Fire cuts

[Moflo]

While London Mayor Boris Johnson is being cheered over the Olympics and boosted in the polls, London?s Fire Brigade is being cut and dismantled.

The London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) has had its budget cut by ?29.5million next year and by a further ?35.3million the year after. In total: ?65 million.

With the cost of operating a fire station with one fire appliance at ?1.4m per year, this means 15 fire stations and appliances are at risk of closure. Up to 25 next year could close next year.

For context, there are just 112 fire stations in London. In just over a year 35% of London?s stations could be shut down.

Labour?s City Hall Fire spokesperson, Navin Shah, sent out a statement this week saying:

The mayor needs to come clean on fire brigade cuts. This isn?t just an academic debate about numbers, if there aren?t enough fire engines in London then they will not get to incidents on time. As we all know time is a crucial factor in saving people?s lives.

It is disgusting that the mayor and government are making these cuts.

So far, the Conservatives are refusing to elaborate much on what they would close. Mayor Boris Johnson previously ruled out frontline cuts to fire services, but will now u-turn on his promise.

The London Evening Standard has barely covered the issue, but broadly remained painfully silent.

[Marmora Man]

Deja Vu all over again - http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,551221,page=1

The last Fire Fighters thread ran to 21 pages with no definite conclusion. Can this one do better?

[DJKillaQueen]

First of all....to say the fire service is being dismantled is not true is it. It's interesting to note that the OP has c&p'd comments from a site called liberalconspiracy.org ......must be true then!!!!!

I would like to see the details of where the cuts are to be made before jumping to the mathematical conclusion that it will automatically close a proportionate number of stations etc. I'm sure some of the cuts will be met by efficiency savings rather than cuts to front line services.

Unfortunately we are seeing cuts everywhere, and accross all public sector services. The real question perhaps is whether the fire service should be immune, when the Police and other emergency services have had to endure cuts?

What the OP doesn't say for example is what percentage of cuts these are to the overall budget. There is an insight to local authority spending (including fire services) across the UK in this document from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (perhaps a little more objective than 'liberalconspiracy.org')....

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2012/12chap6.pdf

I also read that the cost of false alarms to the fire service is 37m per year......so maybe some savings could be made there by better weeding out those.

[Loz]

> London?s Fire Brigade is being cut and dismantled.

Ooooh! Are we having a hyperbole competition??

[DJKillaQueen]

Everything one needs to know about London's Fire Service budget can be found here.....

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/CorporatePublications.asp#Statement_of_Accounts

This document (published by the LFS itself) reports that London fire service was allocated ?437.3 million last year and came in under budget by 21 million or 5%

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/Summary_of_Accounts_201011.pdf

So if we apply the figures in the OP....29 million is approx 6%. Well the fire service came un 5% under budget last year. 35 million the following years equates to a further cut of 8% for that year.

It's perfectly obvious from those figures that the first cut can be met. The second can be debated. But the claim that 35% of London's fire stations could go from a 14% cut in budget is just ridiculous and makes no sense based on the actual figures. But then why are we suprised that campaign groups and politicians mislead the public. It took me all of five minutes to find the real financial data. It's a pity the OP couldn't do the same research before posting the OP.

[Chippy Minton]

Off at a tangent slightly, but re: liberalconspiracy.org - this is Sunny Hundal's site who is, or rather was, a very well known Lib Dem supporter who's only become a "progressive" since the formation of the coalition. Whether you agree with its politics or not is moot, but it's a well respected site by all of the political sides and IMHO shouldn't be dismissed because of the domain name!

Anyway, Moflo - get yourself and as many of your friends, family and colleagues out on A Future That Works demo on 20 October to help send your message to the Tories and the Mayor.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah but as I've demonstrated above, the comments on the 'well respected' site aren't exactly in persepective are they?'. It's that kind of misinformation that makes it deserving of dismissal in this debate.

[Chippy Minton]

It is a fact that London Fire Brigade is seeking to save more than ?65 million from its budget over the next two years and it has stated "given the amount we need to save, it would not be possible to achieve all of these savings from 'back office' functions."

It is also a fact that it is considering a number of options in order to save this money one of which is to cut 840 posts, 30 fire stations (representing a quarter of London's stations) and 30 fire engines to save ?45 million.

[Marmora Man]

Chippy, are you suggesting that the Fire Service should be exempt from making any savings? Hardly realistic at a time when government spending is above 50% of GDP and 25% above government income.

An option list doesn't mean that all or even any of the options listed will be implemented. It's usually the basis for discussion from which some form of compromise will occur.

As DJKQ has pointed out - the sevrice underspent by 5% (?21m) last year, so it doesn't appear that the service is stretched financially at present.

As was argued in the previous thread if Fire Services put even more emphasis on fire prevention rather than in standing by to respond to emergencies then costs and lives can be saved as has been demonstrated very clearly in Liverpool.

[Chippy Minton]

MM - no, I am not suggesting anything. Do you actually read my posts or do just see my username and think "ah, here's something for me to disagree with" ?

I simply stated it is a fact that the LFB is considering an option that would cut fire fighters, fire engines and close a quarter of London's fire stations.

[DJKillaQueen]

And that would only be one option of many...so why not list other options too? Or are we going down the same road of alarmism that so many debates around public sector cuts go?

The figures I highlighted were published by the LFS themselves so it makes no sense now for them to claim they would have to cut so many personel and stations based on those figures. I suspect a bit of scaremongering is going on. That is why I believe nothing from public sector claims until I see quantifiable data to support it.

In this instance the LFS's own finacial reports don't support this level of impact from the proposed cuts. The only cut that will realisitcally impact is the second 8% cut. Well you don't have to be a star mathematician to get that 8% does not equate to closing a quarter of London's fire stations. If we do accept that then that means that some 68% of current LFS funding is not spent on fire stations and personnel to run them at all, or that a whooping 92% of funding pays for 75% of the stations currently in use - neither of which make no sense to me.

[Chippy Minton]

The options are detailed in internal LFB documents so I don't know what the other options are (if the OP is a firefighter maybe they have more info?). However, right on time, today's Evening Standard and the BBC report them: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/one-thousand-london-fire-brigade-jobs-under-threat-in-major-costcutting-shakeup-8175051.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19682622 so I suspect that it is true.

"The figures I highlighted were published by the LFS themselves so it makes no sense now for them to claim they would have to cut so many personel and stations based on those figures" - maybe they've spent more than "all of five minutes" looking at "the real financial data" to conclude cutting so many personnel and stations needs to be considered as an option?

[DJKillaQueen]

The real financial data is in the public domain Chippy and there for all to see. They have to publish detailed annual accounts by law. And yes I did spend more than five minutes looking at it and nowhere can I see any proof that an 8% cut to their budget will be equal to the closure of a quarter of all fire stations in London. Now if you can provide me with financial data to support that claim then I'll stand corrected, but from what I can see it is simply is not true. So all I can conclude is scare mongering tactics, I presume, to get the public on side.

Edited to add that page 15 of this document....

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/568234.pdf

....has a table that shows that fires and call outs have declined significantly over the last ten years and the evening standard article claims the cuts are being demanded in relation to this falling trend in incidents. That makes sense to me.

[Chippy Minton]

Well I guess I'll put more trust in the reports from The Standard and BBC which are based LFB documents and that clearly state they are considering an option that would see a quarter of stations close, rather than your analysis of the "real financial data."

[Marmora Man]

CM said

"Well I guess I'll put more trust in the reports from The Standard and BBC which are based LFB documents and that clearly state they are considering an option that would see a quarter of stations close, rather than your analysis of the "real financial data."

My old history master used to drum into us that we must never rely on secondary sources when researching - DJKQ has gone to the primary source (and provided links to the primary sourcec) yet you refuse to consider this, preferring instead to rely on information processed and interpreted by The Evening Standard and the BBC - strange, except that their interpretation supports your world view.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm also trying to make the point that I feel that the LFS are distorting the facts...aided by the media, and that the LFS's own published accounts are proof of distortion of the facts. The LBS boast in their annual report that they came in 5% under budget last year and yet now, an enforced 12% cut (across two years) is going to reduce the service by 25%? And when something doesn't make sense like that you have to ask why? Organisations are prone to deliberate exaggeration of the facts when fighting cuts, it's something we see all the time.

[Chippy Minton]

Jeez, I am not refusing to consider anything!

Going round in circles here so for the last time again, read my posts - I have simply stated LFB is considering making cuts that it thinks will close a quarter of fire stations.

If you don't believe this is being considered or if you don't trust the Standard's or BBC's interpretation then fine, we'll just have to wait until the budget propopals are presented in the spring.

[Huguenot]

The last time the subject came up, we were promised London would be burnt to the ground in 48 hours and that new shift patterns couldn't possibly work because all the Firemen would die or something.

London didn't burn to the ground, and the shift changes seem to have resulted in coming 5% under budget.

Can we be forgiven for not believing the claims from the unions this time as well?

[DaveR]

Chippy, has it occurred to you that LFB saying they are considering closing 25% of fire stations may be either (i) a headline grabbing statement designed to aid their bargaining position or (ii) an admission that rationalisation may be a good idea? Either way, that fact alone is not a basis to say that cuts cannot or should not be made.

[spc]

1 of 3

I am a Fire fighter in London and here are some simple facts for you all. If you want to find them for yourselves go on the LFB website and look up the minutes of the Authority meetings.

Over 80% of the over all budget is spent on people (wages etc), less than 20% is spent on buildings and equipment etc (over 90% for the operational side).

The budget has been cut by 3-5% every year in real terms for the last 5 years.

Most of these saving have been made from reducing "backroom staff" and functions or through efficiency saving, reducing sickness, overtime payments etc.

?50,000.000 of LFB reserves were taken by Boris in the last year and given to the Police.

Only 10% of Ff?s time is spent going out on calls, we spent twice that on community safety work.

The rest of the time is spent training, testing equipment, cleaning and fire prevention work etc.

[spc]

2 of 3

The amount of fires are down, yes, but the damage caused is up, insurance claims are rising year on year and not just because of inflation, this is a hidden cost you pay higher insurance premiums instead of tax (by the way we don?t just do fires).

Attendance times are up (you are waiting longer for the help you need).

Injuries to Ffs are up as fires are more developed by the time we get there.

The new shift is a joke, even senior managers can see it is not working and does not provide the efficiency saving they said it would, There are a couple of station still working the old shift and their efficiency is the same as everyone else, but their sickness, lateness etc is down.

[spc]

3 of 3

As a taxpayer I am all for saving money and I believe there are ways of saving money, but that is not by cutting the service we provide the public. If we were managed properly by people who knew what they were talking about; and not by politicians we could save millions year on year.

In London we wasted ?30M on a firehouse that does not work and nationally ?500M (yes half a billion) of a fire control scheme that will never come in; even though people in the know told them they were a bad idea.

Look up Assetco the company that owned every fire engine and all the equipment in the LFB, who sold the lot for ?2, yes ?2 a few weeks ago. How the contract has not worked and is costing London taxpayer money.

All our training has been out sourced to a private company, new fire stations are being built using PFI, even though the government themselves say in the long term these schemes cost you a lot more and are less efficient, but it is only way the government will allow you to do it.

I could go on, but I won?t, it?s your service, you pay for it, if you don?t want to protect it that?s your choose. I just hope you don?t live to regret it.

[Huguenot]

Well by your own logic, if we don't waste ?530m on technology that doesn't work, we can make all those cuts to funding without damaging fire cover or personnel?

That's the problem with FBU logic - it's not logical.

BTW, the fact that we've had cuts in the past is no logic for not having cuts now. That's more of a whinge than a reason.

Also, if the stations who have not changed their shifts have seen sickness and lateness reduce, then surely that means that before this year there was more malingering and skiving? Not a great advert for the service, and evidence in itself that things needed sorting out.

Most of your arguments are disconnected headlines designed to 'shock', but the reality is that it's all partial and misinformation.

[spc]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well by your own logic, if we don't waste ?530m on

> technology that doesn't work, we can make all

> those cuts to funding without damaging fire cover

> or personnel?

That's right reducing cost does not have to involve cutting services. I and I guess most people would be more than happy to pay less for the same service, are you saying you want to pay more for less?

>

> That's the problem with FBU logic - it's not

> logical.

I did not mentioned the FBU, this is what I have seen having been a Ff for 26 years, but if the bosses had taken notice of what the FBU was saying the ?530M, plus a load of other amounts would not of been wasted, not that I'm saying the FBU are always right, who is, but they are experts in the field of fire fighting, you can't always believe what you read in the papers or see on the news about unions including the FBU.

>

> BTW, the fact that we've had cuts in the past is

> no logic for not having cuts now. That's more of a

> whinge than a reason.

I'm not saying because we have had cuts already (even though they have been in the wrong areas) we can't have cuts now, what I am saying is we have aready made cuts in the areas the government say we can cut now, so the only real area left to cut is the front line, instead of saving money by better management.

>

> Also, if the stations who have not changed their

> shifts have seen sickness and lateness reduce,

> then surely that means that before this year there

> was more malingering and skiving? Not a great

> advert for the service, and evidence in itself

> that things needed sorting out.

You would have to understand how the different shift systems work to understand how wrong you are, but I'm not sure I could explain it to you.

>

> Most of your arguments are disconnected headlines

> designed to 'shock', but the reality is that it's

> all partial and misinformation.

None of what I have said was designed to shock, the only thing shocking is it's true. All I have done is to try and put the other side of the arguement and how I feel savings can be made without cutting services. The LFB can make saving and still provide the service we all want, but the problem lies with the way it is managed and not with the so called "malingering and skiving" men and women who work hard every day trying to make the system work for everyones benefit.

[Huguenot]

It's nothing to do with the shift systems.

You explicitly said that sickness and lateness had dropped for the stations that DIDN'T change to the new system.

So nothing has changed except they're suddenly not sick and actually turn up to work.

How do you account for that? Remember - you can't mention the new shift systems in your answer because these guys have not been subject to it.

Regarding the FBU, all unions have an explicit responsibility to improve the salaries, terms, working conditions and perks of their employees. That's how they get members.

It doesn't take a genius to see that increasing salaries, holidays and perks for firefighters can be in direct conflict with trying to create a more efficient, better structured and more appropriate fire service.

That's why they only give one side of the story.