Consultation document nonsense from Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service

Under the heading "Why we need to change", we are told: "With large new housing estates planned in areas such as Cranbrook near Exeter, Sherford in Plymouth and Taunton Garden Town bringing large population increases and changes, we need to respond to these changing risks."

On the face of it a reasonable point, until you realise that 
None of the proposals improve protection for these locations!

Sherford – No proposals to improve the response and protection already cut in the area

The population increase at Sherford will be about 12,500, yet they previously downgraded Plymstock and Plympton, the two nearest fire stations, from Immediate Response (firefighters work shifts on duty at the fire station) to On Call (firefighters who have other jobs and must travel to the fire station from home or work when an emergency call is received). This means it takes longer for the fire engine to respond, if they have crew available. If they don't, it means an even longer wait for a crew to arrive from another fire station. 

Latest figures show the Plympton fire engine, on average,  is not available 14% of the time and Plymstock's is not available for 13% of the time. That is equivalent to around 7 weeks each. Two fire engines and an aerial appliance were also removed from Plymouth permanently and the second fire engine at Crownhill was changed from Immediate Response to On Call. This one is not available for 25% of the time, equivalent to 13 weeks. When you realise that not available times can coincide, you realise that the wider Plymouth area can be left with just four fire engines instead of the previous nine. 

Plymouth population increased by 12,500, but less fire engines available

Taunton Garden Town – Proposals to cut the response even further

The population increase at Taunton will be nearly 30,000. One fire engine at Taunton was previously changed from Immediate Response to On Call crewing. Now they plan to completely remove one of the fire engines in Taunton, and to remove another one from Bridgwater, which is the nearest back up to the developments on the north-east side of Taunton. Incredibly they also propose to mothball the second fire engine at Wellington during the day. Wellington will be the nearest back up to the developments west of Taunton.

Taunton population increased by 30,000, but less fire engines available

Cranbrook – Proposals to cut the response even further

Now D&SF&RS will no doubt claim that moving one fire engine from Topsham to Middlemoor will improve the response to Cranbrook. Now it is true that Middlemoor is a couple of miles nearer, but there is no guarantee they will be able to recruit On Call firefighters at Middlemoor. If they do, there is no guarantee how often that fire engine will be crewed. At Topsham they have a trained crew for that fire engine and it is available nearly all the time.

The proposals also include cutting the second fire engine at Topsham, which will leave the Exeter area with just four fire engines. Previous cuts reduced that from six. It is also worth noting that the second and third crews to arrive at the Royal Clarence Hotel fire were from Topsham, as the two Immediate Response crewed fire engines were at another incident.

Exeter population increased by 18,000, but less fire engines available

You have to wonder about the credibility of those who set out why they

'have to change', but then only propose to make things worse!

First intimidation, now inducements, plus MP misled

30 less fire crews is not an improved service

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experience elsewhere shows that such promises are never 

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

Are Fire Chiefs misleading Members of Parliament?

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

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

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

Which Chief Fire Officer should we believe?

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

It will just be bad luck for those who do have

fires and other emergencies in those areas

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

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

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

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!

Deceit continues as the public protest

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

The public give their views loud and clear

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

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

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

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

Make your views known to the Fire & Rescue Authority

and your MP

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

Who can you believe?

"Resources in the wrong place"

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

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

Preparing for extra fatalities?

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

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

Money wasted on TWO Chief Fire Officers

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

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

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

Chief Fire Officer wants you to do his job for him

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

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

Residents in Devon & Somerset deserve honest answers

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

Consultation launched by Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service

The consultation is now open on their website, but beware of their claims and statements.

The Dark Art of Spin

Some examples of how Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service is trying to spin cuts as improvements, with some added responses.

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.

Office for National Statistics ignores true value of our fire & rescue services

Yesterday's report, “Activities, spending and productivity in the Fire and Rescue Services since 2009”, from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), clearly shows how distorted thinking is undermining our fire & rescue services.

They claim to be independent of politics, but the claim looks somewhat suspect when the report suggests that cuts have improved productivity. They also claim to be the “recognised national statistical institute of the UK”. Well perhaps they are competent when it comes to business statistics, but when it comes to the fire & rescue service they clearly don’t have a clue.

They apply a simplistic business test of looking at inputs (cost of provision) and outputs (quantity produced), which they perceive for fire & rescue to be operational and prevention activity. They then crudely claim, because activity cuts are not as bad as staff cuts, that productivity has improved.

Home Office figures

The fundamental schoolboy error in this approach is that fire & rescue is not a business, but a form of insurance that both reduces mishaps and disasters, and minimises their effects when they do occur. If they properly assessed outputs, they would assess the financial benefit of lives not being lost and property not being destroyed as a result of FRS activity. Sadly, something this national statistical institute appears incapable of doing.

Now it may be difficult, but proper research could identify the value of lives and property saved at incidents by the FRS. Identifying the value of lives and property saved by prevention activity, i.e. losses avoided because incidents were avoided, may be more challenging, but a “recognised national statistical institute” ought to be able to estimate this. Yet they have not even tried to do so.

The real value of the service is what is saved and prevented, not how many incidents or inspections are carried out. I have no doubt that if these fundamental outputs were properly calculated, then the service would be shown to be very productive and very good value.

Of course, that would also show that cuts to the service are counterproductive, with the cost of the consequences being much greater than the actual saving on service provision. The ONS may consider themselves to be non-political, but their inept assessment is helping austerity politicians to falsely claim damaging cuts as productivity improvements.

If the ONS want their statistics on fire & rescue to be taken seriously, then they need to properly value the full benefit that fire and rescue services contribute to public safety and the economy.