the maternity unit, we have lost quite a lot of the surgery, we have lost a proper cardiac care unit. There is nothing else, it’s all been centralised to Coventry, which the hospital was built still owing the Swedes so many million. It’s a nonsense to say that these people that have been in charge are correct because they are not, they are making right balls ups everywhere which we as residents here, we’ve got to put up with. Q I don’t even know why we are debating the issue because the prison service, we pay ten billion a year for the prison service, it’s absolutely ridiculous, I’m staggered at the figures. You shouldn’t even have to debate the issue, just say here you go there’s the money for it and you can take it from the Prison Service. Q We should be saying to our MP what are you going to do about it. He will sit there and pontificate as much as his father did, but he doesn’t get anything done. Cutting champagne parties in parliament and their expenses etc. Q Does getting there in ten minutes save more lives than getting there in twenty minutes. What are the statistics Q What are the response times for the ambulance service have. Are they the same as you or do they get more time.

Q Ideally you want to put the appliances where more people are, don’t you. It seems daft that you are going to put appliances where less people are being, in the countryside. It’s obvious if you have got 100,000 people in Rugby, you want to have your firefighting equipment right in Rugby don’t you, not in the countryside. Q But then if you have it on the outskirts they can cover both. Q As you say spread them out. If you have four fire stations you want them North, South, East and West. Q You can have them outside the town on industrial estates. But if you need them sleeping over at night. But between ten in the morning and ten in the evening. If you are working on retained firefighters if the fire station is on the factory then you are much more likely to get a crew out of the industrial units on the development during that peak period, one from each factory almost instead of trying to pull three from one place in another location. Q A good place would be Eddie Stobart. You are near the motorways. It might be useful for that side. Q Only if it would save lives (RTC prioritised over house fires). Q Obviously if they are cutting two and a half million you need somewhere where you can get your biggest bang for your buck and where it matters most. Wherever that is, whether it is in part time firefighters as opposed to full time firefighters. I haven’t got all the statistics, you are asking someone in the street and I haven’t got all the information. Q Can I just say, you are making a £2.4m cut, is that within the next financial year or is it to be ongoing every year. Q Are you talking about zero hours contracts. Q If you get a part time fireman going out to a call, when they get back, who gets that fire engine back up to scratch to go out again. You know fill up with water and check everything out. Q Was there any pay increase this year and how much did it cost. You hear about the nurses not getting a pay rise which they deserve and the Police. I suppose the fire service will be the same but just to look at the numbers really. If you want to save £2.4m does that come out of your pay increases. Q Do you have people on the phones now who are actually based in Warwickshire or are they based in some other central place elsewhere. Q Are you still able to do demonstrations, i.e. outside Tesco demonstrating flammable furniture. Q There are items of furniture coming in from China that had the label but they were not fire resistant. Q You know you say you get the first fire engine out in ten minutes and then you get a second one. Is the first one capable of coping with any of the fires, what does the second one do.

Q I’ve got loads of questions as I have gone into this in depth. Recently there has been a spate of P1 incidents after midnight with seven rescues from five properties. Could we have done this rescue with one full time fire engine. Q If this consultation had taken place and we were down to our one fire engine at night and the one at Atherstone was out on call and the one from Bedworth was out on call somewhere else and you had a fire in Nuneaton that needed two fire engines and you have got to rely on another fire engine to come from Coleshill, Solihull or wherever, to get to here to put out that fire is risking lives. I live in a block of flat and I watched the Sports Centre go up in fire and we got fire engines as far as Solihull went. Q Can you guarantee firefighter safety with a crew of four, does this mean the public are safe. Q You say there will be a faster initial response, but with a crew of four they can’t do anything at a bigger fire until another fire engine turns up. Q Will Rugby be reduced to one fire engine at night like Nuneaton. Q I had heard that they will just get one fire engine at Rugby at night. Q Your saying this is a consultation, but you already have two plans in place. One for 2014/15 and then from 2015 to 2016 so what are you asking us. Q You say the cuts are going to be via natural wastage, retiring them. Yet you brought back Mr Philips from retirement. Q Your plans state that you are going to reduce the response time to rural areas to ten minutes instead of eighteen, yet when there was an arson attack in Cursly Village the first fire engine took 22 minutes to arrive. So if you can’t meet response times with the manpower and the engines you have now how are you going to reduce the response times with reduced resources. Q With the reduced resources, if something happened to the petrol refinery in Bacon Road there would be no engines. Q What is the response time for enough crews to safely do a rescue from a burning building. Q How many managers do you have now and how many will you have after the cuts. Q Why have you based the figures on only the last two years. Q Why are you re-classifying your fire calls in your statistics. Q You know when the consultation goes ahead you are going to be doing priority of buildings with people trapped over an empty building. It stated in the paper that you were going to re-classify it from where you would turn up to a house where there were people trapped inside it, but if it was an empty property you wouldn’t. Obviously that would be lowest priority, but my point is that there are a lot of homeless people around and there could be somebody living in these properties. There was not enough fire crew to attend a fire in Lexington and two blokes risked their lives to go in and save a woman from a burning maisonette.

Appendix 4 –FBU response

FBU Response to Warwickshire FRS Transformation Programme

JUNE 2014

CONTENTS

1. Foreword 2

2. Introduction 3

3. Service Redesign Proposal 4

4. Duty Systems 12

5. Summary 16

Foreword

Warwickshire Fire Brigades Union (FBU) believes we have now reached a significant turning point in the history of Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service (WFRS). Savage cuts to the service now will put members of the public at great risk. People will die unnecessarily and suffer injuries which could have been avoided.

Firefighters do an irreplaceable job tackling every kind of emergency – fires, road traffic collisions, civil disturbances, terrorist incidents, floods and many more. WFRS is a service to be proud of – and a service worth defending.

As part of the improvement plan in 2010 Warwickshire saw 3 fire stations closed and the loss of a wholetime appliance in Bedworth, a loss of 4 fire engines in total. Further cuts on this scale will put lives at risk, ruin more homes and businesses, and increase insurance costs.

More cuts in Warwickshire will mean slower response times to emergencies, putting life and property at greater risk. Response times are almost two minutes slower on average than a decade ago – and this masks even slower responses in some areas and to some incidents.

The reduction in fires and fire deaths in Warwickshire are welcome, because it shows how effective the fire prevention work done by firefighters can be. But the risks are still there and without firefighters to carry on doing this work, further improvements cannot be guaranteed. Firefighters tackle a range of growing risks, such as floods. It’s about risk and resilience.

WFRS costs the tax payer of Warwickshire a minimal amount per person per year – exceptional value for money for a first class emergency service. WFRS needs funding commensurate with the huge range of risks it faces. It is the FBU’s view that the Brigade Command Team should now be pushing CFOA to urge the Government to halt the budget deficits and reinvest in the Fire and Rescue Service. Investment, not cuts is the answer.

Introduction

This is Warwickshire Fire Brigades Union (FBU) response to Warwickshire Fire and Rescue’s Transformation Programme consultation. The main response areas covered within this document are the Service Redesign proposal and Wholetime Duty System proposals.

Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service (WFRS) is required to save £2.4 million pounds over a four year period. As part of these savings WFRS are making cuts to frontline services. This equates to a loss of 30 wholetime and Service Control posts over the first two years. Similarly the Service Redesign proposal is based on the target savings over a four year period however the current consultation only focuses on the first two years. The FBU have grave concerns on what years 3 and 4 will look like. Further cuts to frontline service delivery will put public and firefighter safety at risk.

WFRS claim that that the redesign of service delivery and duty systems will improve the service to the community of Warwickshire. How can reducing the budget and losing firefighter and control posts be an improvement?

After the Improvement Plan in 2010 and subsequent Integrated Risk Management Plans (IRMP) WFRS cannot afford to shrink any further without putting firefighters and communities in severe danger. Further shrinkage will mean much slower attendance times and an inability to impose Standard Operating Procedures. This means that incidents will have substantially escalated by the time the Fire Service arrives and, chances of survival for casualties will be vastly reduced, as Fire Service intervention will be severely limited. This will mean a defensive tactical approach to incidents, whereby resources will only allow crews to prevent an incident deteriorating.

Service Redesign Proposal

The overall aim of the response model is to:

Provide a quicker response to life risk incidents across the whole of the County Maintain the current response of 10 minutes to urban areas Significantly improve the response times within rural areas Enable the Fire and Rescue Service to achieve a target saving of £1.2 million over a two year period

The importance of a speedy arrival with the necessary resources is essential to limit the effect of fire. The same is true of many other emergency incidents where the deterioration of the incident is exponential. Firefighters know rapid response times are vital and that cuts to the frontline will slow down the emergency intervention. Firefighters want to intervene swiftly – to make the difference to whether someone lives or dies, whether they are temporarily overcome with smoke or maimed for life, or someone loses their home or possessions. In an emergency, “every second counts”.

The FBU would always welcome an improvement in response standards however we have serious concerns regarding the proposed response model. To improve response times to rural areas WFRS are proposing to reduce cover in urban areas. In fact WFRS’ own statistics prove that the majority of Level 1 and Level 2 priority incident activity occurs in urban areas. (Figure 1)

The FBU have raised, on many occasions, concerns about response times for subsequent appliances to ensure correct weight of attack at emergency incidents. Fire causes death, injury, loss of property, loss of buildings, loss of employment and loss of business. The earlier the arrival of the fire service to an incident with the correct resources to deal with it, the more that deaths and injury will be prevented and the more the losses can be reduced.

Essentially, WFRS have to assess the risks within their geographical area and provide plans to ensure that in the event of a fire, RTC or whatever the incident, sufficient firefighters and equipment arrive in time to implement correct procedures to protect life and property whilst not exposing firefighters Figure 1 to undue risk. 4

Therefore In order to determine the “weight” of response to incidents WFRS should break down the tasks that need to be carried out in what sequence (including the carrying out of tasks simultaneously) and how many firefighters are required to undertake those tasks. In undertaking this evaluation of tasks, WFRS should also ensure that the tasks are planned in such a way as to reduce risks to the firefighters carrying them out. In short, the authority is required to carry out a detailed risk and task analysis. The FBU have not been presented with any detailed risk and task analysis on the Service Redesign proposal on the response locations.

It is essential that any response standard is robust and that it does not conceal “unseen” factors. All response standards must start from the time that the fire and rescue service control room receives the initial call. Not to do so would mean that the standard was misleading. The public will expect that the fire appliance will arrive in a given time from when the call was made not from when the crew were notified of the call.

In order to provide assurance to the public and to ensure that there is proper audit of our vital service, there must be a rigorous process by which response time standards including the handling time within the emergency fire control room is measured and performance assessed. This must also include the number of riders on the appliance.

This takes the response to the serious concerns the FBU have is on WFRS’ intention to crew appliances with four riders all of the time. The outcome of duty systems following the improvement plan was Stability Crewing whereby optimum crewing was 5 riders on Water ladders and at single pump wholetime stations. Although this has not been achieved 100% of the time it has been accepted that it is reasonable to crew appliances with four but it is not reasonable (and therefore safe and operationally efficient) to crew appliances with four on all occasions.

The Audit Commission Case Study 4, seeing the light; innovation in local public services May 2007 stated:

“When it comes to changing the number of fire engines you’ve got or how you crew them, you have to underpin that with very, very robust evidence before you do it”

The FBU would not wish the Service to drift into assent before fully exploring all the possible consequences and reports into a blanket approach of a crewing level of four. We believe that proposed crewing levels of four will put firefighters and the communities in Warwickshire at unnecessary risk, risk that is acknowledged in a range of reports (fully referenced in this response), reports that we believe that have led the vast majority of other

UK FRS’ to remain with crewing levels of 5 and 4 riders and in some FRS’ 5 riders on all appliances.

The FBU are aware of the financial situation but firmly believe that because operational firefighter numbers are being reduced that consequently firefighter safety should also be reduced.

The national document ‘Health, Safety and Welfare for the operational environment’ states:

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 applies to all activities of Fire and Rescue Authorities as the employers of fire and rescue personnel. The Act requires employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees and that their activities do not adversely affect the health and safety of other people.

Also the Chief Fire and Rescue Advisor (CFRA) document ‘Fire and Rescue Service Operational Guidance’ states:

WFRS will be aware of their duties as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR). Essentially, they are required to identify and record significant risks to their employees and to other persons arising out of the activities of their undertaking – (Regulation 3).

In order to achieve this WFRS must carry out and record suitable and sufficient risk assessments, implement the control measures necessary to ensure an acceptable level of safety.

The Management of Health & Safety at Work (MHSAW) Regulations places a requirement on employers to consider all work activities from the perspective of the risks they pose to their employees, and the risk posed to other persons who could be affected by the way their employees were undertaking tasks. Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Authority (as employers) are not exempt from the requirement to comply with this legislation.

To meet the requirements of the MHSAW Regulations the Department of Communities and Local Government have produced a series of Generic Risk Assessments (GRA). GRA’s simply provide information to inform the Authority’s own risk assessments and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the various incidents which firefighters can routinely expect to attend.

The MHSAW Regulations state:

“Where established industry practices result in high levels of health and safety, risk assessment should not be used to justify reducing current control measures”

MHSAW Regulations runs on the concept of risk assessments as the planning tool to determine correct SOPs. In short, effective SOPs are dependent on accurate risk assessment. Even the casual observer would correctly identify that this risk assessment, by necessity,

6 must include consideration of the number of personnel and the type of equipment needed to effectively minimize risk to them (the employees) sent to emergency incidents.

In short, if you reduce the number of firefighters on a fire appliance the additional responsibilities/tasks that have to be undertaken by the remaining crew must be specifically trained for and crews informed of the preventative and protective measure that the Service has adopted as a result of its extensive risk assessment. Quite clearly the HSE indicates that there should not be, as a consequence of removing a firefighter from a fire appliance a ‘just get on with it’ attitude

In the correspondence between the FBU and Ian Phillips, HM Inspector of Health and Safety, 23rd November 2005, it states:

“HSE is concerned to ensure that safe systems of work are adopted at incidents and that where a specific number of personnel are necessary to implement the procedures, they are available. Where the number of personnel is limited, then a different procedure may need to be established, and trained for. Firefighters should always be trained and competent in the safe system of work they employ. HSE also understands that health and safety concerns of firefighters are frequently a consequence of management decisions about standards of fire cover, and would expect risk assessments be updated/reviewed to determine the extent to which crews of less than the recommended standards are able to take action at emergency incidents safely and without significant additional risks to the health and safety of firefighters. Such assessments should be clear about the very real limitations that exist for effective firefighting and rescue action, particularly regarding the numbers of firefighters necessary to conduct BA procedures safely and effectively.”

Risk management is not a black and white issue. There are degrees of suitability when it comes to the control measures that need to be put in place to address a risk.

Crewing appliances with 4 people gives the fire and rescue service (FRS) the opportunity to achieve its operational objectives while ensuring a degree of crew safety. Crewing appliances with 5 people enables the best level of crew safety to be assured at most operational incidents while providing sufficient resources to complete tasks successfully.

Crewing appliances with only 4 people is not unambiguously unsafe. It is less safe than crewing appliances with 5 people, and it also means sacrificing operational effectiveness. Systems of work have to be adapted to minimise the increased risk created by the shortage of staff.

The rider position that is removed due to a default crewing level of 4 is the Breathing Apparatus Entry Control Officer (BAECO).

Communities and Local Government Fire and Rescue Service Circular 18/2009 clearly states that-

“2.4 The Role of the Breathing Apparatus Entry Control Officer (BAECO) is essential to the safe control and support of BA operations. The skills and knowledge to carry out the BAECO role in terms of maintaining proper records on the Entry Control Board, communicating with BA teams, and the briefing and de-briefing of BA teams, is an integral part of both BA training and refresher training.”

DCLG have produced a document on BA Guidance, WFRS currently are not adopting this guidance document. However if, in the future, this guidance is followed, WFRS will be unable to adhere or adopt it riding with crews of four. The guidance states:

Initial/rapid deployment of BA may be used where the resources available are limited at the time of arrival to deliver the full operational plan, but where there exists an opportunity to preserve life or take action that will prevent an incident deteriorating if the Incident Commander were to wait for additional resources. Any deployment under these conditions should be managed under Stage 1 Entry Control procedures

To operate Stage 1 Entry Control procedures safely and effectively a BA entry control officer is required. WFRS will not be able adopt or follow this guidance with crews of four.

WFRS are still following the guidance contained within Technical Bulletin 1/97 (TB1/97). TB 1/97 does not permit rapid deployment procedures to be used simply because there are only 4 firefighters available at an incident.

The simple fact is that there are degrees of suitability with breathing apparatus entry control procedures.

Using no entry control procedures is unacceptable. Using full stage 1 or stage 2 is a safe system of work. Using RD is reasonable as long as it only used infrequently (in exceptional circumstances) and where the potential gain is high.

Again the cumulative nature of the risk to which employees are exposed must be considered when thinking about the use of Rapid Deployment.

If WFRS were riding 4 on infrequent occasions, but striving to ride 5 all the time, then attending a house fire with a crew of 4 might be considered as "exceptional circumstances" as described in Rapid Deployment guidelines and the use of RD would be reasonable.

Rapid Deployment was intended to be used in the “exceptional circumstances” of a crew of 4 arriving at an incident ahead of the crew of 5.

But WFRS is saying that it intends to ride 4 as normal practice. BY DEFINITION, arriving at a house fire with a crew of 4 will no longer be "exceptional". It will be normal practice and Rapid Deployment is not intended for normal practice.

The cumulative risk to the health and safety of personnel created by using Rapid Deployment on every occasion would be unacceptable and in contravention of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations Para 30, which states-

“Avoiding risk is the first and best principle of prevention, introducing practices that assist in risk mitigation is the fourth best principle of prevention”

The FBU believe the issue of peer or community pressure, as a result of riding 4, has not been adequately addressed, however it is discussed in the HSE’s publication Managing For Health and Safety (HSG 65).

A probable scenario would be a person’s reported incident, where the casualty is not known to be within a short distance of the entry point, and where members of the public are watching WFRS activity. Even with the Rapid Deployment procedure, it would be unsafe for a crew of four to enter the building to search for a casualty. However the watching public would expect to see positive action being taken.

This pressure would very likely drive FRS personnel to put their own health and safety to one side and to enter the building anyway despite the systems and rules that are associated with Rapid Deployment (RD) working to ensure health and safety. It is human nature.

The use of RD is supposed to be limited to infrequent exceptional circumstances because the safety controls associated with their use can go against human nature and the effect of community and peer pressure to act.

By allowing, indeed expecting RD to be used on every occasion (the alternative is to stand outside a burning house with persons trapped and await the arrival of the second appliance), WFRS would knowingly allow RD as a system for normal use that is designed without taking proper account of human factors. HSG 48 highlights the risk and consequence of human failings.

If WFRS believe it is safe to ride with four then the question has to be asked – which firefighter goes?

Which of the firefighters necessary to do the tasks in line with the Standard Operating Procedures, against which we train, is not required in the initial phase at a ‘standard’ dwelling fire? Simply put, which of the five firefighters, we believe is necessary to safely tackle a dwelling house fire, does this Authority believe is not required.

Incident Commander – Is WFRS saying that we do not need an Incident Commander to make an initial assessment of the incident and to deploy crews according to this assessment? Is Incident Command a safety critical task and therefore a necessary measure to control the risk to which firefighters are likely to be exposed?

A Team of 2 BA Wearers – Is WFRS saying that we do not need to deploy a team of 2 BA Wearers internally in the dwelling for rescue or firefighting? Is a team of at least 2 BA Wearers a minimum requirement for BA Procedures, and is this minimum number of BA Wearers not safety critical, and hence a necessary measure to control the risk to which firefighters are likely to be exposed?

Pump Operator – Is WFRS saying that we do not need a pump operator to control the supply of water for firefighting or firefighter protection to the BA team which has been committed to the fire in the dwelling? Is the requirement to have a dedicated pump operator not safety critical, and hence a necessary measure to control the risk to which firefighters are likely to be exposed?

BA Entry Control Officer – Is WFRS saying that contrary to Standard (and nationally accepted) Operating Procedures that we do not need a designated, stand alone, BA Entry Control Officer to be responsible for BA control at any dwelling fire incident? Do they intend to revise its local Standard Operating Procedures in respect of BA to the extent that they deviate from nationally accepted Standard Operating Procedures in respect of the need to establish BA Entry Control before firefighters are committed in BA? Does WFRS believe that the requirement to have a dedicated BA Entry Control Officer is not safety critical, and is not a necessary measure to control the risk to which firefighters committed in BA are likely to be exposed?

Clearly there are activities that occur at operational incidents which sit outside SOPs and are unconventional or that may briefly make the working environment unsafe, these occasions will become the norm due to the 4 riders. However, because people believe they can get into some kind of trouble for failing to observe the rules they do not report unconventional activities or unsafe events and keep their fingers crossed that nobody else will either. Seeing SOPs involved in failure can attract professional criticism for those managers involved in their design and implementation.

If WFRS implement the proposals of crewing with four riders across the board, then if difficult decisions are not taken i.e. telling a crew of four to stand outside a house fire and await the arrival of the 2nd appliance, and Incident Command Systems do fail to protect the

10 health and safety of firefighters, WFRS will have to accept that the situation was reasonably foreseeable and was of their own making. They will have to accept that the root cause was a failure to incorporate adequate corporate health and safety management into the IRMP process.

The FBU find it hard to understand that the proposed redesign of the service will make the required savings. It is the reduction in the wholetime establishment that will reduce costs not the placing of single appliances with a crew of four at specific locations across the county.

Furthermore the FBU believe there will be ongoing costs when appliances start travelling backwards and forwards to and from the hubs/response locations, in terms of fuel and general wear and tear on the fleet.

Introducing cuts to frontline services cannot be an improvement to what the public of Warwickshire expect. This includes the five posts disappearing from Service Control.

If staffing levels are cut in Service Control the facility to provide emergency cover will be impeded. This would also have an impact that during busy or spate conditions as there would be an inability to take rest breaks or comfort breaks. This could result in the efficiency of performance and the likelihood of mistakes and accidents.

There is no easy fix for staff reduction in Service Control. This is because there is no set Peak times as they are at the response of the public needs.

Duty Systems

WFRS have presented five options for changes to the wholetime duty system. All of these options propose 12 hour shift lengths. Options 1 – 4 propose start and finish times of 10.00- 2200/2200-1000. Option 5 has proposals for the peak demand appliance of 1000- 2200/2200-1000 and for the shift pattern 0700-1900/1900-0700 and 1000-2200/2200-1000.

The latter has confused members as to which start and finish times WFRS actually require for this option

Option 1 7 day fortnight 24 hr staffing + peak activity shift

Option 2 4 days on / 4 off / 4 nights on 24 hr staffing + peak activity shift (444) Option 3 2 days on / 2 nights on / 4 off 24 hr staffing + peak activity shift (224) Option 4 5 days on / 5 off / 5 nights on Combined shift system (555) Option 5 2 days on / 2 nights on / 4 off - modified Combined shift system (224+)

WFRS conducted a Demand Analysis that detailed the occurrence of incidents over the period of 2011 to 2014 to come to the decision that start and finish times will need to be 1000/2200 (Figure 2).

'All Incidents' Attended by Hour of Day 2011 - 2014

900 774793 800 709 673 700 634 646 600 500 511 471 500 441 423 400 400 366 306 319296 270 252 300 232226 222 192 173 200 165 100 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Figure 2

A similar analysis was also undertaken during the improvement plan over the time period of 2007-2010 (Figure 3). The ‘bell’ curve in both graphs virtually mirrors each other. Duty systems were reviewed during the improvement plan and Stability crewing was the option chosen with start and finish times remaining 9-6/6-9.

Number of Incidents per hour Oct 2007-Sept 2010

1400 1200 1000 800 600

Frequency 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour

Figure 3

Because the incident activity times are similar and the FBU would imagine have been historically the same over the years before 2007 is there really such a need to change the start and finish times to such a non family friendly pattern?

WFRS also claim by changing the shift times this will result in minimising the amount of casual overtime. Analysing their own figures presented in the Staff Consultation Pack this equates to approximately fifty incidents a year. Is this such a major expense to warrant a change?

The NJC Schemes of Conditions of Service 6th Edition (Grey Book) states that duty systems should take into account individual circumstances and be family friendly. The proposed length of shifts and start and finish times are not cognisant of this.

The proposed start and finish time contained within the options will have an impact on health and safety. It is well recognised that shift working is bad for health, in particular night working. There are features of what constitutes good working practice in the HSE’s guidance HSG 256 Managing Shift Work i.e. forward rotating shifts, optimum start and finish times and how to manage shift work around family and personal life.

The FBU consider that the 10am/pm changeover to be potentially detrimental because it will upset circadian rhythms¹ more than an earlier changeover. If lengths of shifts and stand down times are changed, members will need to be prepared for the changes they need to make outside of work to be able to cope with them. This as with any change will need to be managed effectively and robust risk assessments produced.

The proposal to move to twelve hour shifts concerns the FBU. The Working Time Directive (WTD) 1998 Regulation 10 states:

Daily rest 10. (1) An adult worker is entitled to a rest period of not less than eleven consecutive hours in each 24-hour period during which he works for his employer. Although this regulation isn’t applied to the current duty system employed, members still have an adequate seven hour stand down period (subject to operational activity). Because the current shift system allows sufficient stand down time during the majority of night shifts it is very family friendly. Any change to this will inevitably be less family friendly due to the reduction to a four hour rest period.

If twelve hour shifts are implemented then there is the potential for personnel to work beyond the end of shift due to an incident and still expected to return on time for their next shift which effectively reduces the eleven hours required by the WTD. Twelve hour shifts and the reduced rest period also have health and safety implications in terms of some duties that members undertake. From an emergency response driving point of view it concerns the FBU that the reduction in the rest period will affect drivers’ concentration levels and thus, there will be an increase of risk to public safety on the roads.

WFRS have a number of wholetime employees who work the Retained Duty System (RDS) and book ‘on call’ after shifts and on rota days. WFRS rely on these personnel to crew RDS appliances available alongside RDS firefighters, for incident activity. The proposed change to shift lengths and stand down time will increase the health and safety risk to wholetime employees who make themselves available for RDS duties immediately before and between shifts. This in turn will reduce the amount of hours that wholetime personnel will be available to be on call and consequently there will be a reduction in the number of appliances to respond to incidents.

¹Circadian Rhythms - Circadian rhythms can influence sleep-wake cycles, hormone release, body temperature and other important bodily functions. They have been linked to various sleep disorders, such as insomnia. Abnormal circadian rhythms have also been associated with obesity, diabetes, depression, bipolar disorder and seasonal affective disorder

Within the Transformation Programme WFRS are proposing Resilience arrangements for Strategic Reserve. This is a pool of volunteers who will be available on a recall to duty basis to cover sickness, annual leave and peak demand appliances. This highlights the fact that known shortfalls will definitely occur and WFRS will be utilising secondary contracts to paper over what is a shortfall in correct establishment levels to crew appliances.

The resilient shift payments will be at flat rate which is outside the Grey Book. The FBU are also concerned around what will happen if there are no or very few volunteers for this proposal. This can only result in less appliances being available putting the health, safety and welfare of members at risk.

Summary

WFRS is one of the top performing organisations within the fire and rescue family and this is due to firefighters actively helping to reduce fire and fire deaths through community fire safety work. The FBU fear that this performance will dip if the redesign proposals are implemented because defensive firefighting tactics will have to be adopted due to riding four on appliances and initial attending crews having to wait for back up.

WFRS will have to undertake a detailed task analysis and review its policies and procedures if riding with four and the proposed single appliance response locations are introduced. The outcome of which should be suitable, sufficient and robust risk assessments which must be shared with the representative bodies.

The FBU recommend that the organisation reviews its proposals for four riders and urge management to look at riding five, at the very least, at some of the response locations. WFRS also need to seriously look at keeping two appliances 24/7 in the major towns across the county to ensure the correct resources are available where the most life risk is located. The improvement plan in 2010 restructured the response locations based on incident activity and the FBU believe that this has not altered that drastically to warrant the changes proposed.

Duty systems should take into account individual circumstances and be family friendly. Twelve hour shifts and the proposed start and finish times will have risks to the health safety and welfare of firefighters and have an impact on work/life balance. The FBU recommends WFRS to review the start and finish times and to consider a shorter day shift and longer night shift such as 10/14 or 11/13. Has the organisation looked at other fire and rescue services duty systems that have been acceptable to both the organisation and firefighters?

The Transformation Programme only concentrates on the first two years of the four year savings plan. This is a serious concern because the FBU have not had sight of what is proposed for years three and four and members believe there is no more room to make cuts to frontline operational crews and Service Control. In planning its service delivery, WFRS must be clear to the public of Warwickshire the difference between what a fire and rescue service is required to provide and what it recommends to provide under the financial constraints of the budget reduction.

Appendix 5 – RFU response

Proposed Response Model Performance Comparison between Initial Consultation model & Day Crewed Plus model August 2014

Context and rationale

The following maps compare the performance of the initial response model on which we consulted and the revised response model (Day Crewed Plus model) now being proposed by the Chief Fire Officer.

The initial model provided a greater spread of fire engines by moving the 2nd fire engine from Nuneaton, Rugby and Leamington fire stations into more rural areas. This model provides the better performance in the first fire engine attending a life risk incident in rural areas of the County.

On balance it is recommended that those stations covering urban areas that have traditionally operated with two fire engines should continue to do so because the denser populations and built environment in urban areas continue to present greater overall call volume and the higher likelihood of rapid fire spread in larger buildings. Urban areas tend also to contain greater proportions of the population most vulnerable to fires, deaths and injuries such as the elderly or infirm, as well featuring higher levels of arson and deliberate fire setting.

The Day Crewed Plus response model maintains the 2nd fire engines at Nuneaton, Rugby and Leamington fire stations at the expense of a slightly lower level of performance in the first fire engine attending a life risk incident in some rural areas of the County.

Key to Following Maps

P1 Incident

Incidents which pose an immediate threat to human life: Building fire, persons reported Road Traffic Collision, persons trapped

P2 Incident Incidents which pose a serious hazard and high risk to human life: Building Fires

Retained Fire Engine Response

Wholetime Fire Engine Response

Day: 10 minute response CP Response M Day Crewed Plus model Initial Consultation model August 2014 Day: 15 minute response CP Response M Day Crewed Plus model Initial Consultation model August 2014 Night: 10 minute response CP Response M Day Crewed Plus model Initial Consultation model August 2014 Night: 15 minute response CP Response M Day Crewed Plus model Initial Consultation model August 2014 Response Models: Comparison

Proposed Response Model Improved Performance Levels

Current Initial Day Crewed Response Consultation Plus Response Model model Life Risk Incidents attended 74.0% 81.8% 77.3% within 10 minutes Life Risk incidents attended 94.0% 97.2% 93.2% within 15 minutes Background Information for the Day Crewing Plus Duty System

The Day Crewing Plus system has been implemented in several other UK FRSs over the last decade and has proved to be a successful operating model. The system allows for maximum available resources during periods of greater activity yet also provides cover equivalent to the shift system during hours of low activity.

Day Crewing Plus is designed to be a more efficient method of providing 24 hour operational cover at stations which have a profile of extended periods of low activity but where a certain level of risk exists.

In principle it provides fire fighters working ‘positive hours’ during known periods of activity as well as increasing the available time for operational training, risk information gathering and community safety activities. During periods of known historical and predicted low activity it provides fire fighters for immediate response but allows them to ‘stand down’ in individual living accommodation.

The system is based upon the existing day crewing system but provides 24/7 WDS system response for a similar cost. There are no alternative models which improve the level of operational response but deliver the similar efficiencies. It is however important to note that the implementation of Day Crewing Plus requires a capital investment at locations adopting the model as individual firefighter accommodation will need to be created to serve the on call personnel on station during their standby shift.

It is important to note that the Day Crewing Plus duty system does not comply with working pattern requirements as stipulated in the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades Schemes and Conditions of Service (Grey Book) for duty systems and as such, staff cannot be required to work it. Therefore, in order to implement the new duty system, the FA will be dependent upon staff volunteering to transfer from an existing duty system. Further to this, analysis of recruitment in fire and rescue services who have already introduced this duty system, indicates that the number of ‘volunteers’ has always outnumbered the number of vacancies available.

As all the hours in a shift will constitute working time staff will only be able to work this duty system if they opt out of the maximum 48 hour week provided for in the Working Time Regulations 1998.

The day crewing plus system requires a station establishment of 14 personnel to provide a minimum crewing level of 5 firefighters 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The shifts that individuals are required to work are in essence split into two contracts. The primary contract is a WDS contract where the individual works an average of 4 day shifts of 12 hours each, followed by 4 days off. The second contract is an On Call contract where they are required to provide cover for an average of 4 night shifts comprising of 12 hours each per week. These contracts run concurrently where each shift will be considered to be 24 hours i.e. 12 hours WDS and 12 hours On Call.

The information below details the proposed staffing model to be used and identifies the available shifts and the associated over provision that will allow for self-management of crewing deficiencies without the organisation incurring detachment and/or overtime costs.

The initial proposed establishment model is:

• 4 x Crew Commander • 10 x Fire Fighter

Crew Commanders (CC) Fire-fighters (FF) 365 shifts per year 24-hour shift 365 shifts per year 24-hour shift 1 CC to crew each 4 FFs to crew each shift* shift 365 shifts Number of shifts 1460 shifts Total number of required to be shifts required to be covered per year covered per year 182.5 Shifts required Equates to the 182.5 Shifts Equates to the per CC per year individual contracted required per FF per individual contracted hours for both year hours for both positive and on-call positive and on-call hours hours 31 Shifts lost to leave 31 Shifts lost to leave 151.5 net Shifts 151.5 net Shifts required per CC per required per FF per year year 4 Crew Commanders 10 Fire-fighters = = 606 available shifts 1515 available shifts per year per year Shift surplus = 241 Total available shifts Shift Surplus = 55 Total available shifts minus shifts required minus shifts required equals shift surplus. equals shift surplus.

*There are 155 shifts when 2 CCs are required to form part of the appliance crew of 5

The model demonstrates an overprovision of 296 shifts per year, equating to 21 shifts (24hr) per person per year that would be owed to the organisation.

This over provision allows for personnel contracted to the system to provide cover for sickness within their contract. Cover for absence will be addressed within the group and will therefore remove the requirement for the organisation to pay overtime to cover crewing deficiencies.

Due to the increase in time spent at the station to cover the standby hours Day Crew Plus firefighters are paid an additional 20% allowance.

Mandatory training will be required to be conducted whilst on day duties. Specialist Training will be able to be accounted for within this system depending on the quantity required, notice given and the level of sickness found.

Organisational Benefits

• Greater operational resilience • Proven outcomes in other UK FRSs • 50% reduction in establishment • Same or improved mobilising time i.e. over the existing Day Crewing system at night • There is an inbuilt resilience to cover leave, including sickness • It sees an increase in productive hours per individual i.e. 42 hrs are ‘positive’ per week. • Reduction in over provision of resources, optimum found more often • Financial efficiencies

Individual Benefits

• Much more flexible for individuals to suit personal needs • Suits family life • Facilitates those caring for others with special needs • Religious requirements can be accommodated

Key Risk

• Personnel must volunteer to opt out from grey book conditions to work the Day Crewing Plus duty system. • Personnel must opt out of the maximum 48 hour week provided for in the Working Time Regulations 1998.

Financial assumptions for DCP costs

Day Crew Plus, £646,388 Includes DCP shift allowance of 20% Single Pump

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ ANALYSIS (EqIA)

Fire and Rescue Service – One Organisational Plan Proposals

FRS A – Implement a new delivery model based on changes to duty systems and new response points

FRS G (new code – FRS E) - A reduction in fire engines, clothing, protective equipment, operational equipment and training in line with the reduction in staff numbers

FRS - F (new code FRS- H) - Removal of an Area Commander post

Warwickshire County Council

Equality Impact Assessment/ Analysis (EqIA)

Group Fire and Rescue Service

Business Units/Service Area Response

Plan/ Strategy/ Policy/ Service being assessed One Organisational Plan Proposals FRS A and FRS G (new code FRS E) FRS - F (new code FRS- H)

It is a new proposal but is linked Is this is a new or existing policy/service? to the EIA completed for Strategic If existing policy/service please state date of last Commissioning assessment Rachel Barnes, Dave Pemberton, EqIA Review team – List of members Sarah Hay-Jahans 15th November 2013 Date of this assessment th Reviewed on 12 August 2014 in light of consultation. Rachel Barnes Signature of completing officer (to be signed after the EqIA has been completed)

Are any of the outcomes from this assessment YES likely to result in complaints from existing services users and/ or members of the public? If yes please flag this with your Head of Service and the Customer Relations Team as soon as possible. Dave Pemberton Name and signature of Head of Service (to be signed after the EqIA has been completed)

Signature of GLT Equalities Champion (to be Jim Onions signed after the EqIA is completed and signed by the completing officer)

A copy of this form including relevant data and information to be forwarded to the Group Equalities Champion and the Corporate Equalities & Diversity Team

Form A1

INITIAL SCREENING FOR STRATEGIES/POLICIES/FUNCTIONS FOR EQUALITIES RELEVANCE TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION, PROMOTE EQUALITY AND FOSTER GOOD RELATIONS

High relevance/priority Medium relevance/priority Low or no relevance/ priority Note: 1. Tick coloured boxes appropriately, and depending on degree of relevance to each of the equality strands 2. Summaries of the legislation/guidance should be used to assist this screening process Business Relevance/Risk to Equalities Unit/Services: State the Function/Policy Gender Race Disability Sexual Religion/Belief Age Gender Pregnancy/ Marriage/ /Service/Strategy being Orientation Reassignment Maternity Civil assessed: Partnership (only for staff)                            Staff Impacts          Removal of up to 30 full time firefighter posts through revised duty systems. Community Impacts          Potential reduction in prevention/protection work by firefighters. Redistribution of          firefighters and appliances post consultation. Removal of AC post.          Are your proposals likely to impact on social inequalities e.g. child poverty for example or our most geographically disadvantaged NO communities? If yes please explain how. Following consultation, we have revised our proposals and we now plan to maintain resources in urban areas and improve our response in rural areas. Are your proposals likely to impact on a carer who looks after older people or people with disabilities? YES/ NO

Form A2 – Details of Plan/ Strategy/ Service/ Policy

Stage 1 – Scoping and Defining

(1) What are the aims and objectives of The aim of proposal FRS A, G (E) and F (H) within the One Organisational Plan Plan/Strategy/Service/Policy? includes the reduction of up to 30 full time firefighter posts through revised duty systems, a reduction in fire engines, clothing, protective equipment, operational equipment and training, and the removal of an Area Commander post from the management team (a 25% reduction).

These proposals are part of Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service’s (WFRS) Transformation Programme. The aim of this programme is to find more efficient and effective ways of operating, to provide a more equitable response through the better use of resources, and deliver savings as part of the One Organisational Plan (OOP).

This programme is in line with the overall aim of the Service: To protect the community and make Warwickshire a safer place to live, whilst ensuring that resources are utilised to their best effect. (2) How does it fit with Warwickshire County The overall objective of the programme is to deliver savings for the OOP. Council’s wider objectives? It also supports ‘Going for Growth’ by making communities and businesses sustainable and safe from fire and other emergencies, and delivery of the Council’s ambitions and aims for safety and protection. This will lead to reduced levels of fire related deaths and injuries and a lower economic cost of fire. The plan is intended to match demand for response services with firefighter and fire-engine availability.

To make sure that WFRS contributes to the balancing of the County Council’s budget, (3) What are the expected outcomes? that statutory duties are fulfilled as set out in various acts including the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, that current levels of performance are maintained or improved, and that our firefighters are provided with the equipment, training, systems and policies to help keep them safe.

(4) Which of the groups with protected WFRS services are intended to benefit all; in relation to responding to emergencies, characteristics is this intended to benefit? (see preventing emergencies and protecting the public, and supporting and developing our form A1 for list of protected groups) staff. In terms of response, WFRS currently has two standards of service - 10 minutes for urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas. Our new proposals aim to improve response standards in most rural areas whilst maintaining those in urban, thus creating a more equitable service provision. It is proposed that the improvement in response standards will be achieved by changing duty systems enabling more firefighters to be available at peak times and providing a new delivery point. Stage 2 - Information Gathering

(1) What type and range of evidence or Formative public and business consultation, fire specific demographic predictions information have you used to help you make a provided by the Warwickshire Observatory, various historical reports including the judgement about the plan/ strategy/ service/ Quality of Life report, community fire safety strategic assessment, service demand policy? information, various survey result reports, Census data, other Fire and Rescue Services’ Risk Management Plans, local and national performance information and financial reports. (2) Have you consulted on the plan/ strategy/ In 2012 - Consultation with internal senior managers, public and businesses via service/policy and if so with whom? deliberative forums covering the north and south of the county and including a broad representation of the demographic. In 2014 – March to June: Consultation with the public, staff, partners and other agencies over our proposals. (3) Which of the groups with protected Equality monitoring of consultation participants has been undertaken. characteristics have you consulted with? The Protective Characteristics covered in the consultation were: gender, age, disability, race, religion and belief, and sexual orientation. Statistical data was collected to ensure the consultation was reflective of the population across Warwickshire (contained in Public Consultation 2014 document).

Stage 3 – Analysis of impact (1) From your data and consultations is there RACE DISABILITY GENDER any adverse or negative impact identified for Staff Impacts: There may Staff Impacts: A loss of Staff Impacts: A loss of any particular group which could amount to be a loss of staff through staff through the proposals staff through the proposals discrimination? If yes, identify the groups and the proposals that could could impact on some could disproportionately how they are affected. impact on some within this within this group, in impact on women within this group i.e. those who may reflection of representation group, in reflection of already have lower within the workforce. representation within the representation within the Community Impact: in workforce. workforce. respect of potential No community impact No community impact reduction in CFS delivered identified for this group. identified for this group. by firefighters. Those with disabilities could be more vulnerable in the event of fire. Consideration to be given to this group. MARRIAGE/CIVIL AGE GENDER REASSIGNMENT PARTNERSHIP A loss of staff through the No impact identified No impact identified proposals could disproportionately impact on this group, particularly older people in respect of potential reduction in CFS delivered by Firefighters. Consideration to be given to this group. RELIGION/BELIEF PREGNANCY SEXUAL ORIENTATION No impact identified MATERNITY No impact identified A loss of staff through the proposals could impact on this group, particularly those currently on maternity leave. © Warwickshire County Council, Corporate Equalities & Diversity Team Paper 6 - Equality Impact Assessment Ops A,G,F .doc Page 6 of 9

(2) If there is an adverse impact, can this be WFRS needs to monitor and consider the actual impacts of staff loss over the first two justified? years of savings to reduce the impact of a disproportionate effect in any particular group. Whilst we will continue to monitor staffing levels within the protected characteristic groups, we do not consider that any actions undertaken will amount to discrimination. Consideration and review of those affected by different duty systems where they are in a caring capacity for family members/children will be needed.

Response The main driver for this change is the need to deliver a business model that achieves a reduction in the current revenue budget. In addition to this, we are trying to redesign our service to enable a more equitable response through the better use of our resources.

Community / Customer Impact The proposals will improve our overall response in rural areas to life risk emergencies. There will be changes to the firefighter duty system to enable the more effective use of resources, particularly at peak times.

Staffing Impact There will be a reduction in the total number of Wholetime firefighter posts. WFRS will seek to achieve reductions through natural wastage.

(3)What actions are going to be taken to Public and staff consultation exercises have been carried out to inform the public and reduce or eliminate negative or adverse staff of the issues and gather their comments. In light of the findings from consultation, impact? (this should form part of your action we have reviewed and updated our proposals. We have sought to address the main plan under Stage 4.) concerns raised, including the reallocation of the second fire engines in urban areas, and cover at night in some areas including Alcester, whilst still seeking to achieve the original objective of introducing a more equitable response across Warwickshire. We aim to introduce the changes to duty systems on a voluntary basis, therefore reducing the impact of those with caring responsibilities.

(4) How does the plan/strategy/service/policy The potential to redesign some of the service provision could provide greater access to contribute to promotion of equality? If not what services and improved outcomes for service users and communities, thus contributing can be done? to the promotion of equalities. Plans will consider how to maintain or improve the average response time across the county and therefore reduce the inequalities that people in rural areas experience. (5) How does the plan/strategy/service/policy N/A promote good relations between groups? If not what can be done? (6) Are there any obvious barriers to The proposals seek to overcome barriers, particularly for those living in rural accessing the service? If yes how can they be communities, by introducing a target of 10 minute response times for life risk incidents overcome? in both urban and rural areas. People that live in isolated rural areas can currently wait longer for a response than those people living in towns covered by wholetime pumping appliances. Our proposals seek to improve the response standard in most rural areas. (7) What are the likely positive and negative Plans will consider maintaining or improving the initial response time to emergencies. consequences for health and wellbeing as a This could improve outcomes for casualties by providing a quicker response to fires, result of this plan/strategy/service/policy? road traffic collisions and other emergencies. Stabilising casualties trapped in cars and preventing fires from developing further has the potential to help save lives and reduce the extent of injuries. There may be a negative impact on staff due to changes and therefore potential stress. (8) What actions are going to be taken to These proposals could affect the Service’s ability to attend and undertake fire reduce or eliminate negative or adverse prevention activities due to reductions in the number of wholetime firefighters available impact on population health? (This should to carry out this work. However, WFRS will seek to reduce this risk by targeting the form part of your action plan under Stage 4.) most vulnerable people in the community and using alternative methods for carrying out community safety activities. (9) Will the plan/strategy/service/policy No increase the number of people needing to access health services? If so, what steps can be put in place to mitigate this? (10) Will the plan/strategy/service/policy Yes, improved response to rural areas may improve outcomes for a wider breadth of reduce health inequalities? If so, how, what is people, thus providing the potential to help reduce health inequalities. the evidence?

Stage 4 – Action Planning, Review & Monitoring If No Further Action is required then go to – EqIA Action Plan Review & Monitoring Action Lead Officer Date for Resource Comments completion requirements (1)Action Planning – Specify any changes or Deliver public Area March-June Consultation / Public improvements which can be made to the consultation Commander 2014 Project consultation service or policy to mitigate or eradicate plan regarding Dave Manager and completed. negative or adverse impact on specific changes to Pemberton team groups, including resource implications. strategic fire cover Contract Area July-August Project In progress. negotiations with Commander 2014 Manager firefighters TBC, HR HR business professional partner advice Admin Support Overall Project Area March 2014 2 full time Complete. Team Appointed Commander project to manage the Rob Moyney managers with change administration support for 18 – 24 months Engage with Area March-June HR lead with Staff affected staff. Commander 2014 support from consultation on Rob Moyney, relevant staff proposals HR business completed.

partner (2) Review and Monitoring: State how and This will be reviewed in line with the OOP. when you will monitor policy and Action Plan

An Equality Impact Assessment/ Analysis on this policy was undertaken on 15 November 2013 and updated on 12th August. It will be reviewed as the project progresses through the planning and implementation phases.

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT/ ANALYSIS (EqIA)

Fire and Rescue Service – One Organisational Plan Proposals

FRS C (New code: FRS G), FRS D (New code: FRS C), and FRS E (New code: FRS D): Reduction of staffing in the Fire Prevention team. Reduction in smoke alarm fitting. Review the crewing arrangements of the Small Fires Unit.

Warwickshire County Council

Equality Impact Assessment/ Analysis (EqIA)

Group Fire and Rescue Service

Business Units/Service Area Response

One Organisational Plan Plan/ Strategy/ Policy/ Service being assessed Proposals FRS C (G), FRS D (C), and FRS E (D): Reduction of staffing in the Fire Prevention team. Reduction in smoke alarm fitting. Review the crewing arrangements of the Small Fires Unit.

One Organisational Plan Is this is a new or existing policy/service? Proposals If existing policy/service please state date of last assessment Rachel Barnes, Dave Pemberton, EqIA Review team – List of members Sarah Hay-Jahans

Date of this assessment 12th August 2014

Rachel Barnes Signature of completing officer (to be signed after the EqIA has been completed)

Name and signature of Head of Service (to be Dave Pemberton signed after the EqIA has been completed)

Jim Onions Signature of GLT Equalities Champion (to be signed after the EqIA is completed and signed by the completing officer)

A copy of this form including relevant data and information to be forwarded to the Group Equalities Champion and the Corporate Equalities & Diversity Team

Form A1

INITIAL SCREENING FOR STRATEGIES/POLICIES/FUNCTIONS FOR EQUALITIES RELEVANCE TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION, PROMOTE EQUALITY AND FOSTER GOOD RELATIONS

High relevance/priority Medium relevance/priority Low or no relevance/ priority

Note: 1. Tick coloured boxes appropriately, and depending on degree of relevance to each of the equality strands 2. Summaries of the legislation/guidance should be used to assist this screening process

Business Relevance/Risk to Equalities Unit/Services: State the Function/Policy Gender Race Disability Sexual Religion/Belief Age Gender Pregnancy/ Marriage/ /Service/Strategy being Orientation Reassignment Maternity Civil assessed: Partnership (only for staff)                            Reduction of staffing in          the Fire Prevention team. Reduction in smoke          alarm fittings. Review the crewing          arrangements of the Small Fires Unit. Are your proposals likely to impact on social inequalities e.g. child poverty for example or our most geographically disadvantaged YES communities? If yes please explain how. Proposals are likely to affect the most vulnerable people in society, and/or create public perception that proposals will affect same. People in rural communities and people who live in areas of social deprivation are more likely to be negatively affected, where previously they would have received/or been involved in a higher proportion of preventative work e. Home Fire Safety Checks,. Research also tells us that older and disabled people are historically more likely to be involved in a fire in the home. Are your proposals likely to impact on a carer who looks after older people or people with disabilities? Yes - but only in so far as YES the links to disabled people and older people as discussed above.

Form A2 – Details of Plan/ Strategy/ Service/ Policy

Stage 1 – Scoping and Defining

(1) What are the aims and objectives of The aim of proposal FRS C (G), D(C) and E (D) within the One Organisational Plan includes the Plan/Strategy/Service/Policy? reduction of staffing in the Fire Prevention team, the targeted fitting of smoke alarms and the review of the crewing arrangements of the Small Fires Unit.

The Fire Prevention team in Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service (WFRS) currently uses a mix of delivery models to provide services to the public. These include face-to-face delivery by firefighters, support staff, partner organisations and volunteers. A remote offer of information and guidance is made via the WCC web pages, Facebook, Twitter and by telephone. Specific services offered to the public and businesses include the following: . Home Fire Safety Checks, including fitting of smoke alarms where appropriate; . Presentations to schools - covering academic years 1, 5 and targeted year 7; . Arson reduction activity including joint work with Warwickshire Police at Nuneaton Justice Centre, Anti-Social Behaviour Intervention Teams (ASBIT) – targeted proactive patrols with local agencies in arson hot spot areas, ‘Prison Me, No Way’ – multi-agency work in secondary schools on community safety covering road safety and arson; and providing advice on protecting property from arson; . Targeted messages through campaigns to those who are identified to be most at risk e.g. to older people, and work with the Police targeted at young drivers; and . Support for the Young Firefighters Association (YFA), by providing staff, equipment and the use of local stations.

We are proposing to continue providing these services but in a more targeted way for the most vulnerable members of the community. It also proposed that WFRS withdraws support for the Young Firefighters Association due to reducing budgets and a need to focus on the areas of most need.

(2) How does it fit with Warwickshire County These proposals fit with the Council’s One Organisational Plan. Council’s wider objectives? The work of the Fire Prevention team supports Going for Growth by helping communities and businesses to be safe from fire and other emergencies, thus enabling them to be more sustainable and reducing the economic cost of fire. This is in line with the Council’s ambitions and aims for safety and protection, and reduced levels of fire related deaths and injuries. By having a more targeted and streamlined approach we can continue to provide effective Fire Prevention services whilst contributing to the required budget savings. This work will enable WFRS to support the balancing of the County Council’s budget over the (3) What are the expected outcomes? next four years. However, there is a risk that a reduction in prevention activity could increase the demand for response to more emergency incidents. Any impact will be monitored closely.

(4)Which of the groups with protected WFRS will continue to target those most vulnerable within the community, using a risk-based characteristics is this intended to benefit? (see assessment (including factors for age, disability, and rural/social inequalities). form A1 for list of protected groups)

Stage 2 - Information Gathering

(1) What type and range of evidence or The proposals for reductions in Fire Prevention originated from a comprehensive review of all information have you used to help you make a our services through the Strategic Commissioning process. This identified opportunities to work judgement about the plan/ strategy/ service/ more effectively and efficiently. policy? WFRS has used intelligence modelling over the last three consecutive years to identify target groups to direct prevention work, including Mosaic profiling within the Strategic Assessment. WFRS has been very successful in reducing harm to its communities across a range of performance measures.

Evidence and information considered includes that of the legislative requirements from the Fire and Rescue Service Act 2004, statutory responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act to work with other key agencies to reduce anti-social behaviour, general duties under Health and Safety legislation for the provision of safe systems of work, the Equalities Act 2010, and the National Guidance Framework.

Firefighter safety is a fundamental issue associated with any reduction in the investment of prevention activity. WFRS should not just consider the impact reducing services on our statutory responsibilities as this could lead to an increase in demand for operational response, but also the possibility of exposing the community and firefighters to additional risk.

(2) Have you consulted on the plan/ strategy/ WFRS has carried out extensive consultation on its proposals. This has included targeted service/policy and if so with whom? consultation with members of the public and the business community in the formative stages of its plans, followed by wider public and staff consultation from March to June 2014 to gain views on proposals. This included discussions with Representative Bodies, neighbouring fire and rescue authorities, partner agencies, and Members. The Integrated Risk Management Plan Steering Group has supported the development of the plan, which included members from each of the political groups and the Fire and Rescue Service Portfolio holder.

(3) Which of the groups with protected Equality monitoring data has been collected throughout the consultation process, for example characteristics have you consulted with? via equality monitoring questionnaires in surveys, at focus groups and during roadshows. Monitoring information has included questions on race, disability, gender, age, religion and belief, and sexual orientation. The information demonstrates that consultation has taken place with a diverse range of groups, reflecting the wide range of needs and views across the communities in Warwickshire.

Stage 3 – Analysis of impact

(1) From your data and consultations is there RACE DISABILITY GENDER any adverse or negative impact identified for any particular group which could amount to No High relevance, as option No discrimination? identifies with people who are considered vulnerable and continues to provide risk If yes, identify the groups and how they are based service. affected. MARRIAGE/CIVIL AGE GENDER REASSIGNMENT PARTNERSHIP No High relevance, as option No identifies with people who are considered vulnerable and continues to provide risk based service. RELIGION/BELIEF PREGNANCY SEXUAL ORIENTATION MATERNITY No No No

(2) If there is an adverse impact, can this be There is a risk of a reduction in prevention activity that could increase the demand for response justified? to more emergency incidents. This risk can be justified as a targeted approach will be taken that ensures an effective service will be available to more vulnerable residents.

Workforce Considerations - WFRS will seek to achieve staff reductions through natural wastage wherever possible. These include a Station Commander and Administration Post. (3)What actions are going to be taken to WFRS plans to target carefully those who are most vulnerable to control the impact of any reduce or eliminate negative or adverse reduction in prevention activity from these proposals. Close monitoring of incident trends and impact? (This should form part of your action accidents and injuries will be carried out and used to help target prevention activity where it is plan under Stage 4.) needed most. (4) How does the plan/strategy/service/policy This option has the opportunity to contribute to the promotion of equality, by providing people contribute to promotion of equality? If not what who are considered at higher risk (e.g. older people, disabled people, young people, schools can be done? etc.) a more targeted service, putting them on a more equal footing with others in a lower risk group.

(5) How does the plan/strategy/service/policy N/A promote good relations between groups? If not what can be done?

(6) Are there any obvious barriers to There may be some barriers to accessing the service, for example the increasing use of accessing the service? If yes how can they be electronic media (website, social networks, email) to deliver safety messages could adversely overcome? affect some people with disabilities (sight / learning difficulties), older people or those affected by multiple deprivation who may not have access to computers. WFRS will help to overcome barriers by targeting these more vulnerable people in its prevention work, and providing advice and information in different forms and languages e.g. leaflets, advice over the telephone, visits. Fire prevention material is already available in many different languages.

(7) What are the likely positive and negative A reduction in prevention activity could lead to an increase in a number of incidents and consequences for health and wellbeing as a accidents and injuries, and hospital admissions. result of this plan/strategy/service/policy?

(8) What actions are going to be taken to Trends in incidents will be monitored closely and will inform targeted prevention activity to help reduce or eliminate negative or adverse reduce any further accidents and injuries. impact on population health? (This should form part of your action plan under Stage 4.)

(9) Will the plan/strategy/service/policy See the previous answer. increase the number of people needing to access health services? If so, what steps can be put in place to mitigate this?

(10) Will the plan/strategy/service/policy No reduce health inequalities? If so, how, what is the evidence?

Stage 4 – Action Planning, Review & Monitoring

If No Further Action is required then go to – Review & Monitoring EqIA Action Plan

(1) Action Planning – Specify any changes or Action Lead Officer Date for Resource Comments improvements which can be made to the completion requirements service or policy to mitigate or eradicate Review the risk Moreno April 2014 Officer Time Complete negative or adverse impact on specific based approach Francioso groups, including resource implications. to the delivery of HFSC’s and other prevention work, and ensure any person with a protected characteristic and social inequality is not affected adversely. Consultation with Area March-June Officer Time Complete stakeholders Commander 2014 (public and staff) Dave on proposals. Pemberton Develop a Rachel Barnes, August 2014 Lisa Mowe, In progress. communication Transformation Communications. plan to support Manager HR lead.

implementation. (2) Review and Monitoring The plan was reviewed on 5th August 2014 and will continue to be monitored through the State how and when you will monitor policy implementation of the changes, in line with the OOP. and Action Plan

An Equality Impact Assessment/ Analysis on this policy was undertaken on 15th November 2013 and updated on 12th August 2014. It will be reviewed as the project progresses in line with the OOP. © Warwickshire County Council, Corporate Equalities & Diversity Team Paper 6 - Equality Impact Assessment Ops C D and E (1).doc Page 9 of 9