Final decision to be made on controversial fire service cut

A controversial policy of reduced crews for on-call firefighters could become permanent next month. Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service has been trialling a policy of allowing three-person crews to attend incidents - fire engines would normally have a minimum of four firefighters on board.

Senior fire officers say the three-rider scheme is allowing firefighters to get to more incidents more quickly. But critics, including the Fire Brigades Union, say the policy is putting lives at risk.

The fire service's governance board is now set to make a final decision on whether to permanently adopt the three-rider policy. Senior staff gave Staffordshire Commissioner Ben Adams an update on the progress of the trial during Thursday's public performance meeting, ahead of next month's decision.

READ MORE: Cafe serving up authentic dumplings opens - and it's getting rave reviews

READ MORE: Council leader writes to Chancellor as 28,000 OAPs to miss winter fuel allowance

Over the 16 months of the trial, three-person crews have attended 636 incidents, including building fires and road traffic accidents. In August, a three-person crew attended a house fire in Lichfield, with firefighters entering the building to rescue the occupant.

Deputy Chief Fire Officer Glynn Luznyj said that while the service is still aiming to have at least four firefighters on board its on-call appliances, three-person crews are deployed when this is not possible. This has resulted in an 11 per cent increase in on-call appliance availability, with three-person crews arriving at incidents an average of nine minutes, 45 seconds sooner than the next fully-crewed appliance.

Mr Luznyj said: "This is all about improving the opportunity for our firefighters to make faster and earlier interventions, while the next nearest appliances are being mobilised as normal.

"To be absolutely clear, this is an additional investment in our on-call. It's costing the service money in terms of more turnouts than before, more time on the incident ground, but we believe this is the right investment because it's all about the impact it's having on public safety.

"The data is important but the stories are important too. We're hearing that our crews are able to intervene quickly in road traffic collisions, intervene quickly in building fires and stop them spreading into something more serious. Simply just by getting there and laying the groundwork for oncoming appliances is adding massive value to public safety and firefighter safety.

"We do recognise the concerns that have been spoken about. That's why we are continuing to carefully evaluate all the different views with the intention of making a decision next month through the service governance board as to whether it is mainstreamed as an adopted practice or not."

Mr Luznyj added that it was 'absolutely incorrect' to suggest the trial was about changing all on-call crews to three firefighters.

The FBU and some councillors in Staffordshire say that a three-person crew cannot safely deploy breathing apparatus teams into burning buildings, meaning lives could be put at risk. This criticism has become more prominent following the Lichfield incident, where the crew opted to enter the house despite it being normal policy to wait for colleagues to arrive.

But Chief Fire Officer Rob Barber insisted that firefighters are qualified to make decisions such as this. He said: "Every one of those on-call firefighters is a highly trained professional that will conduct a dynamic risk assessment. To suggest that they'll jump off a fire engine and just run into an incident without a care for their safety is completely inaccurate.

"At a road traffic collision, it doesn't take four or five people to open somebody's airway, and that will save a life."

Mr Adams believes that the length of the trial will mean that a 'robust' decision will be made next month. He said: "I've been watching this pilot with great interest over the last 18 months, and I think some looking from outside might ask if it's necessary that this has been so long, if it's necessary to be going back the teams again and again when they're real evidence of progress.

"Perhaps not, but on the other hand, I think there's going to be a very robust document we can share publicly, which will inform the conversation."