Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service acquired that title because of their regular use of misleading information, half truths, unsubstantiated claims and for withholding important information. This consultation seems to have put those practices in to overdrive.
No evidence that more prevention will cut fires
A recent example was this response to criticism from a member of the public who was rightly concerned about the proposed cuts. The propaganda unit spokesperson said, "All of our prevention work has helped reduce fires". Stated as fact, yet there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Nationally, an earlier drop in the number of fires seems to have halted, with recent figures showing an increasing trend. The main reasons for previous reductions were safer forms of heating and cooking, less people smoking in buildings, improved standards that make materials less likely to catch fire and so on.
The benefit of those changes has peaked, so other causes of fire continue to rise with increased population and there are some additional ones related to new technology. That is not to say that prevention work by individual fire & rescue services is unimportant, as it can improve outcomes when fires do occur, but there is nothing to suggest that it can be credited with reducing the number of fires. Latest figures for Devon & Somerset show that, despite significant prevention work in recent years, the number of fires is increasing.
Source - Home Office fire statistics
18 fires a week in people's homes across Devon & Somerset
The propaganda unit spokesperson also said, "In 2018/19 dwelling fires were at an all time low". That is simply not true. Nationally, the latest figures show that there are twice as many dwelling fires (fires in people's homes) as there were when these statistics were first recorded. It is quite ludicrous to suggest that Devon & Somerset has always had more dwelling fires than were recorded last year.
The spokesperson forgot to mention that, despite tens of thousands of home fire safety visits, the number of dwelling fires in Devon & Somerset increased in each of the previous three years. She also did not mention that in dwelling fires last year 4 people died and 246 people were injured, an increase of 14%, and people had to be rescued at 72 of those fires.
The spokesperson forgot to mention that, despite tens of thousands of home fire safety visits, the number of dwelling fires in Devon & Somerset increased in each of the previous three years. She also did not mention that in dwelling fires last year 4 people died and 246 people were injured, an increase of 14%, and people had to be rescued at 72 of those fires.
Total fire deaths in Devon & Somerset increased from 6 to 11 last year
Source - Home Office fire statistics
D&SF&RS misrepresent their responsibilities
It also seems that D&SF&RS spokespersons have been claiming the consultation is only looking at fires and road traffic collisions, "because that is all they are funded for". More misinformation, as their funding is not related to specific incident types. They also suggest that they are only required to attend those incident types, again incorrect.
There are two pieces of legislation that are particularly relevant, the Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004 (FRSA) and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA). Both are enabling Acts, which means that as well as setting out some specific requirements, Government Ministers are able to add additional requirements without having to change the Act. The FRSA specifically refers to Fire & Rescue Authority responsibilities in relation to fires and road traffic collisions, but it also permits them to use their resources for other emergencies.
Government expect them to do that and refer to "all foreseeable fire & rescue related risks" in the National Framework, which provides Government's overall strategic direction to fire and
rescue authorities. Minister's have been asked previously about adding specific requirements for other rescue work, such as in the event of flooding, but they say they are satisfied that fire & rescue services are doing this, so there is no need for a specific requirement. Something the Local Government Association clearly acknowledge.
The Civil Contingencies Act, which D&SF&RS conveniently fail to mention in their consultation documentation, goes further. They have to assess the risk of emergencies occurring and have plans in place to deal with them. This applies to every emergency that threatens serious damage to human welfare or the environment, including war or terrorism. Human welfare is defined in the CCA as anything that threatens loss of human life, human illness or injury, homelessness, damage to property, or disruption of key infrastructure. Much more wide ranging responsibilities than claimed by Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service.
More emergencies, not less
So, it is only co-responding, which is done on behalf of the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWASFT), that they can legitimately claim is not a requirement. It is, however, very valuable life saving work that must be considered when looking at a station's workload. Now we keep hearing from D&SF&RS that they are attending less incidents. Yet if we remove the medical incidents attended for SWASFT, the figures for the last five years indicate that incidents are in fact increasing. More evidence of the propaganda unit trying to mislead.
Source - Home Office fire statistics
Failure to understand the basics of keeping people safe
You may have seen the graph, shown below, on the Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service's Facebook page. In another attempt to mislead, the Propaganda unit suggest that as the service fail to ensure all fire engines are crewed during the day, in future they are not going to bother to crew 14 of them at all during the day. That is in addition to the 16 fire engines they plan to remove permanently.
I am first of all very doubtful about the accuracy of the information in the graph. This would certainly not be the first time that D&SF&RS has provided inaccurate or misleading information. They talk about an average fire engine availability of 92, but averages disguise worst case. I have seen evidence of less than 70 being available on occasions. The claim that they have never had more than 54 fire engines committed to incidents is also dubious. Severe weather events often see so many incidents in a short space of time that calls have to be prioritised, with less urgent calls having to wait for a fire engine to become available.
However, my biggest concern with this graph is that it reveals a failure of D&SF&RS to understand their responsibilities.
They are not a factory that needs to match resources to orders, they are a life saving service that must provide resources to ensure that any call for help can be responded to quickly and with enough resources to deal with the emergency. There is no way of knowing when or where that next call will be, or how many resources will be required. It may be one crew for twenty minutes, it may be an incident that needs over 200 fire engines and over 1,200 firefighters to attend over a number of days.
Even if we accept the information in the graph, that would mean just 38 fire engines were available in Devon & Somerset if another call was received. Just one fire engine available for every 103 square miles, instead of the usual one for every 32 square miles is very sparse protection. If you look at the worst availability figures, that would mean just 16 fire engines left available.
Finally I must thank a senior D&SF&RS officer for helping to confirm my view that response should not be cut to fund prevention. That wasn't his intention when he posted an image of this major fire, which I attended a few years ago, along with the comment, "Tony, you know more than most that prevention is better than response".
Source - Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service
I am first of all very doubtful about the accuracy of the information in the graph. This would certainly not be the first time that D&SF&RS has provided inaccurate or misleading information. They talk about an average fire engine availability of 92, but averages disguise worst case. I have seen evidence of less than 70 being available on occasions. The claim that they have never had more than 54 fire engines committed to incidents is also dubious. Severe weather events often see so many incidents in a short space of time that calls have to be prioritised, with less urgent calls having to wait for a fire engine to become available.
However, my biggest concern with this graph is that it reveals a failure of D&SF&RS to understand their responsibilities.
They are not a factory that needs to match resources to orders, they are a life saving service that must provide resources to ensure that any call for help can be responded to quickly and with enough resources to deal with the emergency. There is no way of knowing when or where that next call will be, or how many resources will be required. It may be one crew for twenty minutes, it may be an incident that needs over 200 fire engines and over 1,200 firefighters to attend over a number of days.
Even if we accept the information in the graph, that would mean just 38 fire engines were available in Devon & Somerset if another call was received. Just one fire engine available for every 103 square miles, instead of the usual one for every 32 square miles is very sparse protection. If you look at the worst availability figures, that would mean just 16 fire engines left available.
Just one for every 245 square miles!
Senior D&SF&RS Officer confirms that
prevention can never replace an effective response
Finally I must thank a senior D&SF&RS officer for helping to confirm my view that response should not be cut to fund prevention. That wasn't his intention when he posted an image of this major fire, which I attended a few years ago, along with the comment, "Tony, you know more than most that prevention is better than response".
He certainly picked the wrong incident, as more prevention work could not have stopped this fire. The fire was started deliberately, early one afternoon. What the incident graphically illustrated was how absolutely vital a prompt and effective response is. The store complied with all legally required fire safety measures, the staff were well trained on fire safety and they responded effectively to evacuate all customers and staff from the building. The fire service had maintained close liaison with the store from before it was built and continued prevention activity thereafter. Operational crews also visited regularly to ensure they were familiar with the building.
No amount of prevention work can stop an arsonist starting a fire. In this case one that required 24 fire engines, 3 aerial appliances, 10 special appliances and over 150 firefighters to bring it under control. Dozens of other fire crews were moved to fill in the gaps left by those attending the incident and a number of other incidents had to be responded to whilst this major fire was being dealt with. An enormous demand that all fire & rescue services must be resourced to deal with, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
It has happened in Devon & Somerset and can happen again. One example was the Trago Mills fire, near Newton Abbot, which required 30 fire engines, 3 aerial appliances, 9 special appliances and 200 firefighters. It took 5 hours to get the blaze under control and firefighters remained on site for three days.
It has happened in Devon & Somerset and can happen again. One example was the Trago Mills fire, near Newton Abbot, which required 30 fire engines, 3 aerial appliances, 9 special appliances and 200 firefighters. It took 5 hours to get the blaze under control and firefighters remained on site for three days.
I strongly support prevention work, but it must never be provided by
cutting resources that are there to provide a quick and effective response
Response is always the last chance
to save lives and property
No comments:
Post a Comment