Senior officers continue to mislead during the consultation

False claims, inaccurate data and misleading statements

have undermined the consultation from the beginning 

Chief Fire Officer Lee Howell & Fire Authority Chair Sara Randall Johnson

Your Reality

"Not all emergencies are preventable, so if you need help

our plans will ensure that it takes longer for us to arrive,

creating a less safe world for you and your family, 

for your business and for your community."

To help anyone who has yet to complete their consultation response, here are some facts to set the record straight:

There are no low risk areas

Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service keep referring to low risk areas, but the risk to lives and property is no different in Barnstaple than it is in Bridgwater, no different in Exmouth than it is in Exeter, and no different in Porlock than it is in Plymouth. 

Call volume may vary, but the risk to people trapped in a fire or crash is the same wherever the fire or crash happens.

A quick and effective response is required right across Devon & Somerset

The modernisation claim is bogus

The service has changed considerably since the 1940s. Better equipment, training and procedures, but already less firefighters and fire engines available.

The service has been modernising continuously and is on a par with other 21st century fire & rescue services in the UK.

Councillors and independent inspections have monitored this modernisation and have found no serious inadequacies. That will change if the cuts go ahead.

The number of emergencies attended has risen significantly since the 1940s. There are over twice as many fires today and over five times more non-fire emergencies, such as road traffic collisions.

1958 figures were the earliest found for Devon & Somerset. For reference, national figures were lower in 1948 than in 1958.

Chief Fire Officers say no link

between resources and demand

The professional body representing Chief Fire Officers confirmed there is no link between resources and demand. That is why resources were not increased when demand increased by 500% and why they should not be cut now.

There has been no need to move fire stations because they are strategically located to ensure a quick and effective response, no matter where an emergency occurs. The proposals do not include any fire stations being moved, which confirms they must be in the right places.

The way we live has changed, but it has not removed the need for the fire & rescue service to arrive quickly, with adequate resources, when people or property are in danger.

Some causes of fire have been reduced or eliminated, but new ones emerge to replace them (battery chargers, tumble driers, e-cigarettes etc.).

Modern homes are not always safer,

these homes were just 9 years old

Legal duty deception

Claims that the fire & rescue service only has a legal duty to attend fires and road traffic collisions are false. The Fire & Rescue Services Act and the Civil Contingencies Act, which has been ignored in this consultation, place a duty on the service to respond to many other emergencies.

Similarly, the claim that they are only funded for fires and road traffic collisions is false. Core Government funding and Council Tax revenue is not specified for particular emergencies. Specific Government funding is additionally provided for urban search and rescue and the ambulance service fund the fire & rescue service's response to medical emergencies.

Important financial information missing

The consultation has failed to provide full costings. No figures have been provided to show how much of the saved money is to be reallocated to prevention or any other work.

No figures have been provided to show the anticipated saving from On-call firefighter savings, or how much money will actually be reallocated.

No details have been provided to show how the claimed capital savings will be achieved, or how that will affect annual revenue costs.

Devious modelling information

The modelling of the effects is incomplete and the results suggest it has not been carried out properly or honestly. They even admit to modifying the Fire Services Emergency Cover (FSEC) Toolkit, which was developed after extensive research and should not be manipulated.

Fire deaths, which are not in dwellings, the cost of property damage as a result of fires, and deaths at non-fire incidents, which are not road traffic collisions, have all been excluded. That has been done to give the impression that the consequences of these cuts will be less severe than they actually will be.

They have failed to show the modelling results for each station area affected by the changes. Not only an attempt to hide the worst effects, but they dishonestly claim they don't have that information (FSEC modelling can provide results from the whole service area right down to a very small geographical area).

Inappropriate manipulation of the modelling is the only plausible explanation for the significant differences between D&SF&RS modelling and modelling of similar changes in other fire and rescue services. Examples include:

D&SF&RS change of crewing at Barnstaple, Paignton and Exmouth results in 19 extra deaths. In another fire & rescue service, the change at just one station in a seaside town similar to Paignton, but with a slightly smaller population and fewer incidents, shows a difference of 23 deaths.

Removal of a second fire engine in another fire & rescue service showed 11 extra deaths in 100 years. D&SF&RS has failed to provide the figures, but a map in their analysis document appears to show, for removal of a second fire engine at a similar station, just one extra death in 1,000 years.

This is the same document, proclaimed to be "comprehensive" and to "set out an evidence base", which shows some response times increasing by no more than five minutes, when the nearest fire engine will be six miles further away!

The modelling information is inadequate and fundamentally flawed

No evidence that more prevention will save lives

D&SF&RS has claimed that more prevention work will save lives, but has provided no evidence to substantiate the claim. The limited modelling figures they have provided show that cuts to response will cost more lives. Proper modelling would show the cost in lives and property damage would be significant. We all hope that prevention work saves lives and prevents fires, but hoping it will is not enough.

It is reckless to make cuts that will cost lives when there is 

no guarantee that more prevention will save lives

Appalling misrepresentation

One of the most appalling misrepresentations concerns the use of this chart, which has been used to make utterly dishonest claims, such as "we have more fire engines than we need".

This is either a deliberate attempt to mislead, or the management team in D&SF&RS do not understand their responsibilities. A fire engine is not only of value when it is attending an incident. There is just as much value when it is sat in a fire station ready to respond quickly to the next emergency.

You can just imagine the reaction of a D&SF&RS fire safety officer visiting a factory complex and finding that all the fire extinguishers and all but one of the smoke detectors had been removed. The factory owner says, "We had more than we need. We never had more than one smoke detector go off and we have never needed a fire extinguisher".

That is the same ludicrous logic that underlies Devious & Secretive

Fire & Rescue Service's claim of 'having more fire engines than they need'

This BBC Journalist can work that out

"The fire service is a bit like an insurance policy. 99% of the time you don’t need 
or think about it, but when you do need them you really do." John Ayres, BBC Spotlight

But the leadership of D&SF&RS  is ignoring the
fundamental purpose of the service - Why?

First intimidation, now inducements, plus MP misled

30 less fire crews is not an improved service

Intimidation hasn’t stopped firefighters campaigning to stop cuts and fighting to protect their communities, so now Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service is resorting to staff inducements.

Deputy Chief Fire Officer Glenn Askew has recently written to staff to "clarify why these options have been put out for consultation". He starts with the meaningless slogan about putting "preventative activity at the heart of everything we do". He then says they "recognise that the emergency response capability ensures that when things inevitably do go wrong, we are there to help."

It is very disturbing that he is unable to see that having up to 30 less fire crews to help when things go wrong does not provide an improved level of service. The Chief Fire Officer has made it clear that with 20% of on call fire engines not available it is not a model he wants moving forward. Ignoring his failure to ensure crews are available, he simply says the model is “quite dated”. Yet Glenn Askew now says they remain “fully committed to the on call model”. 

Apparently, removing dozens of on call firefighter jobs
is being "fully committed to the on call model"

He then gets on to the inducements. He says the station closures and fire engine cuts will “provide the investment necessary to ensure that the terms and conditions offered to on call staff are significantly improved.” In other words, if you help us get rid of some of your colleagues and cut the protection afforded to some residents, you might be better off. 

It is quite shameful that they expect firefighters to stab their colleagues in the back and put the public in other areas in greater danger. Wholetime staff are not left out, they are told there will be “alternative work patterns that will provide greater flexibility and choice for staff.”

Experience elsewhere shows that such promises are never 

as good as they sound, and often make things much worse

Are Fire Chiefs misleading Members of Parliament?

In a recent press report Anne Marie Morris, MP for Newton Abbot, is reported to have said she was told "that the proposed changes will result in no job losses". Now was that misreported, did she misunderstand, or was she deliberately misled?

It is abundantly clear that if option four is chosen, which involves removing immediate response night cover at Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton, there will be significant wholetime firefighters job losses. That is why they say that option four will save substantially more than option three.

It is also clear that dozens of on call firefighters will lose their jobs if the cuts go ahead. They may be part time jobs, but they are still jobs that will be lost and will see people worse off. The idea that they can all be redeployed is nonsense. In the report to the Fire & Rescue Authority the Chief Fire Officer admits that "compulsory redundancies cannot be ruled out".  

Which Chief Fire Officer should we believe?

In the same press report, Chief Fire Officer Lee Howell again talks about closing "low risk" stations. There is no such thing, the risk to people's lives is not lower for people living in those areas than it is for people living in any other area. What he is saying is that, because they get less fires and other emergencies, he is happy to increase the risk to people living in those areas. 

It will just be bad luck for those who do have

fires and other emergencies in those areas

Despite being incomplete, their modelling of the effect of these cuts reveal that more than 600,000 residents will face an increased risk to their lives. Full modelling would increase that figure. It is also concerning that, unlike other fire & rescue services contemplating such cuts, Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service have not produced the full modelling results for the affected stations. I don't know if that means they didn't bother to model the effect on each station area, or if they just decided to keep the results secret. Hopefully, a Freedom of Information request will provide the answers. 

The claim of low activity is also misleading, as they do not include calls attended in other areas. For example, in recent years Appledore’s fire engine has attended as many as 80 incidents in a year, Ashburton’s 130 and Topsham’s 184. It is not about how busy any station is, it is about ensuring help can arrive quickly.

Lower activity does not justify making people wait longer for help to arrive

Deceit continues as the public protest

Two weeks on and sadly no response from Sara Randall-Johnson, the Chair of Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority. My thought that she might be concerned about the misleading consultation document she had put her name to seems to have been misplaced. I hope it doesn’t mean she knew it was deliberately misleading.

The public give their views loud and clear

Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service continue to try and persuade people that these are not cuts, but it is quite clear that people aren't falling for it.

It seems that some fire & rescue service staff have felt uncomfortable at some public consultation meetings. They really should not be surprised that people who have been told their lives will be put at greater risk are angry and appear hostile. It may be unfair to criticise those sent to persuade the public that they should accept cuts to their service, after all, some of them may not realise they have been sent out with distorted data and misleading claims. If that is why they are uncomfortable then they need to take it up with their employers.

Uncomfortable will be waiting longer to be rescued from a 
burning building or a wrecked car when help has to travel further

Apparently, having received a petition at Porlock containing over 3,500 signatures opposing the station's closure, someone left it behind. Now I agree that full consultation responses are better, but if the Fire & Rescue Authority is sincere they must accept the petition. Petitions to official bodies have been recognised as a valid way for the public to express their view for many hundreds of years. It is wrong of D&SF&RS to now imply that petitions are not worthwhile.

Make your views known to the Fire & Rescue Authority

and your MP

I strongly recommend that people complete the consultation questionnaire and lobby Fire Authority Members. Despite what some D&SF&RS officers would have you believe, this is a result of Government cutting funds for Fire & Rescue Authorities, so please also write to your MP. The new Prime Minister has pledged to repair the damage austerity has caused to the Police, so it is wrong that austerity is still being allowed to destroy our fire & rescue service.

Who can you believe?

"Resources in the wrong place"

This is the inept D&SF&RS plan to get them in the 'right place'

This is their worst case proposal, which could be adopted. Roving fire engines may appear to improve things, but we don't know if they will be full sized fire engines with a full crew, or vans with a couple of firefighters, so there is no way to know. The odds of them being in the right place at the right time are also very poor.

Preparing for extra fatalities?

My attention has been drawn to one of the images used by the D&SF&RS propaganda unit. The question raised was, “is the firefighter depicted carrying a body bag with one of the extra bodies that will result from these cuts?”

I can see why someone thought it looked like a body bag, but I am sure the propaganda unit would not be that foolish. However, I have been informed it depicts a firefighter carrying a ‘Cleveland Load’ bag, which contains hose packed in a way that is easier to use in high rise buildings. A good idea you might think, except that all the bags they bought have never been used. In another example of inept planning, they can’t fit them on their fire engines without removing other vital equipment, so they are sitting in storage!

Money wasted on TWO Chief Fire Officers

A look at last year's accounts shows that D&SF&RS spent £353,855 on TWO Chief Fire Officers! Lee Howell, who now tells us they have to save money, was paid even though he was away for the whole of 2018/19. They also paid his Deputy at the full Chief Fire Officer rate to do Lee Howell's job. Lee Howell seems to have little interest in Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service or local residents. After a round of damaging cuts six years ago he went part time, so he could act as Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser and Inspector for Wales. 

In November 2017 he left to take charge of a Home Office funded data analytics initiative. It was only supposed to be for one year, but he failed to complete it in the time and stayed on, only returning in April this year. Now the Home Office was supposed to pay £140,000 towards the cost of his employment for 2018/19, but that does not appear in the accounts. 

It beggars belief that the Fire & Rescue Authority effectively subsidised the Home Office, who were only offering to cover two thirds of the CFO's cost. You also have to wonder if the Data Analytics initiative will see data analysed properly, or manipulated in the way it has been for this consultation!

Chief Fire Officer wants you to do his job for him

It now seems that Mr Howell doesn't want people to tell him his proposals are wrong, he wants them to do his job and come up with alternatives.

The reason the service is in this mess Mr Howell is because you have failed to impress on the Home Office how damaging their funding cuts are. Now some suggest that you haven't done this as you have been working for them. I hope that is not the case, so if you have campaigned on behalf of Devon & Somerset's residents and firefighters, please publish your correspondence to the Fire Minister and to local Members of Parliament, together with their replies.

Residents in Devon & Somerset deserve honest answers

Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service still living up to their new name

Well sorry Peter Bond, I don't think anyone believes that closing 8 fire stations, cutting 16 fire engines, 
cutting between 200 and 250 firefighter posts, mothballing 8 or 14 fire engines during the day, 
and reallocating just one fire engine will make anything better.

Vital information missing from Chief Fire Officer's report

The Chief Fire Officer's report to the Fire Authority mentions the Fire Services Emergency Cover Toolkit, which is used to model the effects of any resource changes, but he has not included the all important results. Used properly, the modelling can be used to compare the effects of each option with current figures for deaths and property damage, so that the consequences of change are fully understood. Figures can be produced to show increases or decreases for the service as a whole and for each station area.

Other Chief Fire Officers have tried to bury, or make difficult to understand, the extra death and increased property damage results from this modelling, but Lee Howell seems to be the first to try and keep them secret. It is not acceptable to hide them from the public and from Fire Authority Members.

The report also misleads by not giving the full figures for each station’s workload, which means the full extent of the consequences is hidden. Figures for incidents attended in other station areas, attendance at incidents as relief crew, standbys at other stations and co-responder calls should be included in all the tables. 

Much is made in the report of prevention activity, but no mention is made of how much prevention and community safety activity will be lost as a result of the cuts at affected stations. Attendance at community events, visits to schools etc., are valuable prevention and safety opportunities. That loss needs to be set against any gain that may, or may not, result from some of the changes. A significant increase in prevention activity may be hoped for, but the report is lacking in detail of how that will be achieved and at what cost.

Strange Logic 

Some of the claimed figures in the report seem illogical. For example, in option 1, they claim closing 8 fire stations and removing over 90 firefighter posts will save money. I understand that, but how will that also increase Fire Safety Checks by over 3,000? Saying “Potential increase” in Fire Safety Checks is not good enough, some detail and costings must be provided to support the figures. 

The concept of prevention and protection activity making everyone safer is an attractive one, but doing so by reducing response resources, and thereby increasing response times, is foolhardy. There is no evidence that increasing prevention and protection activity will save lives, but plenty of evidence that longer response times increase the number of deaths and the cost of property damage. We hope prevention will save lives, but it is not measurable. 

Wishing and hoping prevention will save lives is not 

justification for removing fire crews that do save lives.

Roving can only work with an accurate crystal ball

Option 6 would see six additional 'roving' fire engines during the day, although details of how they will be used are sketchy. They talk about moving them to areas where, for example, "we typically have a number of accidents at particular times of the day on particular roads". They even admitted on Facebook that they don't have a crystal ball, but arrogantly claim, "robust analysis is the next best thing". It is not. No amount of analysis will tell them where and when the next emergency will be. It only tells them about incidents they have attended in the past. Fires and accidents can occur anywhere and at anytime, so there will be many more occasions when 'roving' fire engines are not nearby, than occasions when they will be.

The number of calls deception

The Chief Fire Officer claims that less calls justifies these cuts, but fails to mention that demand has never been used to determine the number of fire engines required. If fire service resources had been increased as calls increased then, even allowing for recent reductions, the service would have far more resources than it does now. 

Proper resource allocation is based on having a spread of resources to ensure a speedy and effective response to every emergency call, a speedy and effective response to assistance calls for larger incidents, and to ensure a high volume of calls in an area can be attended simultaneously. Severe weather events often result in numerous calls at the same time and climate change is increasing the scale and frequency of such events. 

Demand is only a factor in determining if a fire engine needs to be crewed by On Call Firefighters, for lower demand, or by Wholetime Firefighters for higher demand.

Every fire station is attending more emergency calls than when Chief Fire Officers, Councillors and the Home Office first approved the establishment of the current stations in 1948. Since then, despite emergency calls increasing significantly, before dropping back to levels well above those in 1948, the number of front-line fire engines in Devon & Somerset has never been increased. They have only ever been reduced.

There are around 3 fires in people's homes and over 50 other fires and emergencies every day in Devon and Somerset. There is no way of knowing where the next one will be, so resources must be maintained across the area.

Each 'X' on this map represents a fire engine permanently removed, or not available during the day, under option 5 of Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service's latest scheme.

It is also concerning that in the report, in interviews and on social media, unsubstantiated claims and statements are being made by Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service. Spin and speculation should have no place in an organisation that professes to be honest, open and accountable. 

Incredibly, when I pointed out that they were misusing the term 'risk', they admitted my definition was right. So why do they keep talking about 'low risk' when all they really mean is that an area or station has less incidents than other areas. The risk of anyone losing their life in a fire or crash, or losing their home or business, is the same wherever they are. 

What Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service is really saying is, "if there are lots of emergencies in your area, then we will attend quickly, but if there are not, then we won't. To ensure we take longer to get to areas with less emergencies, we will remove your nearest fire station or fire engines from that station". 

About as responsible as a motorist saying, "I wear my seat belt on that road because there were ten serious crashes on it last year, but I don't wear it on this road because there were only two".   

This lengthy report is packed with statistics, some helpful some not, but it is missing crucial information.

The Fire Authority must not keep that information secret, it must be released before the consultation.