Skip to main content

GREENS REJECT REGIONAL FIRE CONTROL SERVICE [Media release]

Green Party Councillors are asking Norwich City Council to oppose the Government's plans to merge the fire control services of Norfolk and other counties in East Anglia into a regional control centre which would receive emergency calls and manage the fire service response.  The councillors say the plan, known as FireControl, lacks the confidence of firefighting professionals who are worried that regional centres would lack sufficent call handling capacity and local knowledge. 
 
Norwich Green Party councillor, Adrian Holmes is submitting a motion to the City Council's next meeting, on Tuesday 31st March, urging the council to voice opposition and press the government to rethink its plan.
 
Councillor Holmes said
 
"Norfolk has one of the best fire services in the country and this plan will do nothing to improve it and may even damage its capacity to deal with incidents. Responses to incidents in Norfolk are best managed from a Norfolk control centre with local knowledge."
 
Councillor Rupert Read, the Green Party's Lead Candidate for the June 4th European elections said
 
"'I am worried that in East Anglia the fire services' capacity to cope during a major disaster, like the one which happened at Buncefield oil storage depot in Hertfordshire, may be diminished if the proposed new regional fire control system is pushed through, as there are grave doubts about the proposed system's call handling capacity.
 
Regional fire control centres only make sense in the context of a regional fire service and regional government - ideas which the government has abandoned.
 
It's also clear that the funds could be better spent. Management consultants have swallowed up over £40 million, underused regional control centres are costing many millions of pounds in rent and a report by the Institute of Public Finance (IPP) reveals that the overall project costs are exceeding £1.4 billion. This at a time when the region's fire services still need money to be able to tackle major flooding incidents or outdoor fires. The people who risk their lives, the firefighters, are saying the funds would be better spent on frontline."
 
ENDS

NOTES
 
The Motion: Protecting Norfolk's Fire Control Service (Councillor Holmes to move): This Council Notes:

1. That the Government has acknowledged the excellent work of Norfolk's Fire Control Service by placing it in the top rank of services throughout the country.
2. That the Government is planning to amalgamate county fire services into regional centres.  
3. The stated reason for the Government embarking on this reorganisation is to bring other fire services, ranked at a lower level, up to the standard of Norfolk.  
This Council believes:

1. That the proposed amalgamation would reduce the effectiveness of Norfolk's Fire Control Service by taking away local knowledge and introducing inferior equipment. 
2. That the Government is misguided in trying to raise the standards of other fire services by reducing the effectiveness of Norfolk's fire service.  

This Council resolves:

1. To write to the Government and ask that the reorganisation be suspended pending further investigation into the costs of the reorganisation and the likely deterioration in service. 
2. To write to Norfolk County Council and asking it to make similar representations to the Government. 
3. To write to the trade unions of Norfolk's firefighters to express support for their stand against the proposed amalgamation.
 
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more