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

.

Office for National Statistics ignores true value of our fire & rescue services

Yesterday's report, “Activities, spending and productivity in the Fire and Rescue Services since 2009”, from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), clearly shows how distorted thinking is undermining our fire & rescue services.

They claim to be independent of politics, but the claim looks somewhat suspect when the report suggests that cuts have improved productivity. They also claim to be the “recognised national statistical institute of the UK”. Well perhaps they are competent when it comes to business statistics, but when it comes to the fire & rescue service they clearly don’t have a clue.

They apply a simplistic business test of looking at inputs (cost of provision) and outputs (quantity produced), which they perceive for fire & rescue to be operational and prevention activity. They then crudely claim, because activity cuts are not as bad as staff cuts, that productivity has improved.

Home Office figures

The fundamental schoolboy error in this approach is that fire & rescue is not a business, but a form of insurance that both reduces mishaps and disasters, and minimises their effects when they do occur. If they properly assessed outputs, they would assess the financial benefit of lives not being lost and property not being destroyed as a result of FRS activity. Sadly, something this national statistical institute appears incapable of doing.

Now it may be difficult, but proper research could identify the value of lives and property saved at incidents by the FRS. Identifying the value of lives and property saved by prevention activity, i.e. losses avoided because incidents were avoided, may be more challenging, but a “recognised national statistical institute” ought to be able to estimate this. Yet they have not even tried to do so.

The real value of the service is what is saved and prevented, not how many incidents or inspections are carried out. I have no doubt that if these fundamental outputs were properly calculated, then the service would be shown to be very productive and very good value.

Of course, that would also show that cuts to the service are counterproductive, with the cost of the consequences being much greater than the actual saving on service provision. The ONS may consider themselves to be non-political, but their inept assessment is helping austerity politicians to falsely claim damaging cuts as productivity improvements.

If the ONS want their statistics on fire & rescue to be taken seriously, then they need to properly value the full benefit that fire and rescue services contribute to public safety and the economy.     

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service shooting themselves in the foot

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service think that introducing Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIVs) and sending them to emergencies with less than four firefighters will improve the service’s response times.

Yet there are many flaws in this idea, not least the long term effect it may have on the recruitment and retention of on call firefighters. Something Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service has clearly not considered.

To illustrate this, let’s look at the questions a potential recruit ought to ask before joining a station with a Rapid Intervention Vehicle, together with the candid answers a senior officer should give:

"What will I be expected to do?"

"When you are on call, you will need to leave home, or work, at a moments notice to respond to a wide range of fires and other emergencies."

"I expect you will provide the best equipped type of fire engine to help me do the job safely and effectively?"

"No, to save money we are replacing many well equipped fire engines with RIVs that carry less equipment and much less water. That unfortunately means you will run out of water quicker."

"But we can still get water from hydrants can’t we?"

"Sometimes, but we have cut the amount of hose on RIVs, so unless the hydrant is very near you will be left with no water to fight the fire."

"But if there is a stream, pond or swimming pool nearby we can get water from there can’t we?"

"Only if your RIV can get very close to the water. If not, you will have to wait until a portable pump arrives from another station."

"Will we have foam for tackling oil and petrol fires?"

"No, you will have to wait until help arrives from another station."

"Will we have ladders to help us rescue people and extinguish fires?"

"Yes, provided that the building is not too high and you don’t need to get on the roof. If you need a 10.5 or 13.5 metre ladder, or a roof ladder, then you will have to wait until help arrives from another station."

"Will we have other essential equipment?"

"A little, but for some essential equipment you will have to wait for it to arrive from one of the increasingly few fire stations that still have proper fire engines."

"When you say help arrives from another station, how quickly will that help arrive?"

"You may have heard some of my colleagues talk about twenty minutes, and one even suggested ten minutes, which is highly unlikely for most rural stations. The truth is that it could be quite a while, especially when the next nearest station is unavailable because they don’t have a crew, or the crew is attending another incident." 

An illustration of poor availability that delays help arriving

"I will always have several experienced firefighters to support me won't I?"

"Sometimes, but our latest cunning plan is to send you out with less colleagues on the crew than are needed to enable you to take safe and effective action at anything other than very small emergencies."

"Will I still be able to go in to buildings wearing breathing apparatus to rescue people?"

"No, you will have to wait until help arrives . It would be far too dangerous to go in without support."  

"But if people see a trained firefighter not going in, they will be angry and think I am a coward."

"Yes, but we will issue a statement saying you were not allowed to do that."

"They may still give me grief on social media and when I see them in the street."

"Yes, but you did agree to put yourself in this position."

"Why are you taking these shortcuts?"

"We have failed to recruit and retain enough firefighters to properly crew our fire engines, so if we send a couple of firefighters on the RIV we might fool the public in to believing we are doing our job properly."

"But what about safety legislation?"

"There is no safe system of work for less than four firefighters, so we leave it up to you to ‘volunteer’ to operate with less."

"Doesn’t that leave me at greater risk?"

"Well most firefighters, fire & rescue services, former Home Office inspectors and the unions think so, but we just want to get a vehicle to incidents so we can claim we met our response time."

"So those unsafe systems might result in me suffering serious injury or death?"

"Well yes, but don’t worry if that happens your officer-in-charge is likely to be disciplined or prosecuted and in the worst case might be sent to prison for manslaughter."

"Might I be prosecuted under the Health & Safety at Work Act?"

"Well the legislation does oblige you to take care of your own health and safety and that of others who may be affected by what you do. So if you do something that puts anyone in danger, then you could be."

"Would the Fire Authority be prosecuted?"

"Well possibly, but we will put as much blame as possible on the crew for taking unnecessary risks and not assessing the situation properly. In any case, if we did end up being fined we aren't worried as it will be taxpayers footing the bill."

"Don’t you as senior managers worry about that?"

"Not really, we are keeping our fingers crossed and hope that by the time something serious does go wrong we will have retired or moved to another fire & rescue service."

"So, do you still want to join?"

Chief Fire Officer's failing commitment

Senior D&SF&RS officers have repeatedly stated that the crewing policy for fire appliances, a minimum crew of four, will apply to the Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIVs). The minimum crewing policy is vital to ensure that firefighters are able to carry out actions effectively and without avoidable risk. 

Despite this, it has emerged that Dartmouth firefighters, who clearly lack confidence in their less well equipped RIV, feel obliged to take their fully equipped fire engine (MRP) to every incident as well. They are even doing this when they don't have enough firefighters to crew them both properly. According to their social media posts, instead of at least four on each, they are responding with just two on the RIV and three on the MRP. 

Much as I sympathise with the predicament that Dartmouth's firefighters now find themselves in, such actions are misguided. There is no safe system of work for such practices and it not only exposes firefighters to unnecessary risk, but it also exposes those in charge to the risk of prosecution under safety legislation.

Inadequate procedures and ignoring procedures costs lives

Astonishingly, if official D&SF&RS social media sites are to be believed, not only is the Chief Fire Officer allowing this abuse of crewing and safety policies, he is actively encouraging it. Eighteen years ago the Home Office inspected Devon Fire & Rescue Service and said that allowing just three firefighters to crew a fire appliance exposed them to additional and avoidable risk. The service was unable to come up with a safe system of work for that practice, so it was stopped and the minimum crew on a front-line fire appliance was determined to be four. 

Over the last 70 years there have been many changes to the two fire appliances stationed at Dartmouth. During that time they always had enough confidence in those appliances to take just one to those emergencies that only needed one crew. That they now feel obliged to take their MRP, whenever the RIV is sent out, simply confirms that the RIV is a "Really Inadequate Vehicle". 

It is also worth noting that they have the benefit of having a MRP available on their station. Other communities, such as Porlock and Princetown, do not. They, and others to follow, will only have an inadequate RIV for protection.   

The Chief Fire Officer's actions are illustrating that this commitment is increasingly hollow:

Protection for selected communities is being downgraded

Staff are being exposed to additional and avoidable danger

New vehicles are less well equipped

Some firefighters are to be less well trained. 

New allocations revealed

Despite assurances that allocations would be publicised as soon as they were decided, it seems that news of the latest allocations was confined to an internal newsletter earlier this month. The following stations are to lose a fire engine and have it replaced by a RIV:

Budleigh Salterton, Chard, Newton Abbot, Okehampton, Shepton Mallet, Tavistock, Williton and Woolacombe. 

Budleigh Salterton and Woolacombe will not have another appliance on their station, so will have to wait for help from stations further away.

Those communities may be a little reassured with the promise that longer ladders are to be carried on RIVs, but the other inadequacies remain:

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.

The spin continues

That internal update for staff revealed that they have now decided to carry longer ladders on the RIVs. That is to be welcomed, but unfortunately the update continues with more misleading spin.

They say the decision, “Follows feedback from staff and members of the public”.

There was clear feedback from firefighters before the first vehicles were put in to use, but their concerns were ignored. Failing to listen to those who will have to use these vehicles, and simply reacting to public pressure suggests inept management.

“Data has shown that rescues using ladders have become extremely rare.“

It doesn’t matter how rare they are, data cannot predict where or when they will be needed. Depriving some communities of proper ladders would have put lives at risk. 

“The locations of RIVs are being decided using a risk based approach to ensure they are at the most suitable locations to provide the best service to the communities they serve.”

D&SF&RS have failed to provide any documentation to support their claim, despite receiving a legitimate freedom of information request. With missing and reduced levels of equipment and water, the RIVs will not provide a ‘best service’ to any community. The public in the affected communities deserve to know why they are having their protection downgraded.

“Locally based officers were involved in the decisions on the most effective locations for the new vehicles to be sited.”

How local? Are they saying the officer-in-charge of each of the stations concerned agreed to having a less capable RIV in place of a proper fire engine? I am afraid ‘involved in the decisions’, does not mean they were listened to, or were happy with the decisions made at Headquarters.

“Research suggests RIVs can respond more quickly than Medium Rescue Pumps (MRPs) in certain conditions.”

Again no evidence has been produced to support this claim, but a minute or two quicker in certain conditions is not going to make up for not having enough water or the right equipment.

“They will carry the latest technology such as fog spike, which enables firefighting to start from outside a building, and electronic cutting equipment.”

This has nothing to do with the vehicle, as the latest technology could be carried on proper, fully equipped fire engines.

“RIVs are significantly cheaper to purchase than MRPs and Light Rescue Pumps (LRPs).”

Here we have the real reason for the change, saving money regardless of the effect on public or firefighter safety. 

It is also unclear if this will be cheaper in the long run. Other fire services using van based vehicles for specialist roles have found they are less robust and have to be replaced more frequently than full sized fire appliances. They also suffer more from the stresses and strains of fire service use, so breakdown more often and can need costly repairs.

“The RIV project has been based on a large amount of data which has shown where the appliances should be located and what equipment they should carry.”

Information to support that claim has not been provided and does not appear to exist. In any event, incident data is not a foolproof indicator of the requirement for future incidents. This data preoccupation demonstrates a fundamental project failure to remember that any type of incident can occur, and any equipment may be needed, anywhere and at any time. Depriving firefighters of the equipment they may need to save lives and property in selected communities cannot be justified.

Referring to the testing programme they say, “most people who see it are impressed by its capability”.

Compared to some of the even less well equipped small van/light 4x4 vehicles that were evaluated, it will obviously appear better. However. that does not mean they consider it a proper replacement for a fully equipped fire engine. The real concern is not the things the RIV is capable of, it is the things it is not capable of that concerns firefighters and should concern the public.

All communities in Devon & Somerset deserve proper protection from their Fire Authority, 

it should not just be provided for the fortunate ones.

Fire & Rescue Service resort to fantasy to defend inept decisions

120 mph fire engine at Yelverton!

In a recent radio interview the fire & rescue service's spokesperson was trying to defend replacing proper fire engines with less effective Rapid Intervention Vehicles. He gave the example of Princetown, which is to receive a RIV that only has a short ladder, and claimed that the nearest station with a longer ladder was "only 8 minutes away".

The nearest station is Yelverton, which is 6 miles away. Call handling time and the time the on call firefighters take to reach the station takes up around 5 minutes, which leaves just 3 minutes to travel 6 miles! So for the claim to be accurate, the Yelverton fire engine would have to achieve an average speed of 120 mph!

Unsubstantiated statements aren't convincing the public, 

so now they resort to utterly ridiculous claims.

How long will those trapped really have to wait?

It also raises questions about the claim that there will "always be a longer ladder a minimum of 20 minutes away". If that is the minimum, how long is the maximum time it will take for a longer ladder to arrive? Is it 30 minutes, 40 minutes, an hour, or more? 

Proper fire engine availability in coastal North Devon

40% of Fire Engines had no crew

The reality is that 20 minutes is optimistic and seems to be based on the assumption that all the service's fire engines will always be available. A recent snapshot of crewing shortages in Devon & Somerset showed that a total of 48 fire engines were not available. That included 18 fire stations with no fire engine at all.

Snapshot of actual fire engines available in coastal North Devon

There are times when more fire engines are available, but also times when availability is worse. The end result is that the 'within 20 minutes' claim, like the service's target response times, will often not be achieved.

Does smaller justify less capable?

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service keep claiming that with the smaller RIVs they will be able to reach places they couldn't before. Again, that is not true. They have a number of these smaller vehicles that can reach places even the RIVs cannot. 

Not only much smaller than the RIVs but, unlike the RIVs, they also have four-wheel drive so can go off road. They can accompany fully equipped fire engines to incidents and transport crew and equipment to any locations that the fire engine cannot reach.

It should also be noted that the poorly equipped RIVs are about the size of fully equipped fire engines that were used in Devon a few years ago. In fact those fire engines were slightly narrower than the RIVs and had a better turning circle.

Fully equipped, but narrower than the RIV

The service will no doubt say that these are no longer made, but it does show that smaller does not have to mean less well equipped. Modern manufacturers, using the latest materials and clever equipment stowage, can provide fully equipped vehicles that take up no more room on the road than the RIV.

No one expects a tradesperson to work with only half their tools,  

so why force firefighters to cope without the right equipment?

More misleading and unsubstantiated statements from D&SF&RS

Some of you may have seen the recent BBC Spotlight item about Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service's plans to replace proper fire appliances (fire engines) with less effective vehicles. Now I understand the inclination of Councillors and others to accept what senior officers tell them, but you have to question the wisdom of doing so when they continue to make misleading and unsubstantiated statements.

Inept or intended to mislead?

In the interview, Area Manager Joe Hassell made the astonishing claim that a second appliance with a larger ladder would arrive "within ten minutes on nearly every occasion". Home Office figures show that the average response time for the FIRST appliance is over ten minutes at Primary Fires in Devon & Somerset, so claiming that the second will usually arrive within ten minutes is utter nonsense. Primary fires are classed as potentially more serious fires that harm people or cause damage to property. I don't know if his misleading claim was just inept, or if it was intended to mislead, but it is clearly inaccurate.

Even the, "within the minimum of 20 minutes" claim is dubious. Where is the evidence to support that? D&SF&RS have so far failed to provide any evidence. Does the claim relate to the actual day to day appliance availability, or to an idealised situation where every appliance is available? Increasingly, appliances crewed by On Call Firefighters are not available at all times. So, even if a second appliance is theoretically no more than 20 minutes away, in reality it may not be available and another one, from much further away, will have to be sent.

Longer response times

Fire Authority cuts, and the failure to ensure there are enough On Call Firefighters available, often results in significant gaps in the protection available for residents. An example, from earlier in the year, was a fire in a second floor flat in Ilfracombe, which needed four fire appliance crews and an aerial appliance to extinguish it. 

A few years ago there was an aerial appliance stationed at Ilfracombe and the fourth fire appliance would only have had to travel 6 miles from Woolacombe. In April this year, the fourth fire appliance had to travel nearly 20 miles from Lynton and the aerial appliance 55 miles from Exeter. 

Faster claim, where is the evidence?

The Area Manager claimed that areas with RIVs (Rapid Intervention Vehicles) will get a "much faster response time", yet no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim. As these are not yet in service, this claim seems to be simply speculation. 

It was a claim that they made when they introduced Light Rescue Pumps, which were the first downgrade from proper fire appliances. Yet if you compare the average response time figures before the LRPs were introduced, with those since they went in to service, response times have actually increased. 

Anyone who has travelled on Devon lanes knows that it does not matter if you meet a car, van or lorry, you cannot pass. Someone has to reverse to a passing place, so the size of the fire appliance makes little difference.

The misleading 92% claim

The implication was that the RIV would only be missing 8% of the equipment on a proper fire appliance. Those who listened carefully will have realised that the comparison was not with a proper fire engine, but with the first downgraded D&SF&RS appliance, a Light Rescue Pump, which carries less water, less equipment and less crew than a proper fire engine. The RIVs will only carry half of some of the essentials on a full sized fire engine and will not have foam, a portable pump and, crucially, a proper rescue ladder. 

Are they running a supermarket or a life saving service?

This senior officer's response demonstrates D&SF&RS's fundamental failure to understand the basic function of the service. It is not a supermarket, where you look at percentages and remove from the shelves those items that are rarely sold. Like insurance, the fire service has to be prepared for every eventuality. Some equipment may not be used very often, but when it is needed it is needed quickly. Perhaps it is this failed thinking that is behind the introduction of the fire service equivalent of supermarket delivery vans in place of proper fire engines!

Sensible people don't cancel their insurance because they haven't claimed for a few years, but that is the shortsighted thinking behind these changes. 

Another shortsighted idea, because it means that when less frequent incidents occur in areas with RIVs, firefighters won't have the resources they need. Those less frequent incidents include those involving people trapped by fire, aircraft crashes, flammable liquid fires, hazardous materials, thatched roof and other larger fires. 

Depriving the first responding crew of essential equipment, and building in a delay for the arrival of that equipment, is not responsible planning. D&SF&RS has also ignored the fundamental reality that any fire crew can be sent anywhere, and can end up attending any type of incident, which makes a nonsense of the so called risk assessed locations.

Where are the risk assessments?

If they really have risk assessed the RIV locations, then why have they failed to provide them in response to a Freedom of Information request? There appears to be a very worrying absence of both operational and safety risk assessments. 

When asked how many properties, in areas due to receive RIVs, had upper floors that could not be reached by the short ladder on the RIVs, the answer was, "the numbers of properties asked for are unknown at present". As four locations had been confirmed, those risk assessments at least should have been complete. So, either the risk assessments were inadequate, or they have not been carried out.

They were also asked about the distance between hydrants, which is particularly important, as the RIVs carry less than half the water on proper fire engines. They said that for modern developments "no property should be more than 150 metres from a hydrant" (for older developments and in rural areas it could be much further). Incredibly, neither RIVs or Light Rescue Pumps carry enough hose to reach those properties furthest from a hydrant on modern developments.  

RIV = Really Ineffective Vehicle

Senior officers seem to be ignoring legitimate concerns and pressing ahead with 'Really Ineffective Vehicles, as some front line professionals are calling the RIVs. 

Those living or working in Devon and Somerset have good reason
to be concerned about these dangerous changes.

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