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

.

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.

Remember this when you vote on Thursday

Many things about this General Election make it very difficult to decide who to vote for, but one thing that is very clear to me is who not to vote for:

Conservative Party policies have resulted in our fire & rescue services suffering the biggest cuts since World War 2. 

Conservative Chancellors have cut funding to fire & rescue authorities with no regard for the consequences. 

Conservative Ministers responsible for fire & rescue services have lied about funding being adequate and falsely claimed that there will be no cuts to front-line services.

Conservative Members on fire & rescue authorities have failed to demand fairer funding and falsely claimed cuts are modernisation.

Conservative politicians dishonestly claim there is a link between the number of calls and the resources required. The only link is between resources and the speed and effectiveness of the response.

Less Resources = Slower & Less Effective Response

The Conservative manifesto talks about more funding for some public services, which is basically undoing some of the cuts they made, but the fire & rescue service will continue to be cut.

Voting Conservative will ensure that when people are in danger they will have to wait ever longer for less firefighters to arrive on less capable fire engines.

Cuts cost lives

Conservative politics cost lives

Now junior staff are used for propaganda

Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service is always redacting the names of junior staff in documents requested under freedom of information legislation. They say this is to protect their personal data. Yet it now seems they are quite happy to use their images and voices, which are pretty personal to most people, to spin dangerous cuts in their latest video on social media.

I suppose it is the uproar, as the public begin to realise that D&SF&RS management is misleading them with this consultation, that has prompted this latest shabby attempt to spin the cuts as improvements. They must think the public will be misled by a few faces from further down the service's career structure in to thinking that staff support these cuts. 

The reality is that the vast majority of Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service staff oppose these cuts. 

What induced them to take part in a propaganda video, which is effectively stabbing some of their colleagues in the back, I don't know. Especially as the proposals will also see hundreds of thousands of residents in Devon & Somerset face an increased risk to their lives. It does not matter if they were pressurised or did so voluntarily, it was very unfair of the service to put them in that position. 

So let us look at the claims in the video: 

Consultation document misleading, over 600,000 people face increased life risk

My email to Sara Randall Johnson, Chair of Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority, sent yesterday:

Dear Fire Authority Chair,

 

Whilst I am sure you were unaware, the consultation document you have put your name to is deliberately misleading. Sadly, it appears this has been done to deceive the residents of Devon & Somerset and I would urge you to withdraw the document.

 

My experience of FSEC modelling made me doubt the claims made by ACFO Pete Bond in his BBC interview on 2nd July, so I submitted questions to the Safer Together Programme Team. Their answers, and another D&SF&RS document (attached), confirm my suspicions that the presentation of the risk modelling outcomes are deliberately misleading.

 

The reduced risk claim is frankly fraudulent, as it is based on a comparison for the future, which assumes all the service's fire engines are available, with the current situation, which assumes several fire engines are not available. The excuse given is that crewing and contract changes will ensure all appliances will be available in future. That is outrageous speculation and it is highly unlikely that will ever be achieved. 

So, the only honest and responsible method is to compare current theoretical full availability with future theoretical full availability. That comparison shows, although not very clearly in the public consultation document, an extra death every other year on option 5 (25 extra in dwellings and 22 extra in RTCs in 100 years). A figure that will be higher, as not all deaths have been included in the results. Fire deaths not in dwellings, which in some years have exceeded those in dwellings, and deaths at non-fire incidents, other than road traffic collisions, have not been included. The figure shown for RTCs is also highly suspicious, as the service saves many more lives at RTCs than it does at dwelling fires. Delayed responses will therefore impact more on RTC fatalities than on dwelling fire fatalities. FSEC modelling in other fire & rescue services show that for every extra death in a dwelling fire there can be 15 extra deaths in non-fire incidents, as a direct result of longer response times. 

Although the reply I received states that the modelling for RTCs was based on attendance times for the first two fire engines, the figures in the consultation document suggest that is not the case. In option 5, fourteen second fire engines are taken out of use during the day, yet it is claimed that will make no difference to RTC fatalities (same result as for option 4). This suggests that the figures used in the consultation document are for first fire engine only, so once again deliberately misleading. It is also concerning that modelling figures have not been provided for property damage, which is also certain to increase if the proposals go ahead. 

 

The figures for option 6 are also dubious and wholly unreliable. I am told that the roving fire engines were “in certain locations for the purpose of the modelling”. Whilst there may be odd occasions when a roving fire engine happens to be near enough to an incident to provide an improved response time, the random nature of emergencies means there is a much higher probability that it will not. Evidence of this unreliability can be found in the Analytical Comparison of Community Impacts from Service Delivery Operating Model document, dated June 2019. This is stated to be “the evidence base to assess the impact of changes to our Service Delivery Operating Model”. This shows the outcomes for options 5 and 6 as the same, which means there is no improvement on response times for roving fire engines.

 

Whilst the Analytical Comparison document seems generally more accurate than the consultation document, there are still some concerning conclusions in it. For example, on page 45, the increased response time shown for Porlock and Woolacombe, if they are closed, is just two to five minutes. Yet the nearest fire engines are Minehead and Ilfracombe respectively, both six miles away. Even Lewis Hamilton could not achieve that on those roads in even light traffic. Similarly, the map on page 46 shows day crewing at Barnstaple only increasing first pump response time by one to two minutes. The reality is that at night, with On Call Firefighters responding from home, it would be an increase of around four minutes. These outputs suggest the results have been manipulated to appear less severe. 

However, what the Analytical Comparison document does reveal is that over 600,000 residents will face an increased risk to their lives if the full proposals are carried out (262,486 households x 2.3 average occupancy = 603,718 people). That detail should not be kept secret, the public deserve to know before responding to the consultation. It is also very disturbing that the station risk profiles for every fire station have suddenly been removed from the D&SF&RS website. Removing recent (2018/19) performance information during a consultation is not being responsible and accountable.

 

I would add that I requested copies of the actual modelling data used, but this has not been supplied.

 

I can't believe that you would be happy about the public and Fire Authority Members being misled in this way. Please have the document withdrawn and postpone the consultation until a revised document can be published showing full, accurate and honest details of the impact of these cuts. Given the seriousness of this matter I have copied this email to Fire Authority Members and other concerned parties. 

Yours sincerely

Residents should be concerned about Fire & Rescue Service cuts consultation

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.

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.

Third class service for some residents in Devon & Somerset

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority is gradually reducing the protection they provide to people in many areas. Worst affected will be those living in rural areas, villages and smaller towns. Those in major towns and cities will also be affected at busy times, when less well equipped vehicles and less well trained firefighters have to be brought in to assist, or to provide cover.

Anyone who sleeps in a property above the first floor will be particularly at risk, if a fire breaks out, as new vehicles only carry a short ladder. Dartmouth, Tiverton, Princetown, and Porlock have been disclosed as the first areas to be affected.

The Authority has embarked on a campaign to persuade people that these cuts are improvements, so this Blog is to help draw attention to the very real dangers. I was born and raised in Devon and my Mother and several other relatives and friends still live in the service's area, which is why I am especially concerned.

It is fundamentally wrong that people in some areas of Devon & Somerset should have less effective protection, just because emergencies occur less frequently in their particular area. The life of someone living on or near Exmoor or Dartmoor is just as valuable as the life of someone living in Exeter, Plymouth or Taunton. People can be trapped in a fire or a road crash anywhere in Devon & Somerset, so it is unacceptable that the first firefighters sent to help some of them will be less well equipped and less well trained.

Fully equipped fire engines are being replaced with less effective vehicles

The Authority is cutting the existing 121 Medium Rescue Pumps (MRP), which are very well equipped, to just 37 Medium Rescue Pumps. The others are being replaced with 39 Light Rescue Pumps (LRP), which carry less water and equipment, and 45 Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIV), which carry even less water, equipment and crew. In comparison to Medium Rescue Pumps, the Light Rescue Pumps offer a second class service. The Rapid Intervention Vehicles will only offer a third class service.

Rapid Intervention Vehicles carry:

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.

Those are just some of the essential pieces of equipment that are not carried. They will say that some are not used often, but that does not help firefighters, or the public, when an incident occurs where they are needed.

Of greatest concern, they do not carry a rescue ladder 

Previously, every fire station, except Lundy, had a ladder that would reach the third or fourth floor. These plans will see many fire stations only having a ladder that will reach the first floor. Anyone trapped on a higher floor would have to wait for help to arrive from a fire station much further away, and inevitably some will not survive the wait.

Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority are also considering sending the Rapid Intervention Vehicles to emergencies with as few as two firefighters, instead of at least four on a proper fire engine. That may help the Authority tick the box for meeting response times, but it will not help those in peril. 

Safe and effective rescue needs not less than four firefighters. 

This idea is based on their unsubstantiated claim that “Over 70% of incidents we attend could be fully dealt with by a crew of two.” When the claim was challenged with a Freedom of Information request, they admitted that they had no documentation to support the claim. In their attempts to explain, they first said that they assessed incidents that could be dealt with by “2 or 3 people”, but then said, "It has been calculated that rapid intervention with less than four personnel may have dealt with 63% of all incidents". 

So there is no documented research or analysis, and no explanation of how “less than four may have dealt with 63% of all incidents”, magically becomes “70% could be fully dealt with by a crew of two.”

They also admitted that over 50% of the incidents they had assumed could be dealt with by less than four firefighters were false alarms. Of course they don't know it is a false alarm until they get there, so this crackpot theory would mean they would need a crystal ball to keep firefighters and the public safe.

They claim that smaller vehicles are quicker, but have failed to provide evidence. This was a particular claim for the Light Rescue Pumps, which have been in service since 2013. Home Office figures for Devon & Somerset show that average response times to primary fires (the most serious ones) have actually increased. 

Even if they could arrive a bit quicker, if they don’t have long enough ladders, the right equipment, enough water and enough firefighters, then the public & firefighters are put at much greater risk.

They claim that they are matching resources to risk, but ignore the fact that the risk to people trapped by fire, or in a wrecked car, is exactly the same no matter where they are in the area. They have been asked via a Freedom of Information request to produce their analysis and risk assessments. No station area risk assessments have been provided, and they have clearly not carried out an assessment of how less well equipped vehicles, with less well trained firefighters, will impact on public and firefighter safety.

Less well trained firefighters

They claim that with less equipment on the Rapid Intervention Vehicles, the training requirement will be reduced. Yet this will result in many firefighters being unable to help colleagues in other areas, as they won’t have been trained to use all the equipment on the remaining 37 Medium Rescue Pumps. It will be a nightmare for those in charge at incidents, when certain equipment needs to be used, if the only firefighters not yet committed have not been trained to use that equipment. They will have no choice but to request another crew, which may have a very long distance to travel.

At busy times, it also means that less well trained firefighters, on less capable vehicles, will be sent to serious incidents in what D&SF&RS class as higher risk areas. For example, crews at Ivybridge and Yelverton are never going to attend a fire on a nuclear submarine in their station areas. However, they could be first to attend such an incident, if they are standing by at Plymouth fire stations, whilst those crews are attending other incidents. 

Not training or equipping them for all potential incidents is simply irresponsible, and may well be unlawful. 

Just remember the Cathedral Yard fire in Exeter, on the 28th October 2016. 95 fire engines from urban and rural fire stations across Devon & Somerset attended that fire, as initial response, or as relief crews. Several others were moved from rural areas to fill the gaps at the main fire stations in urban areas. They were all well trained and none were on poorly equipped Rapid Intervention Vehicles. The Fire Authority's plans will make dealing with such incidents in the future much less effective and much more dangerous for firefighters and the public.

Before starting this Blog I discussed the situation with a number of firefighters in the area, both serving and retired, and they share these concerns. Unfortunately, those still serving fear the consequences if they publicly criticise the changes. I hope this Blog will help give them a voice.