Star comment: Safety of public is the priority

The organisation has commissioned a new report to outline the difficulties it could face if a major programme of savings is imposed.

Job cuts, pension strain, relocation costs and delays leading to severe fire risks are among the issues identified by experts. And while some might question the neutrality of a report into an organisation that has been commissioned by the same organisation, salient points emerge.

While the number of fires appears to be in decline as we become a more safety conscious society that is risk averse, we must not lose sight of the organisation’s function.

It is there to serve and protect, to rescue those in need and put out fires. And while the number of fires is lower, that does not necessarily mean there should be fewer fire officers.

Our emergency services are not led by demand in the way that conventional businesses are. They are led by the capacity to respond in the case of an extreme emergency. So if, for instance, there is an explosion in Shrewsbury the service must be able to quickly deploy the resources that are required. It does not matter if such an instance happens once in a blue moon. The failure to deploy can cost lives, loss of livelihood, property or other resources. Put more simply, our emergency services must have the resources to tackle extreme situations if and when they arise.

The case of an 80-year-old man who passed out three times after a fall is illustrative. On three occasions ambulances were dispatched, only to be diverted to other calls that were a higher priority. The man was left in the street for 50 minutes and had to rely on the Good Samaritankindness of an off-duty nurse, among others.

It would clearly not be acceptable for people in burning buildings to rely on anything other than a fully-functioning fire and rescue service. The organisation must have adequate resources to respond as and when it is needed.

And so, while it is quite right that changes in use are noted, we must not be laissez faire on issues of public safety. There have been terrible human tragedies in recent times when greater resources might have led to a different outcome.

It is right to look for savings, but it would not be right to compromise public safety.