Reckless decisions put more South West lives in danger

Cornwall

No rescue ladder at Launceston

Cornwall County Council's decision to remove the only fire engine with a long ladder (13.5 metres) from Launceston fire station was bizarre. I wanted to see the risk assessment that lay behind this decision, so I submitted a freedom of information request for details. Not only did they fail to respond in the time required by law, but they have not provided all the information.

One of several buildings in Launceston where a 13.5 metre ladder is needed

From the limited information they did provide it is very clear that they failed to carry out a proper risk assessment before removing this particular ladder. The only risk assessment they have provided is generic, and relates to the introduction of a specific type of new fire engines. The brief section refers to the inability of these fire engines to carry a 13.5 metre ladder and how they will have to carry a shorter 10.5 metre ladder instead.

Astonishingly, the risk assessment says that the likely harm or loss resulting from this is firefighters being unable to reach a casualty and:

Injury/death 

to personnel 

or public

Yet despite this, they go ahead with their reckless gamble. They naïvely suggest that the fire safety legislation, which only applies to certain buildings, and fire safety initiatives in the home, which don't reach everybody, are adequate control measures. They also try to justify this folly by saying these ladders are rarely used. In doing so they ignore the reality that they have no idea where or when one will next be needed to save a life.

It is even more astonishing when you realise that, in the recent past, Launceston firefighters rescued a woman in the nick of time using their 13.5 metre ladder. Without that ladder the woman would have died a horrible death, whilst firefighters stood helpless. 

A woman clinging to this chimney could only be reached with a 13.5 metre ladder

It is also disturbing that Cornwall Council, which claims to be "committed to open and transparent government", has refused to provide all the information they hold. The excuse, disclosure would "prejudice commercial interests", and they consider that more important than the public's right to know.

I suspect the real reason is that the information includes emails that cast doubt on this reckless decision. Cornwall Council clearly have something to hide. 

There is no commercial interest, 

but there is a strong public interest on a matter of life and death.

Devon & Somerset

Plymouth residents exposed to additional risk

The stupidity of replacing properly equipped fire engines with RIVs (Really Inadequate Vehicles) was illustrated again today, when Plymouth fire crews were dealing with a serious fire. Instead of fully equipped fire engines being sent to Greenbank fire station, which is the city's busiest, two RIVs were sent to provide inadequate protection to Plymouth residents. They came from Ashburton and Moretonhampstead where, until recently, both stations had been provided with fully equipped fire engines.

This is worse than the inadequate Cornwall changes, as the RIVs only carry 9 metre ladders, and it could have been even worse. Had it not been for public protest, the RIVs would only have been carrying 5 metre ladders! Even so, there are many buildings in Plymouth with occupied floors above 9 metres where, if a fire breaks out when Really Inadequate Vehicles are on standby, lives could be lost. 

The policy of removing fully equipped fire engines from many fire stations and replacing them with second class and third class vehicles is fundamentally flawed. The farce of today's inadequate cover was a predicted consequence of this reckless policy. It was recognised by experienced serving and retired firefighters, but conveniently dismissed by inept managers to cut costs. 

The people of Devon & Somerset deserve properly equipped fire engines, not inadequately equipped vans.

Animals in Devon better protected than people

Another recently highlighted inadequacy is the provision of Heavy Rescue Tenders in Devon. Heavy Rescue Tenders (HRT) carry equipment needed at more difficult and complex rescues, such as road traffic collisions (RTC) involving lorries, railway accidents, building collapses, and heavy machinery accidents. 

Much better provision for people in Somerset than in Devon

Devon is around double the size of Somerset and has more than double the number of people living there. Yet, there is only one Heavy Rescue Tender in Devon (at Middlemoor), whilst there are three in Somerset (Glastonbury, Taunton and Yeovil). It is even more illogical, as fire crews in Devon attend more road traffic collisions than fire crews in Somerset. 

Most of Devon without adequate Heavy Rescue Tender cover

A recent RTC in East Devon occurred whilst the Devon HRT was unavailable, so the HRT from Yeovil was sent. That distance was perhaps not too bad, but what if that RTC had been at Hartland, Ilfracombe, Plymouth or Tavistock? The golden hour, the optimum time to release trapped and injured casualties and get them into a hospital, would be more than used up just waiting for the HRT to arrive.

If animals get into difficulty in North or West Devon, specialist rescue vehicles and crews are available at Barnstaple and Plymouth. Yet people seriously trapped in those areas are dependent on the Heavy Rescue Tender from Exeter, or if that is unavailable, one of the Somerset ones.

DSFRS is clearly aware that this makes no sense, as they seek to justify the unjustifiable on their website. They say it is, "so that they can be close to the major road arteries entering and leaving the two counties, and to cover important road junctions within the counties". 

Are they really unaware of the the major road arteries between Cornwall and Devon (A30, A38 and A39), and do they not care about the many important road junctions in the other two thirds of Devon?

The discrepancy may pre-date the amalgamation of the two services, but failing to improve provision in the following 15 years is a continuing and unacceptable failure. 

Heavy Rescue Tender provision in Devon 

must be increased to the Somerset standard

Revised proposals will still put lives in danger

I can understand why some may wish to celebrate the Chief Fire Officer's  revised proposals, but they should not do so too quickly. There is still much to be concerned about. Some people will have to wait longer for help to arrive, when help arrives it will often be less effective, and some cuts may be resurrected soon.

Topsham and Budleigh Salterton to close

It is not clear if the Topsham fire engine being moved permanently to Service HQ will be available at night. If an On Call crew cannot be recruited for the one eventually being moved to Middlemoor, and the one remaining at Service HQ is not crewed at night, then that would be a reduction of one fire engine during the day and two at night. It is possible that, on balance, these moves could improve response times in the Exeter area, but there are a lot of 'ifs'. The haste to close Topsham before an On Call crew is recruited at Middlemoor raises serious questions about the motive. 

The closure of Budleigh Salterton will be a loss of a fire engine in the area and it will increase some response times. Together with the removal of some second and all third fire engines at other stations this will be a total loss of nine front-line fire engines. That will adversely affect the service's resilience and ability to deal with periods of peak demand. Although they state that firefighters from Budleigh Salterton will be able to respond from Exmouth, it is likely that they will struggle to arrive in time to be able to respond. That could demotivate trained and experienced firefighters and result in some of them quitting the service.

Given the amount of inaccurate information and dubious risk modelling  provided during the consultation, 

it is difficult to have confidence in any of DSFRS's claims regarding these two station closures.

The threat remains for other stations

The future of Appledore, Ashburton, Colyton, Kingston, Porlock and Woolacombe is not guaranteed, the stations simply have a reprieve. The report says that they "will be subject to periodic review", which means the axe is still hanging over them. DSFRS had stopped actively recruiting at those stations long before the consultation, presumably to ensure that the stations' availability did not improve. The threat of review will not help recruitment and retention of staff. Of course that may be the intention, so that availability gets worse and can be used as a justification for closure in the future.

The Fire & Rescue Authority must give assurances that

no closures will take place without further public consultation.

The threat for Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton is more imminent, as firefighters are being bullied in to accepting new shift systems. DSFRS is effectively saying, agree to this or we will remove immediate response cover at night for people living in the Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton areas. 

A shabby way to treat dedicated staff and wholly irresponsible 

to use the safety of the public as a bargaining chip in staff negotiations.

This tactic suggests that DSFRS has learnt nothing from the disturbing inspection report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Perhaps not surprising when the Chief Fire Officer thinks bullying and harassment is OK, as long as you call it 'strong management'. 

The Fire & Rescue Authority must respect the public's views and guarantee that 
Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton will continue to have an immediate response crew day and night.

Inadequate and unsafe crewing

Then there is the deception of 'aggregate crewing', which is more accurately described as inadequate and unsafe crewing. I do understand why On Call Firefighters are frustrated that they cannot use their training and experience to help people when not enough of their colleagues are available to provide a minimum crew, but DSFRS should not take advantage of that frustration. 

For those with no fire service experience there is a need to understand the full implications of inadequate crewing. The officer in charge and the driver on a fire engine have specific tasks that are critical to safe and effective operations. That leaves the firefighters who arrive in the rear cab of the fire engine to attack the fire and carry out rescue work.

Having just one or no firefighters on a fire engine to

carry out sharp end rescues and firefighting is unacceptable

These rear cab images illustrate the stark deterioration in safety and effectiveness of DSFRS plans

A crew of 4 is barely safe and adequate

A crew of 3 is unsafe and inadequate

A crew of 2 is dangerous and ineffective

The advantage for the Chief Fire Officer is that the arrival of an inadequately crewed vehicle will allow him to stop the clock and claim he has met the response time target. Yet the reality will be that effective action to deal with the emergency will not start until a second fire engine has arrived from another more distant fire station.

It may also give the public the illusion of help arriving, but the reality will be that effective help is still several minutes away. The public may also become incensed when they realise that the two or three firefighters on the first vehicle are unable to take effective action.

If lives are in danger, firefighters will be forced to choose between having to wait for back up, with a strong likelihood that the victim or victims would not survive, or to ignore safety procedures and take unacceptable risks to try and rescue people. Most firefighters will feel compelled to attempt a rescue, which could cost the lives of both victim and firefighter. Responsible Chief Fire Officers have always refused to put their firefighters in that invidious position.

If the Fire & Rescue Authority decide to put firefighters in danger in this way, they must be honest about response times. A response time should only be recorded as met when at least four firefighters have arrived at an incident.

What are the true figures? 

It is also concerning that, once again, the report is missing important information and includes misleading and inaccurate figures.

A glaring omission, with regard to the financial position, is the amount of money that will be available from the council tax precept. This is integrally linked with these proposals and could mean none of the cuts need to happen. Consulting on a precept increase separately denied the public the opportunity of seeing what effect different precepts would have on the case for cuts.

No doubt the excuse will be that the precept consultation only closed two weeks ago and that the budget meeting is not until next month. However, that is no excuse for failing to show the implications of differing precept amounts on the proposals in this report.

Not only does the blatant attempt to deceive the public about the effect of the cuts continues in this report, but they have again manipulated the figures. This table in the report is not, as claimed, comparing 'As is' with options 6 & 7 "based on all fire appliances being available". It is dishonestly comparing poor availability of appliances now, with an idealised future where all appliances are available. That is deception, plain and simple.

In the original consultation document (see below) we were told that, based on all appliances being available, 'as is' (theoretical full availability in the consultation document) was an average of 7.61 fire deaths per year, but now they claim it is 7.99. Similarly, we were originally told that RTC deaths, with all fire appliances available, averaged 33.14 per year, but now they claim it is 33.72. DSFRS seem determined to manipulate the figures to make the cuts appear less damaging than they really are. The figures for option 7 are pure fantasy, as you cannot properly model the effect of roving fire engines.

Extract from the original consultation report

Removal of second and third fire engines will mean delayed responses

These fire engines may not be used as frequently as others, but they play an important part in ensuring proper fire cover. Without them, other fire engines from further away will need to be sent with inevitable delay that could cost lives.

Emergencies are random events and every year there will be several occasions when a call is received in a station's area whilst crews are already attending another incident. The fire stations with three fire engines are busier, so that will happen much more frequently. Without that third fire engine people will have to wait longer for help to arrive from another station. That will also have a knock on effect, as that creates a further gap in that area's protection.

The stations losing second fire engines may not be as busy, but simultaneous emergencies still occur with similar delays. Lynton's isolated location makes this a particular problem. Despite post-war austerity, and many less calls than today, Devon County Council recognised the risk in 1948 and decided that the station should have two fire engines. The 1952 flood tragedy illustrated how important that was, as the two crews were able to split up and save lives in different locations when crews from other stations could not reach the area. 

Chief Fire Officers and Councillors have continued to recognise the importance of keeping two fire engines at Lynton for over 50 years. It has often proved its worth. Yet now, that common sense and professional competence is tossed aside to save a little bit of money. 

It makes no sense to say that Frome will have their second fire engine available 24 hours a day 'due to its distance from other stations', but then permanently remove Lynton's second fire engine when it is even more remote. There are two fire stations with 3 fire engines within 7 miles of Frome. The nearest two fire engines to Lynton are each over 12 miles away and they have to travel on slower roads. If they are unavailable, then the next nearest help is over 18 miles away.

Roving fire engines ineffective and inefficient

To keep six roving fire engines on minimum crew will need 24 firefighters, plus others to cover leave, sickness and training. The chances of them being in the right location for the next emergency is slim, especially if prevention work dictates where they will be. As there is no indication that extra firefighters are to be recruited, there will clearly be a reduction in crewing elsewhere. That has safety implications and will delay responses elsewhere, but it is not explained in the report.

It is also an inefficient way to use 24+ firefighters. The On Call fire engines are rarely unavailable because none of the firefighters are available, it is often that they don't have someone available who is qualified to drive the fire engine or to take charge of an incident. Intelligent deployment of those 24 firefighters could see up to 24 extra fire engines available during the day, not just six. Similarly, they could also be carrying out four times more prevention work, whilst remaining available for any emergencies.

Variable fire appliance availability flawed

The claim that this will be based on risk is untrue. They are simply looking at call frequency in the past and gambling on likelihood in the future. 

The claims about fires being less serious during the day are half truths. National statistics for 2018/19 show that 8.6% of fire deaths in the home occurred between nine and eleven in the evening, yet 9.7% occurred between 9 and 11 in the morning. Similarly, fatalities in fire service attended road crashes between 3 and 5 in the morning amount to 4%, whilst between 3 and 5 in the afternoon they amount to 12.3%.

The risk of someone being trapped in a fire or crash is there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and exists in every part of Devon & Somerset. DSFRS does not have a crystal ball, they cannot predict when or where someone will need to be rescued or a fire, large or small, needs to be dealt with.

All resources must be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Unfair Consultation Report

The report is rightly critical of the way the proposals were presented, but Opinion Research Services is wrong to claim that 95% opposition to the proposals is not a balanced picture of general public opinion. The simple truth is that people in Devon and Somerset are not easily manipulated. They saw through the spin and misinformation and resoundingly rejected the proposals.

It is a nonsense to suggest that forums or focus groups would provide a more balanced picture of public opinion. They are particularly unbalanced, as the only information provided to the attendees is in support of the proposed changes. The chances of someone being there with the necessary details and data to challenge unsubstantiated claims and inaccurate data is remote.

The way the report tries to dismiss petitions by saying they "can exaggerate general public sentiment if organised by motivated opponents" is disturbing. That may be their opinion, but it is disrespectful to both those who organised and those who signed the petition. Rather like telling people they were too stupid to know what they were voting for! 

Anyone who has ever organised a petition, or collected signatures for one, knows that it is not an easy task and that people don't sign if they are not convinced it represents their views. An indication of how strong a message these petitions are sending to the Fire & Rescue Authority is that a higher percentage of Devon & Somerset's population signed them than the percentage of the nation's population required to have a petition debated in Parliament. The 3,818 written responses, including 94 from councils and other organisations, was exceptionally high and reflects widespread opposition to the proposed cuts.

Now I understand that Opinion Research Services want to keep their fire & rescue service customers happy. Reports that show as much public support as opposition to proposals will do that, and those with majority support will suit customers even better. So a report in which they have to admit 95% of the responses from the public oppose the proposed cuts is not what their customer, Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service, would have wanted to see. 

I don't believe their recommendations for future consultations will achieve true balance. They seem more intended to limit discussion by giving the public a one sided picture that will make them more likely to support future proposals.

It was 'Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service' that tried to fool the public with false claims and misleading information. I should add that I don't believe their communications team should take the blame, as they can only work with the information and data provided by senior management.

Many good and honest people across Devon & Somerset campaigned to ensure the public realised
 this was not about improvement, but about poorly disguised and dangerous cuts. 

They should all be proud of their efforts, they have helped safeguard lives and property.

Even more concerns after 'Safer Together' consultation live broadcast

If experienced fire service officers are confused, 

how can the public be expected to understand?

It really was depressing to listen to Sarah Allen and Joe Hassell provide inaccurate, misleading and evasive answers to questions during this broadcast. Sadly they are not the only ones, several people have reported the same problems when they asked D&SF&RS staff questions at the consultation events. 

Sarah Allen, Joe Hassell & Ellie Banner-Ball

Joe Hassell got off to a flying start by telling us that they needed to change because, “a lot of our station locations and the way our fire service was designed was essentially around the 1940s”. Not entirely accurate, but it was 1948 when most current fire station locations and fire engine allocations were first approved by the fire authorities and the Home Office.

However, his implied suggestion that things should have changed, but did not, is wrong. Since 1948, Chief Fire Officers and Fire Authorities regularly reviewed and refined arrangements, but found no justification for significant change. Inspections by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate, for nearly 60 years, and then peer reviews thereafter supported those views.

Joe Hassell was then completely inaccurate when he claimed that “the amount of fires and incidents have reduced drastically since then”, as they have significantly increased since 1948. This chart shows the national figures for dwelling fires (fires in the home) for 1951, the earliest available, and 2017/18, the latest available.

Source - Home Office records

Whilst it is true that the number of fires in the home has nearly halved in the UK since a peak in 1999, it is also true that the peak showed an increase from 1951 of over 250%! D&SF&RS claim the recent 49% reduction in dwelling fires justifies a cut in the number of fire stations and fire crews, so how big was the increase in fire stations and fire crews when there was a 250% increase? There was no increase! There are actually less fire crews now than there were in 1948. The reason is simple, there is not, and never has been, a connection between number of calls and the resources required.

"Fewer fires does not directly equal fewer firefighters. 

We provide a service dependent upon risk, not demand." 

Chief Fire Officers Association (now National Fire Chiefs Council)

Have you got direct evidence that prevention works?

Instead of answering this question from a member of the public accurately, by saying 'NO', Joe Hassell claimed, "We absolutely know that saves lives". Throughout the interview they kept telling us that their prevention work has cut the number of fires and fire deaths and that more prevention work will save more lives. That is not fact, it is wishful thinking. There is no direct evidence that prevention works.

Now I certainly hope that the prevention work I did during my service helped save lives and prevented fires, but I have no way of knowing if fires did not start, or lives were not lost, as a result of that work. What I do know, with absolute certainty, is that we did save lives at many of the fires and other emergencies we attended. 

It is clear that changes in clothing and furniture regulations, the change to safer forms of cooking, safer ways to heat our homes, and the big decrease in smoking, especially in buildings, have significantly cut the number of fires and fire deaths. They are the main reasons and they have little or nothing to do with prevention work carried out by fire & rescue services, as Sarah Allen claimed in the broadcast. 

She also said that they had been investing in community fire safety for over 20 years and proclaimed "we’ll save far more lives by doing prevention work". The statistics do not support that claim.

Tens of thousands of fire safety visits have had this effect on fire deaths in Devon & Somerset

Source - Home Office Fire and Rescue Service statistics

A lack of detailed information

We are frequently told that they are 'Reallocating resources' and 'will do more prevention', but we have not been told how much money will be reallocated for each option. We have not been given any details about how that money will be spent, which makes it impossible to judge the value of each option. It also means, if the cuts go ahead, that we won't know if the claimed prevention improvements were actually implemented.

Now according to Joe Hassell, 93% of homes now have smoke detectors. So D&SF&RS are going to close fire stations and remove fire engines, which will mean a slower response to every emergency in the areas affected, in the hope they can persuade the 7% to fit smoke detectors. That makes no sense.

A delay when your home is on fire, a delay when your business is on fire, a delay when your care home is on fire, a delay when you are trapped in a crashed car, a delay when you are trapped in machinery, a delay when you are trapped in floodwater, all in the hope that a few more people will have a smoke detector in their home.

It should be remembered that for every four fires in peoples homes in Devon & Somerset, there are two fires in other buildings, three vehicle fires, three secondary fires and twenty non-fire emergencies, such as road traffic collisions. The service rescues many more people from non-fire emergencies than they do from fires, and these all need a quick and effective response.

Inaccurate answer about statutory duty

I have to say I was astonished when Sarah Allen said, "we only have two statutory duties - to attend fires and to attend RTCs". For someone who says so much about prevention work, forgetting that prevention is a statutory duty is incredible. 

She seems to have forgotten that regulations made under the Fire & Rescue Services Act extended their duties to include a number of other non-fire emergencies. She also forgot their statutory duty in relation to all emergencies that threaten human welfare and the environment under the Civil Contingencies Act. 

Perhaps she should have read some Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority documents:

Source: Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority Corporate Plan

This extract featured in their Corporate Plan for several years and is still accurate today. Under the same heading, the Fire & Rescue Authority's responsibilities under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 were also explained. 

It was also disingenuous to suggest that they are not funded for other emergencies. Core funding from Government and Council Taxpayers is for providing a fire & rescue service and has nothing to do with specific types of emergency. They also receive additional specific funding from Government for specialist rescue work and from the ambulance service for responding to medical emergencies.

Excluding certain emergencies from the data used in the consultation, and for the modelling, appears to be a deliberate attempt by Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service to mislead the public on the real effects of their proposals.

Modelling the effect of cuts

Another ludicrous claim from Joe Hassell was that if all 85 fire appliances (there are actually 121) had a wholetime crew it would barely save any extra lives. Anyone who knows anything about the FSEC modelling will know that you could only get such a result if you entered manipulated data and/or excluded some of the results. 

Modelling in another fire & rescue service, which was properly carried out and used the full results, showed that changing a fire station from day crewing to immediate response, the opposite of what D&SF&RS propose for Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton, would on average save an extra life every four years. That is not 'barely any' and is the effect for just one fire station.

In the same fire & rescue service, modelling the effects of removing a second fire engine from an on call fire station indicated an extra 11 deaths in 100 years. Yet for a similar station, in terms of number of calls and the area's population, D&SF&RS claim just 1 extra death in 1,000 years! That information is shown on the maps in the 'Analytical Comparison of Community Impacts from Service Delivery Operating Model' document, which is supposed to be the evidence base for these cuts.

Not only does this reinforce concerns that D&SF&RS has manipulated the input or output modelling data, or perhaps both, to make the cuts appear less harmful, but it confirms that they do have station level data. Yet in their response to a Freedom of Information request for full details of extra deaths and property damage in each station area affected, D&SF&RS claim they "don't have that information".  

The modelling tool provides results down to station level, so what they mean is they don't want to release that information. Without that detail it becomes impossible for the public, or the Fire & Rescue Authority, to properly compare the impact of the cuts in each affected station area with the claimed savings.

If they are willing to risk breaching the Freedom of Information Act again,
you have to wonder how bad those results are!

Some other inaccurate, misleading, evasive and
confusing answers during the interview

There were several inaccurate and misleading claims about risk - "risk is really low", "risk is at such a low level", "low risk area", "high risk area". This demonstrates a worrying failure to understand risk. D&SF&RS repeatedly misuse the term risk when they are actually talking about the frequency of calls. The risk for anyone trapped in a fire, or trapped in car crash is just as real as it always was and it is the same wherever they are. 

"If people comment on other stations we would have to do another consultation". Not true. "You can reach a final decision that was not one of the options put forward for consultation" (Consultation guidance from leading UK law firm Mills & Reeve).

We were told that modern cars and houses are safer, but that is misleading. People still get injured and trapped in modern cars and need to be rescued. When they are seriously injured, if they are not in hospital within the 'Golden Hour', their chances of survival quickly reduce. Modern houses still burn and sometimes much more quickly.

There were over 900 fires in people's homes in Devon & Somerset last year

and at 72 of them people had to be rescued.

Reserves are "not sat there waiting for a rainy day". Wrong, that is exactly what the primary purpose of reserves is. Every responsible public body has reserves for unexpected events that may require additional expenditure. D&SF&RS may have more than they need in reserves 'for a rainy day', but the answer was misleading.

"We are trying to get more day cover". Only crazy D&SF&RS logic could make this claim when their proposals will see up to 30 less fire engines available during the day.

"Some of the suggestions are to move appliances to different locations". Misleading, only one fire engine is to be moved to a different location. Sixteen others are being permanently removed.

They were asked "How much money will be reinvested in fire safety?" Their answer avoided saying how much. None of the consultation documents give that information either. Why is that information being kept secret?

We were told that removing wholetime cover at night at Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton would result in a "slightly longer response time at night". Misleading, adding five minutes to the response time to hundreds of emergencies is not 'slightly longer' when seconds count, especially if your life or property is at risk.

We were told that the "majority of fatalities are people who can’t escape by themselves" and "vulnerable people". Instead of doing more to ensure firefighters arrive quickly enough to save them, D&SF&RS is planning to arrive more slowly. Not only immoral, but making changes you know will impact more seriously on vulnerable groups is a breach of the Equality Act.  

"Will removing rural appliances mean longer response times". Another evasive answer about their response standard, which only covers the first fire engine's arrival time. He did not mention that building fires and road traffic collisions where people are trapped need at least two fire engines. The honest answer is, removing appliances will mean even longer response times for both first and second fire engines.

We were also told that "if it was just about money" they “could have made much bigger savings in a different way.” Confusing, and it raises two important points. 

1. If they had other ways to save money, why is the public being denied the opportunity to comment on those options?

2. The law firm Mills & Reeve advise that, if there is a need to make savings, the financial position must be clearly set out. Yet we have not been told exactly how much has to be saved and how much is being reallocated. Interestingly, they add that hiding financial reasons "behind other, more palatable, reasons to change a service risks your consultation being struck down as unlawful".

This consultation is riddled with inaccurate, contradicting and misleading information, false claims and a lack of detail. This broadcast confirms that asking D&SF&RS staff questions will only result in more of the same and they will end up even more confused. I think most people would expect much better from people earning over £75,000 a year. 

On the plus side, there was one important and accurate thing mentioned by Sarah Allen. Referring to incidents she said, "we don’t know when they are going to happen or what resources they are going to need in advance”. 

That is exactly why none of the fire stations should be closed

and none of the fire engines removed.

The consultation is not fit for purpose

Senior officers and the D&SF&RS propaganda unit continue to mislead

Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service acquired that title because of their regular use of misleading information, half truths, unsubstantiated claims and for withholding important information. This consultation seems to have put those practices in to overdrive.

No evidence that more prevention will cut fires

A recent example was this response to criticism from a member of the public who was rightly concerned about the proposed cuts. The propaganda unit spokesperson said, "All of our prevention work has helped reduce fires". Stated as fact, yet there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Nationally, an earlier drop in the number of fires seems to have halted, with recent figures showing an increasing trend. The main reasons for previous reductions were safer forms of heating and cooking, less people smoking in buildings, improved standards that make materials less likely to catch fire and so on. 

The benefit of those changes has peaked, so other causes of fire continue to rise with increased population and there are some additional ones related to new technology. That is not to say that prevention work by individual fire & rescue services is unimportant, as it can improve outcomes when fires do occur, but there is nothing to suggest that it can be credited with reducing the number of fires. Latest figures for Devon & Somerset show that, despite significant prevention work in recent years, the number of fires is increasing.

Source - Home Office fire statistics

18 fires a week in people's homes across Devon & Somerset

The propaganda unit spokesperson also said, "In 2018/19 dwelling fires were at an all time low". That is simply not true. Nationally, the latest figures show that there are twice as many dwelling fires (fires in people's homes) as there were when these statistics were first recorded. It is quite ludicrous to suggest that Devon & Somerset has always had more dwelling fires than were recorded last year.

The spokesperson forgot to mention that, despite tens of thousands of home fire safety visits, the number of dwelling fires in Devon & Somerset increased in each of the previous three years. She also did not mention that in dwelling fires last year 4 people died and 246 people were injured, an increase of 14%, and people had to be rescued at 72 of those fires. 

Total fire deaths in Devon & Somerset increased from 6 to 11 last year

Source - Home Office fire statistics

D&SF&RS misrepresent their responsibilities

It also seems that D&SF&RS spokespersons have been claiming the consultation is only looking at fires and road traffic collisions, "because that is all they are funded for". More misinformation, as their funding is not related to specific incident types. They also suggest that they are only required to attend those incident types, again incorrect. 

There are two pieces of legislation that are particularly relevant, the Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004 (FRSA) and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA). Both are enabling Acts, which means that as well as setting out some specific requirements, Government Ministers are able to add additional requirements without having to change the Act. The FRSA specifically refers to Fire & Rescue Authority responsibilities in relation to fires and road traffic collisions, but it also permits them to use their resources for other emergencies. 

Government expect them to do that and refer to "all foreseeable fire & rescue related risks" in the National Framework, which provides Government's overall strategic direction to fire and rescue authorities. Minister's have been asked previously about adding specific requirements for other rescue work, such as in the event of flooding, but they say they are satisfied that fire & rescue services are doing this, so there is no need for a specific requirement. Something the Local Government Association clearly acknowledge.

The Civil Contingencies Act, which D&SF&RS conveniently fail to mention in their consultation documentation, goes further. They have to assess the risk of emergencies occurring and have plans in place to deal with them. This applies to every emergency that threatens serious damage to human welfare or the environment, including war or terrorism. Human welfare is defined in the CCA as anything that threatens loss of human life, human illness or injury, homelessness, damage to property, or disruption of key infrastructure. Much more wide ranging responsibilities than claimed by Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service.

More emergencies, not less

So, it is only co-responding, which is done on behalf of the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWASFT), that they can legitimately claim is not a requirement. It is, however, very valuable life saving work that must be considered when looking at a station's workload. Now we keep hearing from D&SF&RS that they are attending less incidents. Yet if we remove the medical incidents attended for SWASFT, the figures for the last five years indicate that incidents are in fact increasing. More evidence of the propaganda unit trying to mislead.

Source - Home Office fire statistics

Failure to understand the basics of keeping people safe

You may have seen the graph, shown below, on the Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service's Facebook page. In another attempt to mislead, the Propaganda unit suggest that as the service fail to ensure all fire engines are crewed during the day, in future they are not going to bother to crew 14 of them at all during the day. That is in addition to the 16 fire engines they plan to remove permanently.

Source - Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service

I am first of all very doubtful about the accuracy of the information in the graph.  This would certainly not be the first time that D&SF&RS has provided inaccurate or misleading information. They talk about an average fire engine availability of 92, but averages disguise worst case. I have seen evidence of less than 70 being available on occasions. The claim that they have never had more than 54 fire engines committed to incidents is also dubious. Severe weather events often see so many incidents in a short space of time that calls have to be prioritised, with less urgent calls having to wait for a fire engine to become available.

However, my biggest concern with this graph is that it reveals a failure of D&SF&RS to understand their responsibilities. 

They are not a factory that needs to match resources to orders, they are a life saving service that must provide resources to ensure that any call for help can be responded to quickly and with enough resources to deal with the emergency. There is no way of knowing when or where that next call will be, or how many resources will be required. It may be one crew for twenty minutes, it may be an incident that needs over 200 fire engines and over 1,200 firefighters to attend over a number of days.

Even if we accept the information in the graph, that would mean just 38 fire engines were available in Devon & Somerset if another call was received. Just one fire engine available for every 103 square miles, instead of the usual one for every 32 square miles is very sparse protection. If you look at the worst availability figures, that would mean just 16 fire engines left available.

Just one for every 245 square miles!

Senior D&SF&RS Officer confirms that

prevention can never replace an effective response

Finally I must thank a senior D&SF&RS officer for helping to confirm my view that response should not be cut to fund prevention. That wasn't his intention when he posted an image of this major fire, which I attended a few years ago, along with the comment,  "Tony, you know more than most that prevention is better than response".

He certainly picked the wrong incident, as more prevention work could not have stopped this fire. The fire was started deliberately, early one afternoon. What the incident graphically illustrated was how absolutely vital a prompt and effective response is. The store complied with all legally required fire safety measures, the staff were well trained on fire safety and they responded effectively to evacuate all customers and staff from the building. The fire service had maintained close liaison with the store from before it was built and continued prevention activity thereafter. Operational crews also visited regularly to ensure they were familiar with the building. 

No amount of prevention work can stop an arsonist starting a fire. In this case one that required 24 fire engines, 3 aerial appliances, 10 special appliances and over 150 firefighters to bring it under control. Dozens of other fire crews were moved to fill in the gaps left by those attending the incident and a number of other incidents had to be responded to whilst this major fire was being dealt with. An enormous demand that all fire & rescue services must be resourced to deal with, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

It has happened in Devon & Somerset and can happen again. One example was the Trago Mills fire, near Newton Abbot, which required 30 fire engines, 3 aerial appliances, 9 special appliances and 200 firefighters. It took 5 hours to get the blaze under control and firefighters remained on site for three days. 

I strongly support prevention work, but it must never be provided by

cutting resources that are there to provide a quick and effective response

Response is always the last chance

to save lives and property