Could fire cuts be case of civic neglect?

Published on 7th August 2008 in Letters

Sir - Having just returned from my summer holiday I was dismayed to read the headline article in last week's edition of this newspaper that confirmed the reduction in Fire Crew/Engine cover for Goole and the surrounding areas. I have written previously to the Goole Times emphasising my thoughts on this matter and whilst I am sure they are aware of their civil duties to us as elected representatives and paid officers of the Fire Authority, East Riding Council etc., I would like to question them for their answers in relation to the consequences of what I consider is civil neglect.

The councillors who voted for the cuts have stated that they have based their decision on the facts (and I assume this will include the risk assessment findings) and have confirmed that their consciences are clear. I wonder if any of them tested the theories put forward by the Fire Brigade Officers at the meeting on March 3, 2008 - and for clarity I repeat these.

The Fire Officers stated that they would be able to make arrangements (80 per cent of the time) for retained firemen to be able to receive an alarm, get to the fire station, change into fire fighting gear and be able to get the retained machine to an incident within four minutes in order to support the permanent crew.

Being born and bred in Goole I have serious reservations appertaining to these claims. If though these theories are accurate as I pointed out then this still means that one in five fires would not have the necessary support and the Fire Brigade Union confirmed that should there be trouble in getting the second machine to an incident within four minutes of the first engine arriving (1 in 5 remember), then the crew of the first engine would not be allowed to access burning buildings because of risk assessment procedures laid down by the officers.

This places the attending crew members in the despicable dilemma of either acting to save lives outside of the Fire Brigades rules on tackling fires, or putting lives at risk whilst waiting for the retained engine to turn up.

However, having made their decisions and cleared their consciences I am sure the esteemed persons who had votes and the casting vote have certainly mulled this over before making their minds up. If they haven't, then this brings me on to the civil neglect issue. If I was a firemen who had been placed in this Catch 22 situation, or a relative of a person killed in a fire because of the lack of support, I would be raising serious questions in Civil Court proceedings relating to inquests etc. of the people who both put these notions forward and voted on their implementation. I would want to know that these theories had been tested and that they worked 100 per cent of the time, not simply four times out of five.

As an aside, I want to reduce my Fire Authority payment by an amount I consider in theory is realistic once these cuts come in. I will base my payment strategy on the fact that I have had my fire engine cover substantially reduced and my chances of surviving a fire subsequently cut by 20 per cent.

I feel the local people should only pay for the service provided, so a breakdown of the cost to run both Goole Fire Station's old and new services would also be appreciated in order that I can get an understanding of how much I should deduct from my payments to ERYC should the changes occur before the end of this financial year, as I am sure that the council officers/members will already have had the forethought to factor any such reductions into next year's bills.

Can I politely request that someone from the group of people, probably Doreen Engall, who voted and made this decision responds in this newspaper to confirm that this is/is not within my and the rest of Goole's council-tax payers' rights. If the answer is no, can they please detail, in this paper, the reasons why I have to continue to pay the same for a reduced emergency service that is not capable of meeting (100 per cent of the time) the life-saving demands of the general public in this region.

Steve Acaster

Goole