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 to the Chief Fire Officer and assurances had been provided about the pre-deployment of resources to respond to predictable flooding events.  The ability to respond to unpredictable incidents was an important issue and the Council should be informed of any consequential impacts of the proposals on performance.  However, the Chief Fire Officer had indicated that he was satisfied with the level of cover that would remain.

i.        A Committee Member commented that the deployment of fire engines from particular stations should not be perceived as leaving an area devoid of cover, as there were statutory requirements for Fire and Rescue Authorities to maintain cover.

j.        A Member in attendance commented that the rules concerning response times had changed recently, thereby enabling these proposals to come forward but this could be to the detriment of provision in Herefordshire.

k.       A Committee Member commented that resources belonged to the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service, under the command of the Chief Fire Officer, and would be deployed as necessary.

l.        The Chairman said that the Task and Finish Group had been informed that Herefordshire had more appliances per head of population than other areas and the proposals would bring the resources into line with similar conurbations in the rest of the country.  The Chairman added that, whilst the proposals should not have a critical impact, he remained concerned about overall resilience within the service.

m.     A Member in attendance expressed further concerns about the ability of the service to respond to incidents adequately in the future given the rural nature of the county and issues with the local road network.

n.       A Member in attendance identified that the Notice of Motion published as an appendix to the report was an initial draft and requested that the final version be submitted with the consultation response.  In response to a question, the Chairman advised that, due to the rescheduling of the next Council meeting to 17 January 2014, the report would need to be submitted as the Committee’s response to the consultation; the deadline for submissions was 10 January 2014.

o.       The Vice-Chairman proposed a further recommendation to require that a written assurance be provided that, despite the removal of fire appliances as proposed for Herefordshire, the necessary cover would be retained given the rural nature of the county.  Another Committee Member felt that, as a separate authority, it would not be appropriate for the Council to require such an obligation as part of a consultation response.

p.       The Chairman suggested that, given the extent of the changes proposed, Fire and Rescue Service performance could become a regular item for the Committee’s work programme, at least annually.

q.       The Vice-Chairman commented that statistics indicated that the service was not meeting response targets within the county, particularly for incidents where back-up appliances were required.

r.       A Committee Member commented that the rural nature of the county and the distances involved meant that response times were likely to be below the average level; adding that this was likely to remain the case unless more fire stations were constructed but this was not an option available.

The recommendation proposed at paragraph o. above was not approved but it was suggested that the Fire and Rescue Authority be asked, rather than required, to provide a response.

RESOLVED:  That, with the above amendment, the Fire and Rescue Service Consultation Response be approved for submission to the Fire and Rescue Authority.