Dear Councillor RE: Improving Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service I am writing to urge you to fully investigate and consider the real impact of the options that have been put forward by the Chief Fire Officer. On the 20th of July your colleagues in the Cabinet will select a model for resourcing the Warwickshire Fire Service from three that have been proposed by the Chief Fire Officer. Although each option provides different approaches to resourcing, the decision they make, and that you will endorse is in effect a choice as to which fire stations will be closed and which saved, and will have an enormous impact on those local communities that are affected. The options being put forward are A. To close Bidford, Brinklow, Studley and Warwick Fire Station; B. To save Bidford Fire Station and close the fire stations in Brinklow, Studley and Warwick; C. To save Bidford and Studley Fire Stations and close the fire stations in Brinklow and Warwick In order to aid the Cabinet and your decision the Chief Fire Officer has provided a table in your briefing papers which, whilst detailing the potential financial cost of your decision, does not tell you the potential cost in terms of lives and impact on the local community. I am sure you will agree with me that from the beginning, this exercise was not considered to be one designed to save costs, but to improve the Fire Service and ultimately to save lives. I am concerned that the Chief Fire Officer’s table and report is heavily skewed towards pushing his preferred option A, despite him stating that “All three models will improve the level of resources available in Warwickshire for community fire safety, dealing with small fires, road traffic incidents and incidents of flooding.” I am particularly concerned that there is no explanation for why ticks have been awarded in a category, when a simple examination of the facts often shows the ticks to be unrelated to reality. For example a term such as “a significant increase in community fire safety” suggest that option A will be more successful at putting out fires. However in the parlance of the fire service, this term relates to fire prevention advice, which is surely better provided by individuals from 3 local stations (Option C) engaging with the local community, rather than one large remote station as is suggested in Option A. In my experience the closer the teams are to the local community the more trusted their advice is. Equally the idea that one station in the centre of an area (Option A) provides better geographical positioning than 3 spread out stations (Option C) is difficult to imagine. As is the ORS’s statement that “many members of the public erroneously believe their safety depends primarily upon the proximity of a fire station.” It is well known that response times are a determining factor in relation to safety, in fact a DCLG circular 9/2009 stated that for every extra minute of a fire service attendance nationally there are 13 additional fire fatalities, 65 additional road deaths and £85m more fire damage. It is clear that proximity to a station as well as it’s crew’s availability are vital in bringing down response times. Many other statements in the table suggest a distinct bias towards siting full time and on-call crews at the same station. Statements such as “On-call/wholetime firefighters train together transferring and learning new skills” suggest that this can only happen when they are located at the same station. However this already happens under current arrangements, with crews going to each other’s stations to train. Equally statements such as “Increased support for on-call firefighters” and “Provide mutual support across the duty system from one location” suggest that crews and crew members do not move from station to station when required already, when they do. The figures and statements chosen from the ORS report are also not representative of those received. I urge you to request and read the entire report which clearly states that 62% of all written responses came from the Stratford District, and that the public overwhelmingly rejected the following: • Station closures (94% of respondents) • RTC Unit (75% of respondents) • Small Fires unit (75% of respondents) • Changes to the duty system (75% of respondents). I am also extremely concerned to see the statement “Public consultations are not referenda, and the popularity or unpopularity of draft improvement plans should not dictate professional and political judgements.” in a document such as this. It implies that the Council believes the public to be ill informed (when it was the responsibility of the council to have informed them) and suggests that the Council will not listen to public feedback. It also fails to take into account the fact that valid and realistic alternative proposals, extremely similar to Option C, were put forward by local groups, not just objections. In conclusion I urge you to fully examine and consider the facts, not just the document put to you, before you endorse the Cabinet’s decision. In an ideal world we would have no Station closures, however I urge you to support option C, which: • Provides decreased response times due to better appliance positioning; • Provides increased local knowledge and community links; • Provides ongoing support for the Young Firefighters programme, training future fire fighters and introducing them to the service; • Has the support of the local communities in Stratford. Should you wish to discuss this letter with me please do not hesitate to call Yours sincerely Nadhim Zahawi MP