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.

Where are the vital papers for the Fire & Rescue Authority meeting?

One week tomorrow the Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority meets to consider cuts to the service that will have serious implications for the safety of the public and firefighters. Despite this, the all important final proposals are still not publicly available. Even the results of the public consultation are still under wraps, although we know there is widespread opposition to the original proposals.

Noises have been made that views have been listened to by DSFRS and that Government is increasing funding for the service next year, but at the moment the threat of cuts remains. It is unacceptable that the public are being denied sufficient time to consider the final proposals and to make their views known to Fire & Rescue Authority Members. It is also questionable if FRA Members will have adequate time to properly consider the proposals before the meeting.

On the subject of the report on the public consultation there are some key points that FRA Members need to consider. The report will not, and cannot, say if the proposals are good or bad, it will simply collate views voiced by the public. As Opinion Research Services is being paid by DSFRS they cannot be considered completely impartial. ORS relies on fire services being happy with their reports to get further business, so it is not in their interest to publish a report the service is unhappy with.

I have yet to read one of their reports that is critical of the way the consultation was carried out. There have been clear breaches of good practice in the way DSFRS carried out the consultation, so it will be interesting to see if the report addresses those breaches or simply fails to mention them. The reports also try to steer FRAs away from giving due consideration to petitions. It may be the opinion of ORS that they are of less importance, but in my experience they accurately reflect the public's view. It is worth remembering that the percentage of the population in Devon & Somerset who have signed the petitions is much greater than the percentage required to have a petition debated in Parliament.

The report of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services on the running of DSFRS, and the National Fire Chiefs Council's report on DSFRS's failures at the Cathedral Yard fire in Exeter raise serious questions about senior management decision making. 

Whatever is now proposed by the Chief Fire Officer, FRA Members now have even more reason to challenge the proposals and question the claims used to justify them.

It is time to stop listening to spin and to start listening to public concern.