HAVING closely monitored the recent Press coverage regarding the provision of fire cover in the Pendle area, I feel compelled to clarify several points.

The current controversy centres on a number of 'options for change' arising out of my recently published report on standards of fire cover within Lancashire.

This is compiled on a five-yearly basis aimed at identifying the fire risk profile of the county and assessing the extent to which the brigade is meeting the minimum national standards of attendance as prescribed by Home Office. The options for change derived from this report are purely a measurement of service provision against these national standards.

They are not, I would emphasise, a 'cost cutting' exercise driven by the requirement to identify financial savings, as should be clearly evident from those recommendations within the report which advocate improvements. It is important also to recognise that the people of Lancashire are provided with a service considerably in excess of those minimum requirements, in that all building fires receive an attendance of two fire appliances irrespective of risk category or geographical location.

When one considers that almost 98 per cent of the brigade falls into a category which, according to national standards, requires only the attendance of a single appliance, the extent to which the fire authority supports this enhanced provision is readily apparent.

I trust this brief explanation alleviates those concerns which are evident in the ongoing public debate.

J G RUSSEL, Chief Fire Officer.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.