Appendix 1

The Opinion Research Services (ORS) Interim Report of Public Focus

Groups

Public groups

Public's Estimates of Risk

· All groups wildly overestimated the number of malicious false alarms, guesses ranging between 20% and 75%.

· Estimates of incidents involving automatic fire alarms again ranged greatly; one group thought the figure was just 12% and another put it as high as 60%. Others were relatively accurate at 23%.

· All groups approximating the number of deaths in fires quoted figures that are much higher then the actual numbers. One group had the figure as high as 600. In terms of serious injuries caused by fires, estimates ranged from being fairly accurate to hugely wide of the mark at 7-8000.

· The vast majority greatly overestimated the number of deaths in road traffic accidents; the majority thought that the figure was between 500 and 1500. A few groups were quite accurate in guessing the number of injuries caused by road traffic accidents, although one person thought the figure to be a very high 7000.

Respondents were surprised but reassured when told the true figures!

Awareness of Fire Service Roles

Respondents saw the Fire Service as a multi-faceted organisation, and what follows are some of the roles they associated with it:

· Helping out the public and saving lives

· Fighting fires

· Road traffic accidents

· Freeing trapped people (e.g. those trapped in lifts)

· Animal rescues

· Flooding

Reactive roles, such as those above, generally came to people's minds initially when they were asked to think about the roles of the Fire Service. However, there was also a relatively high level of awareness about the educational function of the service. Education in schools was seen as an important aspect of its work, as was informing the general public on fire prevention and risk awareness. Respondents also expressed knowledge of Fire Service open days and fundraising days. Some, however, failed to see education as an important preventative measure, and saw it as a more peripheral role in relation to the reactive roles that save lives and help people.

Initial views on prevention and protection

The group accepted the importance of both prevention and protection and had ideas as to the best methods for managing risks. In terms of prevention, respondents were keen to see the following:

· Education, campaigns and detection measures

· Special campaigns for bonfires and special risks

· Targeting of risk events

· Training in practical extinguisher systems

As regards protection and limiting damage by fires, the following were advocated:

· More effective regulations

· Wider use of fire resistant materials

· Regulation of smoking in risk institutions

· Better fire escape systems and routes

· Legislation on smoke detectors

Views on Hampshire's Prevention Proposals

All groups broadly endorsed the shift of emphasis towards reducing risks through preventative measures. Respondents particularly agreed with the proposals regarding the provision of fire safety advice in schools; most believed that education is crucial and that `Fire Officers are good for schools'. Using shock-tactics for older children was advocated as a particularly effective method of getting the message across, and some respondents thought that fire safety awareness needs constant reinforcing in schools and should be part of the curriculum.

As regards the use of shock-tactics, respondents did not feel that these should be limited to schoolchildren; they advocated that the general public be educated through the use of shocking, vivid images and not technical issues. This is currently being done through TV adverts featuring people who do not have fire-precautions in place, and respondents felt that more should be done in this vein. Participants certainly felt that fire safety advice should be provided through a wider range of methods and publicity, and also by a wider range of personnel.

Views on Hampshire's Protection Proposals

Participants again broadly approved the protection proposals and felt that the public should be encouraged to take more precautions. Some urged the consideration of legislation to require smoke alarms in homes, and others advocated fines for possessing an incorrectly functioning smoke detector. There was little or no knowledge about sprinkler systems amongst most respondents; they were not keen on the idea initially but became more so when they discovered that there had been no recorded deaths in a residence with a sprinkler system. Moreover, some respondents were not keen on the idea of sprinklers in schools, as they felt that children would try and activate them and that they were, hence, not practical. There was, however, a suggestion that sprinklers could be activated by carbon monoxide in order to overcome this problem.

The subject of false alarms was the cause of much debate amongst participants and some erred on the side of caution; they thought that there was still a need to investigate such calls initially to ascertain seriousness. They also thought that the Fire Service should not abort calls if told it is a false alarm; the information could, potentially, be inaccurate. However, the charging of companies/individuals for call-outs resulting from malfunctioning systems was advocated. There was some disagreement about the issue of sending graduated responses to false alarms; some were reluctant to see this implemented but others saw a full response as a waste of money and resources. The group did agree that the Fire and Rescue Service could consider getting institutions to put their house in order while seeking improvements, but that they should show some indulgence to schools and hospitals.

Views on Hampshire's Intervention Proposals

The intervention proposals were generally accepted but there were a few concerns, particularly in terms of prioritising calls. Respondents felt that prioritisation would be difficult in some cases and that brigades must be cautious in relation to difficult/ambiguous incidents. Some floated the idea of control room staff giving interim guidance to callers while the fire brigade is on its way. However, they saw a potential problem arising when people panic and are unable to give a clear picture of the incident; the information given to the control room operator would then not be of a sufficient quality. Thus, they felt, it comes back to educating the public, particularly vulnerable groups like the elderly, in dealing with fire. There was some sympathy for graduating the level of response in terms of engines, but it was felt that if flexible systems are to be introduced, they must be introduced gradually.

Some respondents were also cautious about changing staffing/response levels and they felt that there should always be fire fighters in the fire station; respondents did, however, feel that this was of greater importance in urban centres than in small villages, which were deemed to be of low-risk. There was also some concern that targeting risk would mean that low-risk areas would have inadequate cover, but the majority felt that targeting was reasonable.

In terms of responses to non-emergency situations, respondents thought that the Fire Service could, potentially, provide contact numbers for incidents such as lock-outs and people stuck in lifts. Another suggestion was that they send one person (on a motorbike) to ascertain the seriousness of a non-emergency situation before sending their engines.

Appendix 2

The Opinion Research Services (ORS) Interim Report of Employee Focus Groups

Employee groups

Estimates of risk

· All groups overestimated the number of malicious false alarms, guesses ranging from 2,000 and 8,000 when the actual figure is 749.

· Most groups estimating the number of AFA false alarms again quoted figures that are much higher than the actual numbers. Most of thought the figure to be between 8 and 10,000 and one group put it as high as over 12,000.

· Groups generally underestimated the number of serious incidents; some respondents had it as low as 1500 whereas the actual figure is 3,911. Others were more accurate in their estimation, putting the figure at around 4,000.

· Respondents were relatively accurate in guessing the numbers of deaths in fires. Most were also relatively accurate concerning injuries sustained in fires. However, respondents in one group wildly overestimated at 2,000, and in another they underestimated at 10-50.

· One group gave the exact figure when estimating the number of RTA deaths and whilst the others were not quite as precise, they were not too wide of the mark. However, one group had the figure as low as 20. In terms of injuries in RTA's, a range of estimates was given; it ranged from a very low 100 to a relatively high 2,000.

Overall views

Most of the groups were generally happy with the draft plan and were in broad agreement with its aims. Indeed, the majority of respondents think that the Plan is going in the right direction, which is encouraging for the Service. However, there were some concerns expressed in the discussion groups that need to be addressed.

Some respondents, particularly the non-uniformed personnel, noted the alleged problem of the culture within the fire service. An illustration of this was the view that there is a need for more training for those undertaking enforcement and fire safety work at present; however although many do not have sufficient knowledge or skills it was suggested that the present culture does not encourage questioning or admitting of a lack of knowledge.

Information dissemination and communication was also thought to be poor; management allegedly move on too quickly without sufficient explanation of issues to staff. Moreover, concern was expressed that some of the lower ranking uniformed staff do not want to change. In light of the above, there was a feeling that a lot of work has to be done internally before the plan can be implemented.

Some of the more senior participants expressed worry about a lack of clarity regarding the implications of the plan. As expressed above, they felt that some staff are generally concerned about change, and are more interested in the tangible issues; that is, how will it affect me? The crux of the matter is that people are in a `comfort zone'; they are used to the system and their own jobs. It was said that some do not even like being asked to cover other stations. Thus, it was felt that there was a need to manage the process sensitively by making it clear to staff how the Plan will affect them personally.

Further concerns were voiced over funding; that is, will there be the money available to implement the Plan properly?

Views on Hampshire's intervention proposals

The intervention proposals were generally thought to be fine; however, there were concerns, most of which were related to the idea of prioritising concerns and being more selective about the incidents attended. Good quality information was thought to be imperative if responses are to be prioritised. Groups also felt it essential that businesses and the public be informed and educated on fire safety awareness before call responses are changed; this was thought to be particularly important in terms of phone calls that can be far too vague about important issues like the location of a fire. Locations such as `somewhere on the M3 between Southampton and Basingstoke' are evidently common.

There was some worry in terms of vulnerability, particularly at night, when talking about prioritising calls. This was thought to be a particular concern when it comes to elderly people, hotels, (where few staff are available at night), and establishments where the staff have poor English language skills. There was also concern that there will be no-one available to help vulnerable people with non-emergency problems. Indeed, the main concern was who will pick up in the areas where the Fire Service currently meets needs?

In terms of the `type of response', some respondents questioned whether a full `flashing lights' engine is always needed, especially for non-emergency situations. Some felt that it may be more cost-effective to have the Fire Service provide the cover but charge the local authority, for example in warden-controlled properties. However, there was a general consensus that, where there is potential risk to life, the Fire Service should always `turn out'.

Respondents were of the belief that fire-fighters need to be in their stations to keep their training up to date and not strategically placed in lay-bys like the ambulance service. It was also felt that the GIS system is under-utilised and more information and training could be provided on this.

In terms of risk analysis, respondents mentioned the following as high-risk communities which should be targeted through an increased number of fire-awareness campaigns:

· Areas of high deprivation

· The elderly

· The disabled

· High-density housing

· Places with accident black spots

· Houses of multiple occupancy; including student halls.

There was some scepticism about fire risk assessments in that some hard-to-reach groups may never be reached.

Nevertheless, if such assessments are going to be implemented, respondents felt all Fire Services should pool their ideas the best ones drawn upon. There was also some debate about who should provide home fire risk assessments but it was generally agreed that it did not have to be a trained fire-fighter.

In one group, participants expressed the view that the Fire Service provision in Hampshire was outdated, and did not reflect the needs of the county today. The location of fire stations was said to reflect a pre-war pattern, and poorly served the more deprived communities.

Most respondents regarded prevention and protection as important, but did not want to see intervention downgraded. They suggested that resources could be better utilised in other areas, such as sharing training opportunities and the bulk buying of equipment with other Fire Authorities; money needed to spent on outcomes rather than on processes which they felt were taking up to great a proportion of the resources available.

There was also concern that the service would become as stretched and demoralised as the police and ambulance services. Respondents felt strongly that they want the flexibility to offer the best service and not just the fastest; performance indicators linked to response times are, in their view, not always helpful.

All in all, respondents were proud that the public have a high opinion of the Fire Service and did not want to see this respect diminished.

Protection Proposals

Protection and prevention were both seen by some as a problem in that they are not, allegedly, the Fire Service's strengths.

In terms of the practical recommendations contained in the plan, respondents generally agreed with these. Residential properties, it was felt, should have certificates to show that all installations have been checked. Some felt that more legislation is needed, particularly regarding smoke alarms and sprinkler systems; many thought that domestic sprinklers should be placed in all new buildings. As regards smoke alarms, respondents were keen to see their use promoted and supported and that the message on such detectors is better put across face-to-face in people's homes.

Sprinkler systems in schools were seen as important; it was felt that all schools should have sprinklers and better enforcement procedures, as many have a limited understanding of fire safety issues. One group commented that central Government has failed to take a lead in promoting sprinklers. They thought that they could have insisted on them as part of the PFI initiative in schools.

As regards malicious calls and false alarms, most participants felt that they should incur stricter penalties. In terms of AFA's, billing contractors for false alarms was advocated and it was felt that responsibility for this type of situation needs to be given back to the companies and the local authorities. Indeed, there was some feeling that the ready responses of the Fire Service has enabled other companies/organisations to not put adequate measures in place, a situation that needs to be rectified.

Prevention Proposals

Respondents certainly saw the importance of promoting risk reduction; the provision of information on fire awareness, community fire safety and enforcement were all thought to be important. It was also thought imperative that more work be done with companies to improve fire safety; one group commented that arson is often caused by poor management of rubbish and that more education of commercial businesses and the public could reduce incidences.

Most respondents agreed that the provision of safety education was essential, particularly in schools. A stronger, harder-hitting message was advocated, especially concerning RTA's; respondents in one group felt that vehicles involved in such incidents should be left beside the road so that people can see the damage and impact caused. In terms of who should impart the education and advice on fire safety, respondents felt that fire-fighters have a higher level of credibility than non-uniformed personnel and should carry out these duties.

Working in partnership with other agencies was also thought to be important; though there was a difficulty about different organisations working to different timetables and there were cultural gaps to be bridged. However, it was felt that mutual education between different agencies was needed in order that the public be given the best safety education possible.