A Notice of Motion at Council on 18 October 2013 requested the Committee to consider the impacts of Fire and Rescue Service proposals, a Task and Finish Group was convened to prepare a consultation response and this will be circulated for consideration by the Committee.

Further to a Notice of Motion at Council on 18 October 2013 which requested the Committee to consider the impacts of the Fire and Rescue Service proposals, the Chairman presented the report of the Task and Finish Group that had been convened to prepare a consultation response; the report was circulated in Supplement 2 to the agenda.  He added that the proposals were not ideal but recognised that the service faced significant financial pressures.

The Committee considered the report, the principal points included:

a.       Members were reminded that the Fire and Rescue Authority was an  autonomous body.

b.       A Committee Member suggested a further recommendation about the need for good collaboration not only between fire and rescue authorities but also with the other emergency services; in particular, to explore the potential for further savings through the co-location of fire and police stations.  Another Committee Member commented that discussions with other authorities and bodies were taking place.  The Chairman acknowledged the point but considered this to be outside the scope of this particular consultation.

c.       A Member in attendance expressed concern that reductions in the numbers of both wholetime and retained fire fighters would have a detrimental impact, especially the consequential loss of skills and experience.  The Chairman advised that the Task and Finish Group had explored related issues with the Chief Fire Officer and noted that resources were frequently transferred between Herefordshire and Worcestershire. 

d.       A Member in attendance said that a number of firefighters had commented on the need for management savings rather than reducing frontline provision.

e.       A Committee Member questioned whether one of the recommendations could be amended to reflect the need to maintain appropriate levels of training for retained firefighters.  Another Committee Member did not feel this necessary given the statutory training requirements that the service had to adhere to.

f.       Referring to the ‘To Whom Did We Speak?’ section in the report, a Committee Member questioned why other interested parties had not been consulted, such as the Fire Brigades Union.  The Chairman acknowledged that a broader range of views might have been obtained but emphasised the time pressure to provide a consultation response and noted that other bodies would submit their own responses to the consultation.

g.       Referring to paragraph 5.2 of the report (the position regarding Ledbury), the Vice-Chairman commented that she did not welcome the proposals from a county perspective, as the reduction in the number of fire engines would have an impact on the service’s ability to respond to fire, rescue and road traffic collision incidents throughout Herefordshire, particularly when crews were deployed to support incidents outside the county.  The Vice-Chairman said that assurance should be obtained about the balance of resources in Herefordshire when compared with Worcestershire.  She expressed further concerns about response times in the county, especially given current problems with flooding, and the level of cover that would remain if the proposals were implemented.

h.       The Chairman advised that the Task and Finish Group had made strong representations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52