RECENTLY I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Scottish Fire & Rescue Service (SFRS), asking for details of the number of times the Retained Duty System RDS (part-time) fire engines at Gourock, Greenock and Port Glasgow were not available to attend incidents throughout Inverclyde due to a shortage of firefighter numbers.

They refused to provide the information, citing FOI rules that providing the information would take too many staff hours to gather the information requested. The question that needs to be asked is why they are so reluctant to release these crucial details to the public? What are they hiding?

The answer to that question may lie in a further FOI request that provided detail on the numbers of firefighters currently serving within Inverclyde, known as the personnel ‘Authorised Establishment’ [posts with financial funding in place] figures and the reality as they stand, is frightening!

When you analyse the FOI figures, the headlines are: The three retained stations [in total] are still 11.75 posts short, with 3.25 of the filled posts being staffed by firefighters who are deemed ‘not yet competent’ and are still in their 'development’ [training] phase.

Greenock’s retained unit does not have a Watch Commander - i.e. no officer in charge of the unit to provide managerial direction and this has to be undertaken by his/her deputies [Crew Commanders], whose own posts should be two, but currently sits under established at 1.5 posts. This presents a real danger that the overall management of the unit could be severely compromised due to the lack of direction from a Watch Commander and the required time commitment available to the Crew Commanders.

The above issue with the management of the Greenock RDS Unit is evident across all 3 RDS Units, with 3.75 of the authorised management posts remaining unfilled. Again, this for me, as a retired senior officer would be of great concern. Management posts need to be filled to the authorised level to ensure the junior officers being asked to take on the managerial function have the correct support and time availability to undertake the role in an effective manner, especially when more emphasis is being placed on the reliance of the RDS crews to attend operational incidents, with the recent loss of the Greenock appliance.

The reality is that the RDS Watch and Crew Commanders are being asked to manage their respective units, with less peer support and less time to undertake that role.

With regard to the wholetime personnel, at Greenock and Port Glasgow they are four posts short [two at each station]. Of those 39 remaining posts that are filled, a total of 12 firefighters are still ‘in development’ and are therefore not deemed fully competent. This only leaves a total of 27 firefighters across the two wholetime stations over the five watches that are deemed competent.

My observations as to whether a firefighter is deemed competent or otherwise is important, as the SFRS [during my service] had Risk Management Policies in place that required an appliance to have a minimum of 50 per cent of the personnel crewing a single fire appliance to be deemed as competent, otherwise it could not mobilise to an incident.

As I am unaware of the distribution of the competent versus development percentages for each individual watch, I am unclear whether the service can achieve and comply with this Risk Management Policy.

If this cannot be achieved due to the current percentage mix, if a firefighter is killed or injured at an incident and it is found that the SFRS breached this Risk Management Policy, they could be liable for an HSE investigation and possible prosecution.

I have heard anecdotally from previous colleagues that this policy is being breached on a regular basis. If this is indeed the case, and I have no reason to doubt otherwise, this also presents a risk to the residents of Inverclyde and the firefighters themselves.

The other issue is that what stage the firefighter is at as he/she progresses through the development pathway will determine if they are able to take on specific duties at an operational incident. This could further compromise the ability of an Incident Commander to assign the firefighter certain tasks, e.g. it would be unwise and potentially unsafe to commit two firefighters in development to work in isolation together to fight a fire.

I would add one caveat to all of this, just because a firefighter is in development does not mean that he/she cannot function safely on the incident ground, but they will clearly need closer supervision and mentoring.

Overall, the current establishment figures pose a major safety risk to both my former colleagues and the public and needs to be addressed immediately.

It is clear from the figures that the SFRS are struggling to recruit local residents to the Retained Duty System, which is a very rewarding way for local residents to support their community, but it is also a very demanding role in terms of both time and commitment.

The inability of the SFRS to fill these vacant posts will only add more unfair pressure on the current RDS firefighters to give more of their free time to support their full-time colleagues

This cannot be allowed to continue and the SFRS could go a long way to addressing this shortage by reinstating the fire engine to Greenock fire station that was removed from service last year.

Richard Duncan

Address supplied