Ineffective consultation keeps public in the dark

It is concerning that, despite only contacting a few people so far, a number of them have said that the information I provided is the first that they have heard of the changes. Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service say they advertised the Integrated Risk Management Plan consultation and invited Parish, Town and City Councils to participate.

Yet only 227 of Devon & Somerset’s 1.7 million residents responded to the consultation, which is just 0.01%.

That suggests a couple of things. First, that most people were unaware of the consultation and two, that those that were aware, did not appreciate how significant the planned changes were. Hardly surprising, considering how the IRMP document managed to conceal the true effects with reassuring statements that lacked any evidence to support them.

It certainly did not make clear that the changes would eventually result in only 30% of fire engines carrying primary rescue ladders (13.5 metre), and that 70% of fire engines would carry less water, with most carrying less than half the water previously carried. It did not explain to people that several rural fire stations would have 50% less hose and no portable pump, which would significantly reduce their ability to tackle fires, unless hydrants happen to be very close. That is something of a rarity in rural areas.

Primary rescue ladder carried on the fully equipped fire engine, small ladder on the Rapid Intervention Vehicle

Then there were some of the consultation questions:

‘Do you agree or disagree that the Integrated Risk Management Plan has thoroughly considered the risks our communities face?’

How on earth can those outside the service judge how thoroughly the risks have been considered? Worryingly, now that I have had some feedback from the service via Freedom of Information requests, I think the answer has to be not very thoroughly at all.

‘Do you agree or disagree that the Integrated Risk Management Plan has thoroughly considered the prevention and response activities the Service can put in place to mitigate those risks?’

Once again, the public do not have the information to provide an informed answer.

‘Do you agree or disagree that the following strategic risks identified in the Integrated Risk Management Plan should be the focus of the Service’s change & improvement activity over the next four years?’

They were then asked to rate six different risks: An increasingly ageing population; Common health and well-being risks; Availability of on call appliances; The historical distribution of service delivery resources; An increasing demand for emergency medical response; An increase in the number of serious fires affecting commercial premises.

Again, do the public really have enough information to prioritise these, especially as some are vitally important, such as the availability of on call appliances. In the event, some were not even sure if this should be a risk to focus on, and only 50% strongly agreed, which is just 0.004% of the population. 

If people don’t strongly agree that their local fire engine should be available, 

it suggests that they didn’t understand the question.

There were just six written responses from members of staff, four from members of the public, and five from local councils. I think the summary of the response from one of the Town or Parish Councils sums up how valid, or invalid, this consultation was:

“Unable to comment - lacking in professional knowledge. Document is difficult to read and too large.”

So it is not surprising that many people didn’t have a clue that their local fire engine might be replaced with a less effective vehicle. Especially as Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service seem very reluctant to reveal where they plan to station all 45 Rapid Intervention Vehicles and the six Incident Support Units, which are supposed to carry equipment not available on the Rapid Intervention Vehicles. What equipment that will be is also another closely guarded secret that a lawful Freedom of Information request has failed to uncover. 

D&SF&RS has said that the Incident Support Unit (ISU) strategy is "integral to and supportive of, the Rapid Intervention Vehicle (RIV) Strategy". Despite this, and the delivery of the first Incident Support Unit, they have since said, "The locations of these vehicles, if they are to be introduced to the fleet, is yet to be decided".

The secrecy, the prevarication and the deception concerns me, and I am sure it will worry those who depend on Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service for their protection.

Just 37 of these across Devon & Somerset

Third class service for some residents in Devon & Somerset

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority is gradually reducing the protection they provide to people in many areas. Worst affected will be those living in rural areas, villages and smaller towns. Those in major towns and cities will also be affected at busy times, when less well equipped vehicles and less well trained firefighters have to be brought in to assist, or to provide cover.

Anyone who sleeps in a property above the first floor will be particularly at risk, if a fire breaks out, as new vehicles only carry a short ladder. Dartmouth, Tiverton, Princetown, and Porlock have been disclosed as the first areas to be affected.

The Authority has embarked on a campaign to persuade people that these cuts are improvements, so this Blog is to help draw attention to the very real dangers. I was born and raised in Devon and my Mother and several other relatives and friends still live in the service's area, which is why I am especially concerned.

It is fundamentally wrong that people in some areas of Devon & Somerset should have less effective protection, just because emergencies occur less frequently in their particular area. The life of someone living on or near Exmoor or Dartmoor is just as valuable as the life of someone living in Exeter, Plymouth or Taunton. People can be trapped in a fire or a road crash anywhere in Devon & Somerset, so it is unacceptable that the first firefighters sent to help some of them will be less well equipped and less well trained.

Fully equipped fire engines are being replaced with less effective vehicles

The Authority is cutting the existing 121 Medium Rescue Pumps (MRP), which are very well equipped, to just 37 Medium Rescue Pumps. The others are being replaced with 39 Light Rescue Pumps (LRP), which carry less water and equipment, and 45 Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIV), which carry even less water, equipment and crew. In comparison to Medium Rescue Pumps, the Light Rescue Pumps offer a second class service. The Rapid Intervention Vehicles will only offer a third class service.

Rapid Intervention Vehicles carry:

56% less water, 50% less hose reel, 50% less 70mm diameter hose, 30% less 45mm diameter hose, 25% less breathing apparatus sets, and 25% less suction hose.

No portable pump, which can be vital for firefighting in rural areas where hydrants are few and far between and for pumping out flooded properties.

No foam, which is essential for flammable liquid fires.

No positive pressure fan, which is invaluable for clearing smoke to aid rescue and firefighting.

Those are just some of the essential pieces of equipment that are not carried. They will say that some are not used often, but that does not help firefighters, or the public, when an incident occurs where they are needed.

Of greatest concern, they do not carry a rescue ladder 

Previously, every fire station, except Lundy, had a ladder that would reach the third or fourth floor. These plans will see many fire stations only having a ladder that will reach the first floor. Anyone trapped on a higher floor would have to wait for help to arrive from a fire station much further away, and inevitably some will not survive the wait.

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority are also considering sending the Rapid Intervention Vehicles to emergencies with as few as two firefighters, instead of at least four on a proper fire engine. That may help the Authority tick the box for meeting response times, but it will not help those in peril. 

Safe and effective rescue needs not less than four firefighters. 

This idea is based on their unsubstantiated claim that “Over 70% of incidents we attend could be fully dealt with by a crew of two.” When the claim was challenged with a Freedom of Information request, they admitted that they had no documentation to support the claim. In their attempts to explain, they first said that they assessed incidents that could be dealt with by “2 or 3 people”, but then said, "It has been calculated that rapid intervention with less than four personnel may have dealt with 63% of all incidents". 

So there is no documented research or analysis, and no explanation of how “less than four may have dealt with 63% of all incidents”, magically becomes “70% could be fully dealt with by a crew of two.”

They also admitted that over 50% of the incidents they had assumed could be dealt with by less than four firefighters were false alarms. Of course they don't know it is a false alarm until they get there, so this crackpot theory would mean they would need a crystal ball to keep firefighters and the public safe.

They claim that smaller vehicles are quicker, but have failed to provide evidence. This was a particular claim for the Light Rescue Pumps, which have been in service since 2013. Home Office figures for Devon & Somerset show that average response times to primary fires (the most serious ones) have actually increased. 

Even if they could arrive a bit quicker, if they don’t have long enough ladders, the right equipment, enough water and enough firefighters, then the public & firefighters are put at much greater risk.

They claim that they are matching resources to risk, but ignore the fact that the risk to people trapped by fire, or in a wrecked car, is exactly the same no matter where they are in the area. They have been asked via a Freedom of Information request to produce their analysis and risk assessments. No station area risk assessments have been provided, and they have clearly not carried out an assessment of how less well equipped vehicles, with less well trained firefighters, will impact on public and firefighter safety.

Less well trained firefighters

They claim that with less equipment on the Rapid Intervention Vehicles, the training requirement will be reduced. Yet this will result in many firefighters being unable to help colleagues in other areas, as they won’t have been trained to use all the equipment on the remaining 37 Medium Rescue Pumps. It will be a nightmare for those in charge at incidents, when certain equipment needs to be used, if the only firefighters not yet committed have not been trained to use that equipment. They will have no choice but to request another crew, which may have a very long distance to travel.

At busy times, it also means that less well trained firefighters, on less capable vehicles, will be sent to serious incidents in what D&SF&RS class as higher risk areas. For example, crews at Ivybridge and Yelverton are never going to attend a fire on a nuclear submarine in their station areas. However, they could be first to attend such an incident, if they are standing by at Plymouth fire stations, whilst those crews are attending other incidents. 

Not training or equipping them for all potential incidents is simply irresponsible, and may well be unlawful. 

Just remember the Cathedral Yard fire in Exeter, on the 28th October 2016. 95 fire engines from urban and rural fire stations across Devon & Somerset attended that fire, as initial response, or as relief crews. Several others were moved from rural areas to fill the gaps at the main fire stations in urban areas. They were all well trained and none were on poorly equipped Rapid Intervention Vehicles. The Fire Authority's plans will make dealing with such incidents in the future much less effective and much more dangerous for firefighters and the public.

Before starting this Blog I discussed the situation with a number of firefighters in the area, both serving and retired, and they share these concerns. Unfortunately, those still serving fear the consequences if they publicly criticise the changes. I hope this Blog will help give them a voice.