Reckless decisions put more South West lives in danger

Cornwall

No rescue ladder at Launceston

Cornwall County Council's decision to remove the only fire engine with a long ladder (13.5 metres) from Launceston fire station was bizarre. I wanted to see the risk assessment that lay behind this decision, so I submitted a freedom of information request for details. Not only did they fail to respond in the time required by law, but they have not provided all the information.

One of several buildings in Launceston where a 13.5 metre ladder is needed

From the limited information they did provide it is very clear that they failed to carry out a proper risk assessment before removing this particular ladder. The only risk assessment they have provided is generic, and relates to the introduction of a specific type of new fire engines. The brief section refers to the inability of these fire engines to carry a 13.5 metre ladder and how they will have to carry a shorter 10.5 metre ladder instead.

Astonishingly, the risk assessment says that the likely harm or loss resulting from this is firefighters being unable to reach a casualty and:

Injury/death 

to personnel 

or public

Yet despite this, they go ahead with their reckless gamble. They naïvely suggest that the fire safety legislation, which only applies to certain buildings, and fire safety initiatives in the home, which don't reach everybody, are adequate control measures. They also try to justify this folly by saying these ladders are rarely used. In doing so they ignore the reality that they have no idea where or when one will next be needed to save a life.

It is even more astonishing when you realise that, in the recent past, Launceston firefighters rescued a woman in the nick of time using their 13.5 metre ladder. Without that ladder the woman would have died a horrible death, whilst firefighters stood helpless. 

A woman clinging to this chimney could only be reached with a 13.5 metre ladder

It is also disturbing that Cornwall Council, which claims to be "committed to open and transparent government", has refused to provide all the information they hold. The excuse, disclosure would "prejudice commercial interests", and they consider that more important than the public's right to know.

I suspect the real reason is that the information includes emails that cast doubt on this reckless decision. Cornwall Council clearly have something to hide. 

There is no commercial interest, 

but there is a strong public interest on a matter of life and death.

Devon & Somerset

Plymouth residents exposed to additional risk

The stupidity of replacing properly equipped fire engines with RIVs (Really Inadequate Vehicles) was illustrated again today, when Plymouth fire crews were dealing with a serious fire. Instead of fully equipped fire engines being sent to Greenbank fire station, which is the city's busiest, two RIVs were sent to provide inadequate protection to Plymouth residents. They came from Ashburton and Moretonhampstead where, until recently, both stations had been provided with fully equipped fire engines.

This is worse than the inadequate Cornwall changes, as the RIVs only carry 9 metre ladders, and it could have been even worse. Had it not been for public protest, the RIVs would only have been carrying 5 metre ladders! Even so, there are many buildings in Plymouth with occupied floors above 9 metres where, if a fire breaks out when Really Inadequate Vehicles are on standby, lives could be lost. 

The policy of removing fully equipped fire engines from many fire stations and replacing them with second class and third class vehicles is fundamentally flawed. The farce of today's inadequate cover was a predicted consequence of this reckless policy. It was recognised by experienced serving and retired firefighters, but conveniently dismissed by inept managers to cut costs. 

The people of Devon & Somerset deserve properly equipped fire engines, not inadequately equipped vans.

Animals in Devon better protected than people

Another recently highlighted inadequacy is the provision of Heavy Rescue Tenders in Devon. Heavy Rescue Tenders (HRT) carry equipment needed at more difficult and complex rescues, such as road traffic collisions (RTC) involving lorries, railway accidents, building collapses, and heavy machinery accidents. 

Much better provision for people in Somerset than in Devon

Devon is around double the size of Somerset and has more than double the number of people living there. Yet, there is only one Heavy Rescue Tender in Devon (at Middlemoor), whilst there are three in Somerset (Glastonbury, Taunton and Yeovil). It is even more illogical, as fire crews in Devon attend more road traffic collisions than fire crews in Somerset. 

Most of Devon without adequate Heavy Rescue Tender cover

A recent RTC in East Devon occurred whilst the Devon HRT was unavailable, so the HRT from Yeovil was sent. That distance was perhaps not too bad, but what if that RTC had been at Hartland, Ilfracombe, Plymouth or Tavistock? The golden hour, the optimum time to release trapped and injured casualties and get them into a hospital, would be more than used up just waiting for the HRT to arrive.

If animals get into difficulty in North or West Devon, specialist rescue vehicles and crews are available at Barnstaple and Plymouth. Yet people seriously trapped in those areas are dependent on the Heavy Rescue Tender from Exeter, or if that is unavailable, one of the Somerset ones.

DSFRS is clearly aware that this makes no sense, as they seek to justify the unjustifiable on their website. They say it is, "so that they can be close to the major road arteries entering and leaving the two counties, and to cover important road junctions within the counties". 

Are they really unaware of the the major road arteries between Cornwall and Devon (A30, A38 and A39), and do they not care about the many important road junctions in the other two thirds of Devon?

The discrepancy may pre-date the amalgamation of the two services, but failing to improve provision in the following 15 years is a continuing and unacceptable failure. 

Heavy Rescue Tender provision in Devon 

must be increased to the Somerset standard

Government White Paper a threat to firefighters and to public safety

There is no 'compelling case for reform'

Home Secretary Priti Patel claims “there is a compelling case for reform of our fire and rescue services.” The claim is utterly false. This is a politically driven attack on both firefighters and local democracy. Her aim is to bulldoze through changes that will make us all less safe by removing the ability of staff, Councillors, and the public to effectively oppose dangerous cuts.

She uses reports from the former HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services as 'evidence'. Yet these reports have misunderstood the service, misrepresented issues, and failed to identify the root causes of problems that are undermining the service’s performance. In almost all cases the root cause is Government policy, ranging from funding cuts and deregulation, to weakened requirements for senior posts and increasing demand on the service without providing resources to meet that demand.

The former Chief Inspector and his inspectors had no knowledge or experience of the fire & rescue service, and they carried out inspections as if they were inspecting the police. In doing so they completely failed to recognise that the function of the fire & rescue service, the way it must operate to be effective, the variety of demands on the service, the resource requirements, training needs etc., are all radically different to those of the police. It is also evident that his reports were not independent. Facts were ignored or misrepresented by the Chief Inspector to suit Government agendas.

Government falsehoods to cover up their own failures is unacceptable.

Home Secretary cynically misuses national tragedies

Shamefully, the Home Secretary uses the Grenfell and Manchester Arena tragedies to support her flawed case for reform. The service’s failings in relation to Grenfell were not responsible for the death toll. Government failures to make high rise buildings safe from fire were. Had it not been for the determination and exceptional bravery of London firefighters, more lives would have been lost at Grenfell. Whilst there were planning and preparation failures before Grenfell, Government austerity cuts and their lack of support frustrated efforts to make progress on those issues.

Disrespectfully, Ms Patel cynically misuses the Manchester Arena bombing to support her deception. She dishonestly implies the delayed attendance of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service was their fault. It was not, they properly followed agreed inter-agency procedures. The delay arose from the failure of the police, who have primacy for terror incidents, to follow those nationally agreed procedures. Had they given the fire & rescue service the correct information at the right time, the response would have followed immediately.

Priti Patel should apologise to the survivors and bereaved from both these tragedies for trying to shift the blame from Government onto firefighters.

Fire Minister ignorant of the service’s needs

Fire Minister Lord Greenhalgh with the Home Secretary as they mislead the media

The Fire Minister is either badly informed or simply conniving in this political attempt to weaken our fire & rescue services. Given his controversial political career it is probably both, with the emphasis on the latter. He has also, like the Chief Inspector, completely failed to understand the unique and critical differences between the police and fire & rescue.

Far from the reforms achieving the improvements he claims, the outcome will inevitably be the opposite. He might not understand the role of fire and rescue services and of the firefighter, but the public and firefighters already do. The public want firefighters to arrive at their fire or other emergency quickly, and with the right resources to help them. Firefighters conscientiously fulfil that role every day. The only hindrance they face is inadequate Government funding and inept Government tinkering.

Far from increasing professionalism, the proposals will see a significant decrease in professionalism, especially at senior levels. Similarly for governance, the proposals will weaken, not strengthen accountability, scrutiny, and transparency.

The White Paper will seriously weaken professionalism and accountability.

Building on Success – What Success?

The last twelve years has seen more Government damage to fire & rescue services than in the previous seventy plus years. Not only drastic cuts to the resources needed to effectively respond to fires and other emergencies, but a seriously weakened regulatory regime that is failing to keep people safe from fire in their homes, at work, at school, and when enjoying their leisure time.

Source: Home Office figures for England

The serious dangers of operational independence

The proposal to grant chief fire officers operational independence will enable flexibility, but it will not improve the service to the public. It will effectively create tin pot dictators with the flexibility to not crew fire stations and fire engines properly, the flexibility to divert staff from response duties to pet projects, and the flexibility to introduce unsafe procedures that put firefighters at unnecessary risk. Flexibility will remove all the safeguards intended to stop hasty, ill considered, and flawed decisions.

It is unacceptable to have any public post free to make decisions without approval or challenge from the public they serve through their elected representatives. The only justification for the exception of operational independence for chief constables is to ensure that politicians cannot interfere with who is investigated and who is arrested. There is no justification for such an exemption for chief fire officers. 

Fully trained and experienced chief fire officers can make poor decisions, none are infallible. There must be opportunities to stop or reverse their mistakes, but these proposals remove those opportunities. With reforms enabling the appointment of more chief officers with little or no professional fire service training and experience, such poor decisions will become all too common. 

The public expect chief fire officers to have joined the service as firefighters and to have worked their way up. They expect them to have acquired in depth knowledge, after many years of training and study, plus significant experience of dealing with fires and other emergencies. 

Operational independence will be a dangerous free pass for incompetent, cavalier, or bullying Chief Fire Officers

The sinister Fire and Rescue Service Oath

This really verges on the laughable until you consider the real reason behind it. There is absolutely no evidence that this will improve adherence to any statutory code. Police officers have always had to take an oath, yet it has not stopped unacceptable, abhorrent, and even criminal behaviour by a few. 

Latest figures show that in England & Wales, in 2020/21, there were over 250 police officers dismissed, or would have been dismissed if they had not resigned or retired. If it does not work for the police, there is no reason to believe it would achieve what they claim for the fire & rescue service. In any case, there are already adequate measures in place to deal with inappropriate behaviour in the service. 

The proposal is very insulting, as firefighters show their commitment, determination, and courage, without fear or favour, every day. With the current difficulties in recruiting retained firefighters it is also foolish to introduce another requirement that may deter some applicants. 

So, is it just window dressing or does something more sinister lie behind it? I believe the real motive is to make it easier to intimidate anyone who dares speak out about unacceptable behaviour, dishonest claims, and dangerous decisions from chief fire officers or the executive leader. 

It is a devious attempt to protect inept chief fire officers 

and incompetent executive leaders from whistle blowers.

Fire funding deception

The real funding issue is not councils having to balance resource allocation between fire & rescue and other services, it is inadequate Government funding. These problems have only arisen since Government stopped providing sufficient funds to carry out all the duties placed on councils by Government. Poor council decision making may play a part in some services being rated inadequate, but the root cause is inadequate funding.

The only funding issue has been created by Government funding cuts.

Power grab by Chief Fire Officers

The National Fire Chiefs Council has been shamelessly pushing for many of the White Paper changes simply to increase their power, and to loosen the reigns of legitimate accountability. Their motivation has nothing to do with service improvement, it is simply self-interest. 

They may well find it frustrating that they must account to Councillors and the public for what they do, but that does not justify evading it. It is right and proper that they should demonstrate to Councillors, who represent the public, that proposals for change have been fully evaluated. It is right and proper that they should be questioned about performance failures. It is right and proper that they are held to account when their claims prove to be without foundation. It is also right and proper that they should use persuasion, not intimidation, to convince staff that changes at work are fair, safe, and reasonable. 

The White Paper is about leaving them free to bypass things that are in place to stop poor decisions and remedy poor outcomes. Chief Fire Officers are betraying their staff and the public they are supposed to serve.

And how long before Chief Fire Officers claim a pay increase for extra responsibility?

Power grab by Police & Crime Commissioners

It is also a power grab by Police & Crime Commissioners (PCCs), the majority of whom are Conservative politicians. The Association of Police & Crime Commissioners want to increase their power, extend Conservative Party control of public services, and remove effective local accountability. 

Research has already shown that some PCCs are "ill equipped and ill prepared" and can be manipulated by the Chief Constable. Unsurprising when a small group in a political party selects the candidate with party political agendas more important than competency. Once elected, little can be done to hold them to account. The public must wait up to four years for an opportunity to vote them out. 

There is every possibility that chief fire officers will conspire with Chief Constables to intimidate all but the strongest and most able PCCs. Combine a strong but untrained chief fire officer, who has no fire service experience, with a weak PCC and you have a recipe for disaster. 

No doubt Police & Crime Commissioners will jump on the bandwagon and claim they deserve extra pay!

Sadly, this Government views its responsibility to protect the public as an inconvenience. Consequently they lack the intellect to see that proper investment in the fire & rescue has long term benefits for the nation’s welfare, security, and economy. 

How to respond

If you care about the service, or if you simply want to be sure firefighters arrive quickly when you need them, please respond to the consultation. Make it perfectly clear there is no case for reform, and that you don't support the proposals in the White Paper.

Response deadline - 11:59pm on 26 July 2022

Online response: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-our-fire-and-rescue-service

Email response: firereformconsultation@homeoffice.gov.uk; 

Paper response: Fire Reform Consultation, Fire Strategy & Reform Unit, 4th Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF

Fire Authority stealth cuts put lives and property at risk

Ashburton area protection downgraded and more to follow

Just a couple of years after Ashburton residents successfully fought to save their fire station, the Conservative controlled fire & rescue authority has stabbed them in the back. In a secret move, Ashburton's properly equipped fire engine has been removed and replaced with a poorly equipped van.

The so called Rapid Intervention Vehicle (RIV) has previously 

been dubbed by firefighters as a 'Really Inadequate Vehicle'. 

Whilst a few fire stations are having their older fire engines replaced with new, fully equipped Medium Rescue Pumps (MRP), others are being downgraded. In recent years, the fire & rescue authority has replaced many proper fire engines with less capable Light Rescue Pumps (LRP). Compared to the MRP, the LRP effectively provides residents with a second class service, whilst the RIV only provides a third class service.

A report told Councillors about these inadequacies nearly five years ago, and the purchase of more RIVs was put on hold after local protests. However, since then they have bought another five, and they seem determined to blunder on and downgrade the protection offered to many communities. The report said: 

"LRP’s and RIV’s do not carry the same quantity of equipment carried by the MRP’s." 

The effect of downgrading from a MRP to a RIV

How many buildings have windows that the 9-metre ladder can’t reach?

I don’t know, but worryingly, neither did the fire & rescue service when they chose the locations for RIVs. They have no idea how many lives are now at increased risk in the Ashburton area, or anywhere else.

DSFRS will claim that not many rescues are carried out with a 13.5 metre ladder (carried on the MRP). How often is irrelevant, they are still carried out from time to time, and no one knows when or where the next one will be. DSFRS excuses will be of no comfort to someone trapped by the next life threatening fire and, if they don't survive, it will be of even less comfort to family and friends of the victim.

Not only less water, but also less ability to obtain additional water for firefighting

As well as having less than half the water carried on a MRP, the RIVs are less well equipped to obtain additional supplies. With only half the hose on a MRP, more fires will see the RIV too far away from hydrant supplies. How many more? Again, the fire & rescue service failed to check, but a lot more buildings will be too far away. 

Without a portable pump, they cannot reach water supplies that are only accessible on foot. It was only last week when portable pumps were used at two fires. Near Staverton, two portable pumps were needed at a fire that could only be accessed on foot, and at Ilfracombe two portable pumps had to be used to boost water supplies at a major fire.

Even if there is access to open water, the 25% cut in the amount of suction hose carried on the RIV may mean it is still too far away to be used. 

Other equipment no longer carried, or reduced, includes

No Roof Ladder - which means firefighters cannot safely access the roof for rescue or firefighting. 

No Gas Tight Suits - no protection for firefighters from hazardous materials.

No Foam - firefighters unable to fight fires involving flammable liquids.

No Winch - this reduces the ability to rescue people trapped in road crashes or in other hazardous situations.

No Positive Pressure Fan - unable to remove harmful smoke from burning buildings to improve visibility for rescue and firefighting.

Beaters reduced by 66% - With just two carried, and much less water available, the ability of firefighters to tackle wildland fires (field, gorse, grass, woodland etc.) is seriously reduced. 

Hosereels reduced by 50% - With just one hosereel, instead of two, this limits the ability of firefighters to stop fires spreading. It also halves the distance that can be reached from the vehicle. On a MRP, the second hose reel can be attached to the first to double the distance that can be reached.

Breathing Apparatus cut by 25% - For safety, firefighters wearing breathing apparatus sets must work in pairs, so the cut from four sets to three is, in practice, a 50% cut in operational capability.

The real risk

Nearly 8,000 people live in the area covered by Ashburton fire station, with many more visiting and travelling through the area on ordinary roads and the busy A38. The Ashburton crew also regularly go to other areas to provide assistance or to provide cover when local crews are committed. 

There was a perfect illustration of the folly of using RIVs last week, when Ashburton's RIV ended up in Plymouth to provide cover when all their crews were attending a serious fire. The RIV is inadequate for protecting people in and around Ashburton, so is totally inadequate for the significant risk in Plymouth. There are many taller residential buildings, where someone could easily be trapped beyond the reach of a 9 metre ladder, and there are significant risks in Plymouth, including the nationally important Royal Navy dockyard.

Will your area be next for 3rd class protection?

After the public outcry about fire station closures and the use of RIVs, all but one of the fire stations was saved and the fire engine replacement scheme was put on hold. It now seems that the Fire & Rescue Authority has secretly resumed replacing fully equipped fire engines with inadequately equipped vans.

A Freedom of Information request has already shown that claims they had properly risk assessed this flawed replacement policy were false. Councillors should have taken action against those responsible for the false claims. Claims that are now putting lives and property in greater danger. 

The 5 RIVs recently purchased brings the total to 20, but original plans were for 45. If that is implemented, there will be very long waits for vital equipment that is not carried on RIVs. The map below shows the original planned locations.

As per the plan, RIVs are now at Ashburton, Chard, Dartmouth, Ilfracombe, Kingston, Okehampton, Princetown, Tavistock, Teignmouth, Williton, Wells, and Woolacombe. Not in the plan, Moretonhampstead and Tiverton have also been allocated a Really Inadequate Vehicle. 

Councillors need to act to stop communities in Devon & Somerset being downgraded to 3rd class protection

Spin & deception continue. Are DSFRS planning to buy more Really Inadequate Vehicles?

On Friday I commented favourably on a Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service tweet about their new Medium Rescue Pumps. 

However, it seems that Deputy Chief Fire Officer Joe Hassell did not like my reference to inadequately equipped vans. In his reply he repeated the deception that different sized appliances had been located according to "risk and geography". 

So I reminded him that they were unable to produce any evidence that they had properly risk assessed the change, either generically or specifically for stations that were to receive these 3rd class 'fire engines'. 

As for his unsubstantiated claim that firefighters and residents are 'fully supportive', you have to take that with a very large pinch of salt. Some people will always be fooled by spin, even some firefighters, and in any organisation there are always those who will agree with management to further their careers, or simply because they prefer a quiet life. 

Disagreeing with managers is always a risky option. That is especially so in DSFRS, where Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services reported concerns, raised by more than a quarter of staff, about being bullied, harassed or discriminated against. The report specifically mentioned that some felt managers were "unwilling to be challenged or given an alternative view."

I would love to say that I came up with the description of the RIV as a Really Inadequate Vehicle, but credit for that goes to a Devon & Somerset firefighter.

So, I then gave Joe Hassell the benefit of the doubt and invited him to provide some evidence of proper assessment of the implications of having less well equipped and less capable vehicles.

I really want to share the evidence of proper risk assessments, of detailed risk v benefit analysis, of detailed studies of the actual risks in a station area, but, surprise, surprise, none have been provided. Instead, Joe chose to avoid the question completely.

Why he would imagine that looking round the RIVs would make any difference I don't know. They aren't suddenly going to grow bigger water tanks or sprout extra equipment. I am afraid this saga has all the hallmarks of someone in DSFRS having what they thought was a 'bright idea'. Save money by buying these cheaper vehicles, save more money by having less equipment on them, and spin the downgrading of protection by claiming they will be quicker and can get to places that Medium Rescue Pumps can't.

Nothing wrong with a 'bright idea' but a responsible service would properly assess the disadvantages, not just report potential advantages, and they would examine in detail the risks to the public and to firefighters of such a significant change.

DSFRS not only failed to do this, they misled the public and Councillors on the Fire & Rescue Authority by claiming they had done so.

It is quite true that there can be access problems, but RIVs offer a very limited advantage, especially as they have a bigger turning circle than some larger appliances. DSFRS already has Light 4x4 Pumps that can get into areas that cannot be accessed by larger appliances, including the RIVs.

Light 4x4 Pump

These can attend incidents with conventional fire appliances and transport firefighters and equipment when they reach a location where the larger appliance cannot proceed any further. They also have the added benefit of 4-wheel drive, so they can travel off road. The RIVs cannot.

Other fire & rescue services have managed to acquire more compact fire appliances that are not only more manoeuvrable than the RIVs, they also carry much more water and equipment. This is just one example.

The difference in width between the RIVs and some of the more compact appliances is a mere 12 centimetres, yet many of them will negotiate tighter bends and junctions than the RIVs can. That negligible width advantage may help at very few incidents, but at every incident firefighters will have less than half the water, half the hose, less breathing apparatus, no portable pump, no foam equipment for flammable liquid fires, and reduced levels of other equipment.

RIVs have been trialled by other English fire & rescue services and rejected, yet DSFRS foolishly ordered 15 without proper risk assessment or evaluation. Worryingly, the misled Fire & Rescue Authority originally approved the purchase of up to 45 RIVs. That was put on hold, but DCFO Joe Hassell's continuing spin, instead of evidence, raises concerns that they may want to purchase more. 

The people of Devon & Somerset, and their firefighters, should not be misled with spin, they deserve fully equipped fire appliances.

Who to vote for on Thursday if you value your life and the lives of others

If you want a fire & rescue service that keeps you safe, then your vote matters on the 6th of May. I am not a member of a political party and my vote is not guaranteed to any particular party. That is because none of them have policies that I am in full agreement with, so when I vote I consider the candidates, their policies, and their performance. 

Whilst campaigning in support of our fire & rescue services I have engaged with politicians, local and national, from every political party that will listen. The one conclusion I have come to though is that Conservative candidates do not deserve our support. Nationally and locally, they have done immense damage to our fire & rescue service and we are all less safe as a result. 

Please note that it is Devon County Council, Somerset County Council, Torbay Council and Plymouth City Council who appoint Councillors to the Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority. 

Conservative cuts = a slower and less effective response

Before you vote, here are a few things to consider about the damage Conservatives have already done to Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service.

Wholetime Firefighters have been cut by over a quarter, which means greater reliance on Retained (On Call) Firefighters. They are not always available, and their numbers have also dropped by 14% over the last ten years. That means:

You are likely to wait longer for help to arrive as response times have been increasing, especially in rural areas.

When a fire engine arrives it is more likely that it will not have enough firefighters onboard to take effective action.

If you are lucky, that fire engine may be a fully equipped one.

If you are not lucky, it will be one with a reduced amount of water and equipment.

If you are really unlucky, it will be one that has a greatly reduced amount of water and equipment.

Does that postcode lottery make a difference? Not if it is a very minor incident, but if it is more serious, or lives are at risk, it can make the difference between a rescue and a life or lives being lost, and between a property being saved and a property being destroyed.

Significant cuts expose Plymouth residents to greater danger

Just look at how things have changed in Plymouth. Two fire engines used to arrive at property fires in most of Plymouth within five minutes. Now, with the exception of locations near Greenbank fire station, at best one may arrive in five minutes but the second will have to travel further and will take longer.

To make matters worse, the one remaining aerial appliance does not have a dedicated crew, which means that if the available firefighters are out on another call, another aerial appliance has to be sent from Torquay or Exeter. There are now just seven to cover the whole of Devon and Somerset, with no spares if one needs servicing or is defective.

Only today, two of the seven aerial fire appliances were needed at a fire in Exeter.

Photo from DevonLive report

None of the aerial fire appliances now has dedicated crews, which means that when needed the nearest may be sitting on the fire station unused, whilst another is sent from a station up to 60 miles away. Not much help if you are trapped beyond the reach of other fire service ladders.

The effect of the latest Conservative Cuts

The fire station at Budleigh Salterton has been closed and a total of nine frontline fire engines have been removed from the two counties.

When a third fire engine is required for a second or larger incident, in Bridgwater, Taunton, Torquay or Yeovil, it takes longer as it must travel from another town.

When a second fire engine is required for a second or larger incident, in Crediton, Lynton, Martock or Totnes, it takes longer as it must travel from another town.

Many other fire stations that have two fire engines are only able to crew one of them during the day. Some fire stations struggle to crew just one fire engine.

More Conservative cuts to come?

The public made clear that they did not want fire stations at Appledore, Ashburton, Colyton, Kingston, Porlock and Woolacombe to close. Fortunately, they did not close this year, but the Conservatives have not given any assurance that they are safe. They said they "will be subject to periodic review", which means the axe is still hanging over them.

There is also no assurance that 24x7 protection by Wholetime Firefighters at Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton is guaranteed. Plans for a less reliable and slower response in those areas are still a threat.

Nationally and locally the Conservatives have been happy to put the public and firefighters in greater danger with fewer fire stations, fire engines and firefighters. Their plans already indicate that, if they remain in control, things will only get worse.

Our Fire & Rescue Service is not safe in Conservative hands

.

Value your safety? Value your fire & rescue service? Then use your vote wisely on May 6th

 If you want a fire & rescue service that keeps you safe, then your vote matters on the 6th of May. Please make sure you are registered and that you use your vote in all the elections on that day. If you are already registered, make it easy to vote by applying for a postal vote, but please note that your completed application form must arrive by 20th April.

I am not a member of a political party and my vote is not guaranteed to any particular party. That is because none of them have policies that I am in full agreement with, so when I vote I consider the candidates, their policies and their performance. 

Whilst campaigning in support of our fire & rescue services I have engaged with politicians, local and national, from every political party that will listen. I have yet to decide which candidates will get my vote in May and I will not try to influence anyone else to vote for specific candidates or political parties. 

However, based on past performance, the one thing I am sure of is that I will not be voting for any Conservative candidates. That is because Conservative Government policies and Conservative Councillors on fire & rescue authorities have, over the last ten years, done immense damage to our fire & rescue service. 

As a result we are all less safe

Policies and decisions have not only been inept, they have been arrogantly steamrollered through with dishonest claims, unsubstantiated assurances and inadequate scrutiny.

Thanks to significant public protest in 2019, the cuts planned by the Conservative controlled Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority were watered down. Yet nine frontline fire engines have been removed, which means longer response times when an additional fire engine is required in those areas. For example, when a second fire engine and crew is needed in Lynton, for a second incident or to assist the first crew, it now has to travel at least 13 miles. Even more if the nearest crew is unavailable.

Unfortunately, you cannot directly vote for Members of the Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority, as they are Councillors appointed by Devon County Council, Somerset County Council, Torbay Council and Plymouth City Council. So, it is in elections for those councils that you should consider your vote wisely.

The threat to other fire stations has not gone away

The Conservatives made it quite clear that they have not abandoned plans to close Appledore, Ashburton, Colyton, Kingston, Porlock and Woolacombe. They said they "will be subject to periodic review", which means the axe is still hanging over them.

Conservative Councillors are also still trying to bully firefighters at Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton into accepting new shift systems that will increase response times at night in those areas. 

A shabby way to treat dedicated staff and wholly irresponsible 

to use the safety of the public as a bargaining chip in staff negotiations.

From Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection report

Third rate fire appliances

Conservative Councillors also approved the replacement of 45 fully equipped fire engines with inadequately equipped vans. They claimed that risk assessments had been carried out but there is no documentation to substantiate that claim. An investigation by the Information Commissioner found that not only were there no risk assessments, there were no reports, no memos, no emails, absolutely nothing to show that RIV locations were determined by the risk in those areas. 

This dishonesty was exposed after 15 Rapid Intervention Vehicles, dubbed Really Inadequate Vehicles by many firefighters, had been supplied. There are disturbing rumours that Conservative Councillors intend to increase the number of these third rate vehicles. Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service had similar plans but wisely decided to trial them before placing an order. They concluded they were inadequate and abandoned their plans in favour of more compact but well equipped fire engines.

The Conservative Government is now talking about taking the fire & rescue service away from fire & rescue authorities and giving control to Police & Crime Commissioners (PCC). There is no justification for this PCC empire building, and it will give the public even less of a say in how their fire & rescue services are run.

Conservatives, local and national, have already seriously undermined the ability of our firefighters to respond quickly and effectively when lives and property are in danger. Their plans will see that response get ever longer and less effective.

Fire & Rescue Services are not safe in Conservative hands