Fire Authority stealth cuts put lives and property at risk

Ashburton area protection downgraded and more to follow

Just a couple of years after Ashburton residents successfully fought to save their fire station, the Conservative controlled fire & rescue authority has stabbed them in the back. In a secret move, Ashburton's properly equipped fire engine has been removed and replaced with a poorly equipped van.

The so called Rapid Intervention Vehicle (RIV) has previously 

been dubbed by firefighters as a 'Really Inadequate Vehicle'. 

Whilst a few fire stations are having their older fire engines replaced with new, fully equipped Medium Rescue Pumps (MRP), others are being downgraded. In recent years, the fire & rescue authority has replaced many proper fire engines with less capable Light Rescue Pumps (LRP). Compared to the MRP, the LRP effectively provides residents with a second class service, whilst the RIV only provides a third class service.

A report told Councillors about these inadequacies nearly five years ago, and the purchase of more RIVs was put on hold after local protests. However, since then they have bought another five, and they seem determined to blunder on and downgrade the protection offered to many communities. The report said: 

"LRP’s and RIV’s do not carry the same quantity of equipment carried by the MRP’s." 

The effect of downgrading from a MRP to a RIV

How many buildings have windows that the 9-metre ladder can’t reach?

I don’t know, but worryingly, neither did the fire & rescue service when they chose the locations for RIVs. They have no idea how many lives are now at increased risk in the Ashburton area, or anywhere else.

DSFRS will claim that not many rescues are carried out with a 13.5 metre ladder (carried on the MRP). How often is irrelevant, they are still carried out from time to time, and no one knows when or where the next one will be. DSFRS excuses will be of no comfort to someone trapped by the next life threatening fire and, if they don't survive, it will be of even less comfort to family and friends of the victim.

Not only less water, but also less ability to obtain additional water for firefighting

As well as having less than half the water carried on a MRP, the RIVs are less well equipped to obtain additional supplies. With only half the hose on a MRP, more fires will see the RIV too far away from hydrant supplies. How many more? Again, the fire & rescue service failed to check, but a lot more buildings will be too far away. 

Without a portable pump, they cannot reach water supplies that are only accessible on foot. It was only last week when portable pumps were used at two fires. Near Staverton, two portable pumps were needed at a fire that could only be accessed on foot, and at Ilfracombe two portable pumps had to be used to boost water supplies at a major fire.

Even if there is access to open water, the 25% cut in the amount of suction hose carried on the RIV may mean it is still too far away to be used. 

Other equipment no longer carried, or reduced, includes

No Roof Ladder - which means firefighters cannot safely access the roof for rescue or firefighting. 

No Gas Tight Suits - no protection for firefighters from hazardous materials.

No Foam - firefighters unable to fight fires involving flammable liquids.

No Winch - this reduces the ability to rescue people trapped in road crashes or in other hazardous situations.

No Positive Pressure Fan - unable to remove harmful smoke from burning buildings to improve visibility for rescue and firefighting.

Beaters reduced by 66% - With just two carried, and much less water available, the ability of firefighters to tackle wildland fires (field, gorse, grass, woodland etc.) is seriously reduced. 

Hosereels reduced by 50% - With just one hosereel, instead of two, this limits the ability of firefighters to stop fires spreading. It also halves the distance that can be reached from the vehicle. On a MRP, the second hose reel can be attached to the first to double the distance that can be reached.

Breathing Apparatus cut by 25% - For safety, firefighters wearing breathing apparatus sets must work in pairs, so the cut from four sets to three is, in practice, a 50% cut in operational capability.

The real risk

Nearly 8,000 people live in the area covered by Ashburton fire station, with many more visiting and travelling through the area on ordinary roads and the busy A38. The Ashburton crew also regularly go to other areas to provide assistance or to provide cover when local crews are committed. 

There was a perfect illustration of the folly of using RIVs last week, when Ashburton's RIV ended up in Plymouth to provide cover when all their crews were attending a serious fire. The RIV is inadequate for protecting people in and around Ashburton, so is totally inadequate for the significant risk in Plymouth. There are many taller residential buildings, where someone could easily be trapped beyond the reach of a 9 metre ladder, and there are significant risks in Plymouth, including the nationally important Royal Navy dockyard.

Will your area be next for 3rd class protection?

After the public outcry about fire station closures and the use of RIVs, all but one of the fire stations was saved and the fire engine replacement scheme was put on hold. It now seems that the Fire & Rescue Authority has secretly resumed replacing fully equipped fire engines with inadequately equipped vans.

A Freedom of Information request has already shown that claims they had properly risk assessed this flawed replacement policy were false. Councillors should have taken action against those responsible for the false claims. Claims that are now putting lives and property in greater danger. 

The 5 RIVs recently purchased brings the total to 20, but original plans were for 45. If that is implemented, there will be very long waits for vital equipment that is not carried on RIVs. The map below shows the original planned locations.

As per the plan, RIVs are now at Ashburton, Chard, Dartmouth, Ilfracombe, Kingston, Okehampton, Princetown, Tavistock, Teignmouth, Williton, Wells, and Woolacombe. Not in the plan, Moretonhampstead and Tiverton have also been allocated a Really Inadequate Vehicle. 

Councillors need to act to stop communities in Devon & Somerset being downgraded to 3rd class protection

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.

So who did DSFRS lie to? The public and councillors, or the Information Commissioner?

 Council tax consultation

There are 26% fewer immediate response firefighters protecting 

Devon & Somerset residents than there were ten years ago.

Before I look at Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service's deception, I just wanted to remind people that there is a consultation running on the amount of council tax people pay towards the service (Consultation link).  

The consultation ends on the 18th December.

Unfortunately, as Government has continued to cut funding, despite expecting the service to take on more and more work, only a council tax increase will avoid further cuts to the service.

I would encourage people to carefully consider their answers to questions like, "How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the service provided by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service" and "Thinking about your local fire and rescue service, do you think they have a good reputation". 

You may be very satisfied with your local firefighters, but less so with the service's senior management and the Fire Authority. You can be sure that both senior management and the Fire Authority will claim the credit for positive answers, even though you may be thinking of those at the sharp end when you answer. 

If that is the case, I would suggest selecting an answer that reflects your view of those at the top, and clarify in the  "What has influenced your answer?" box that you are satisfied with firefighters, control operators and others who actually provide the service to the public.

Fire service managers used misleading claims to justify significant cuts. 

Public pressure saved six fire stations from closure, 

but 8 fire engines are being removed from other fire stations. 

Who lied and who did they lie to?

Many will remember when DSFRS planned to replace around a third of their fully equipped fire engines with inadequately equipped vans. They called them Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIV) and told Councillors and the public that their locations would be selected based on the risks in that area.

I had serious doubts that proper risk assessments could have justified such drastic changes, so in March 2018 I submitted a freedom of information request for details of the justification, and specifically requested copies of the risk assessments. Two months later some documents arrived, some of which had several sections redacted on quite spurious grounds, but there were no risk assessments. 

There then followed a lengthy process of complaints to the Information Commissioner. Last year she confirmed that Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service had breached the Freedom of Information Act and ordered them to provide additional information, including some that had been unlawfully redacted. Some more information was forthcoming, but still no risk assessments.  

No assessment of the effect on the service's ability to deal with incidents with less water, less hose and less equipment, and not carrying certain equipment at all on these third rate vehicles. 

No assessment of the risks in the station areas they were to be allocated to. 

So I went back to the Commissioner and this year, after further correspondence with DSFRS, the Commissioner said that she had accepted the DSFRS claim that there was no other documentation. 

So, either DSFRS lied to the Information Commissioner, which is unlikely, or they never carried out the risk assessments that they told Councillors and the public that they had carried out.

Not only no risk assessments, but absolutely no documentation referring to the risk of replacing full sized fire engines with less capable vehicles, and no documentation about RIV locations being determined by the risk in that area. No reports, no memos, no emails, absolutely nothing. Yet despite this fundamental omission, they had placed an order for 15 RIVs, with an option for another 30. 

I find it astonishing that a fire & rescue service would embark on such a fundamental change without assessing the impact that would have, yet clearly that is what DSFRS did. Without assessments they had even decided where these vehicles and the supporting Incident Support Vehicles (carrying equipment not available on the RIVs) would be located. The locations were among the details they hid, until ordered by the Commissioner to reveal them, and you can see why. 

It reveals the true scale of their inept plans and how seriously reduced protection for residents would be. 

They now claim this plan was 'never adopted', but it would be more accurate to say that they have backtracked. The order for the other 30 RIVs is now on hold, hopefully to be abandoned completely. The plan shows very clearly that this was never about matching resources to risk, with RIVs scattered across the two counties at city, town and rural stations with a diverse range of risks. 

It is interesting to note that Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service looked at replacing a number of fire engines with very similar RIVs, but sensibly only ordered one to be trialled at a variety of stations. They found it unsuitable and have now abandoned the idea. 

Instead, to reduce the current size of their fire engines without sacrificing capability, they have chosen more compact fire engines that are narrower and shorter, but are far better equipped than DSFRS's RIVs. Just 12 centimetres wider, they carry nearly twice as much water and a lot more equipment. They can even turn tighter corners than the RIV's, as their turning circle is just 12.4 metres, whilst the RIV's is 13.7 metres.

The very few occasions when 12 centimetres less width will be an advantage can never make up for not having enough water and equipment at every incident, especially in a less manoeuvrable vehicle.

Councillors need to ask the Chief Fire Officer why proper risk assessments were not carried out and why they and the public were deceived.

Some Fire & Rescue Authorities properly protect the public and their firefighters

With Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service providing less effective resources, and now planning to cut resources, it is worth looking at how other Fire & Rescue Services do more to protect their residents and firefighters.

Lincolnshire Fire & Rescue Service are providing 33 new and improved fire engines to better protect their communities. The comments in their video provide a stark contrast to the attitude of the Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority and the Chief Fire Officer towards firefighter and public safety.

Shame the Councillor called it a 'force', instead of a service, but you can't complain about 'best level of emergency response', 'important to provide the very best equipment', 'greater water supplies', and 'much more effective service'.

Then there is the Devon & Somerset Fire &
Rescue Authority's approach to 'duty to provide'.

Rapid Intervention Vehicles providing a poorer level of emergency response, 
less equipment, less water and a less effective service.

Now this is a Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service vehicle that is very similar to the Rapid Intervention Vehicles Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service decided to buy. Unlike D&SF&RS, who decided to buy 45 with no idea where they were going to use them, Hampshire decided to extensively trial them first. 

Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service has now sensibly decided they 
are unreliable and inadequate. They have cancelled plans to buy 33. 

As well as buying these Really Inadequate Vehicles, Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service now plans to close 8 fire stations, cut 16 fire engines and not crew another 14 fire engines during the day!

Residents and firefighters in Devon & Somerset deserve better!

Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service blunders on

It seems that Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service’s leadership is incapable of learning from their mistakes, or of complying with the law. They are clearly desperate to cover up their failings and poor decision making by any means possible.

This week a ruling confirmed that they failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, and last week there was another move in the continuing cover up regarding the loss of the Royal Clarence Hotel in Exeter.

No risk assessments for Really Inadequate Vehicle policy

The Information Commissioner has now ruled that Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service breached sections 10 and 17 of the Freedom of Information Act, in relation to a request for information about their decision to provide some communities with less capable fire engines.

The Commissioner has ordered D&SF&RS to provide missing and redacted information within 35 days and, if they fail to do so, the matter could be referred to the High Court to be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Included in the information they have been trying to keep secret are the risk assessments that should have been completed before they replaced well equipped fire engines with vehicles that are far less effective.

D&SF&RS regularly claim that resources are being matched to risk, but they refuse to provide copies of their risk assessments. In particular, how they assessed the risk of replacing well equipped fire engines with vehicles that are far less effective.

So, either they have not carried out proper risk assessments, 

or there are serious risks they don’t want the public or firefighters to know about.

Royal Clarence Hotel

The Information Commissioner has yet to rule on D&SF&RS’s failure to provide information that would allow scrutiny of their actions at the Cathedral Yard fire.  The information was requested last September. Now, presumably to try and placate the Commissioner, they have belatedly released a version of the Fire Control Incident Log. Unfortunately, as so much of the detail useful for scrutiny has been redacted, it tells us very little.

Information they want to keep secret includes: 

• Details of which fire engines were sent, when they were sent, how long they took to arrive, when they left the incident, and how many firefighters were on them.
• Significant detail in messages between the control room and the incident that give details of the extent of the fire and what action the crews were taking.
• Some assistance messages redacted completely and detail missing in others.
• The names of officers taking decisions and in overall command of the incident at different times.

The public and firefighters have legitimate concerns

BBC Inside Out South West

To justify keeping this information secret they are misusing an exemption in the legislation that is intended to protect information related to law enforcement. It is quite ludicrous to claim that, for example, information on what time the fire engine from Dawlish was sent to the incident “would, or would be likely to, prejudice” .. “the exercise by any public authority of its functions for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of an accident.” 

It would be laughable, if this were not such a serious matter.

Clearly aware how weak their justification is, they have produced an additional document in which they try to suggest that this information would help “those with malicious intent” and is necessary to “protect the Service and wider society from potential crime”. Once again utterly ludicrous. Hiding this information is not in the public interest, but the Chief Fire Officer must think it is in his interest.

Having worked with security sensitive information and discussed policies with the police, security services and the Cabinet Office, I fully understand the need to be cautious about information that might be useful to terrorists. 

However, information on how the service managed, or mismanaged, 

a fire nearly three years ago is of no use to terrorists whatsoever.

Mr Nobody did it

Those who are parents will be familiar with children’s denials when they have done something wrong. It seems D&SF&RS are following that example by removing names from documents, so that we have no idea who was responsible for anything.

They did eventually disclose the name of the most senior person responsible for two of the vehicle related documents, but not for all of them. So, for no legitimate reason, the names of some project managers and of those who reviewed or approved the reports are kept secret.

Astonishingly they claim this was because they “believed that there may be inappropriate contact and naming of these individuals in the media, due to the way in which its responses had been used in the past. Disclosure of the information about these third parties could clearly have very detrimental consequences.”

They don’t explain what “detrimental consequences” or “inappropriate contact” they are referring to, or provide any evidence to support their claim about past use of their responses, or even why they describe their own employees as "third parties". Critics of the changes have not contacted any individual employee - appropriately, or inappropriately. 

It all points to the real reason being that they don’t like 

anyone asking awkward questions or criticising their decisions

D&SF&RS need to understand that if they require their managers to make inaccurate and misleading claims in interviews, press releases and on social media, in an effort to justify dangerous cuts to the service, those claims have to be challenged. Do they really expect us to believe that fire service managers, who have risked life and limb, are going to dissolve in to tears when someone challenges what they said, or asks difficult questions?

D&SF&RS put them in that position, not those campaigning to stop dangerous changes. 

In the case of the Royal Clarence Hotel log, all the names have been removed from the released Fire Control log. So, apparently, we are not to be told who was in overall charge of the incident at any stage. 

You have to wonder, if they did such a good job, why they don’t want their names associated with the incident.

The exemptions in the legislation were never intended to allow people, who are paid by taxpayers to protect the public, to hide their activities under a cloak of anonymity. D&SF&RS claims to be open, honest and accountable, yet these actions demonstrate it is not. Compounding the secrecy and cover up by trying to deceive the Information Commissioner with spurious claims is equally irresponsible.

Until the fire authority ensures this information is put fully in the public domain,

the service will sadly remain the Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service.

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?"

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?