|
Causes of the Fire Service Dispute Thursday, 10th, April David Howell
To discover the causes behind the current fire dispute, one needs to look back to the landslide Labour victory in the 1997 general election. In fact, one can go back to 1996 and the publication of their draft manifesto 'New Labour, New Life for Britain'. Tony Blair was determined that his 'new' Labour Party would not be haunted by the spectre of uncontrolled public spending which had been the downfall of the uncosted 1992 agenda. During the first years of his administration a number of White Papers were introduced paving the way for the Local Government Act 1999. This Act places a statutory obligation on Fire (and other) Authorities, to secure continuous improvement in the way they exercise their function having regard to a combination of economy and effectiveness. It is commonly referred to as the 'Best Value' programme.
At the end of that year, the Home Secretary set up an independent inquiry to look at the procedures for determining firefighters conditions of service. This came about as the direct result of a request from the Local Government Authorities (LGA) after they had failed to impose radical changes through the existing negotiating machinery. Mike O'Brien MP announced to the House of Commons that the aims of the Inquiry was to, "secure best value, fairness at work, and effective procedures for the settling of disputes". His reference to 'best value' is an early indication of the problems that were already facing the Fire Service.
The Inquiry quickly established that relations between firefighters and the Employers had become increasingly prone to conflict due to "unrelenting pressure by successive Governments to secure cost reductions". It warned that over the past decades, Fire Authorities, in response to budgetary constraints, had been "pre-occupied with the removal of fire stations and appliances". Proposals by Fire Authorities for reorganisation within the Brigades had led to a loss of 1500 jobs between 1997 to 1999. Consequently, many Brigades were already operating at no more than the minimum levels of fire cover required by the Fire Services Act 1947.
Under the 1947 Act, Fire Authorities may not close fire stations or take an appliance out of service without approval from the Deputy Prime Minister, who will not give it unless HM Inspector of Fire Services is satisfied that the minimum standards of fire cover will be maintained. These statutory prescriptions mean that Fire Authorities have rather less freedom than their counterparts in other sectors of local government to manage resources so as to reduce costs. However, the Government Audit Commission has shown the Fire Service to be the top performing public service, consistently achieving notably high levels of efficiency. Consequently, many Chief Fire Officers have little scope to either improve efficiency or reduce costs as they are required under the Governments Best Value scheme.
Since wages account for approximately 85% of the total Fire Authorities budget, it would seem obvious that any attempt to reduce costs would involve a reduction of the workforce. Subsequently, any such reduction in the number of firefighters would also entail a reduction in the number of fire stations and appliances. In order to make this possible, the Government now intends to remove the two measures which have maintained the integrity of the Fire Service for over half a century - section 19 of the 1947 Act and the nationally established minimum levels of fire cover.
The Government has used the firefighters pay claim as a smokescreen to achieve its unspoken political agenda. It has used disinformation and deceit to create the impression that this dispute is the fault of a greedy and intransigent trade union when, in fact, it is they who have refused to compromise. Despite Mr Prescott's exhortations to 'talk not walk', the successive 'final' offers that have been made have shown no significant improvement on previous offers. The latest offer claims to yield 16% over three years but fails to disclose that the long service increment, which firefighters receive after 15 years, will be withdrawn under the proposed new deal. This would in effect reduce the pay rise to only 10% over three years for almost half the workforce. Hardly the openness and transparency that the Government advocates for the modern Fire Service.
The LGA have consistently claimed that any offer they make must be seen as a package, that it is the conditions attached that will fund any pay increase. Yet most of these changes relate only to the removal of firefighters rights of resorting to legitimate channels of industrial arbitration. They yield no financial savings. When asked which of these conditions would lead to actual savings, a spokesperson for the LGA said that savings would only accrue from a "gradual and consistent reduction in the workforce".
There do not appear to be any valid reasons why any pay offer must be seen as a self-financing package, other than as a precursor of a reduction in the number of firefighters.
Mr Prescott has implied that if the FBU continued to be obstructive and accept the need for increased flexibility, he would be forced to repeal section 19. This again, is clearly misleading, since section 19 relates to the Governments obligation to ensure the provision of prescribed standards of fire cover rather than conditions of service. The 1999 Inquiry stated that there was ample evidence of negotiated local arrangements which were different from those laid down in the national scheme. Many Brigades carry defibrillators and some, like Devon are already acting as co-responders, Community Fire Safety schemes are the rule rather than the exception and whole-time and retained firefighters regularly work together. All Brigades in the Governments Pathfinder Trials reported that the existing conditions of service did not restrict 'modernisation' but that the requirements of section 19 would hinder the process of closing fire stations.
The repeal of section 19 and the reduction of jobs are specifically aimed at boosting the viability of the Best Value scheme. If the Fire Service were to show that there was little scope for further improvement in efficiency and no legitimate financial savings to be made year on year, it would be a major embarrassment for the Government.
The question of public safety has been thrown in almost as an afterthought in an attempt to lend justification to the Governments actions. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that Integrated Risk Management can offer ways to reduce the number of fire-related deaths and injuries. The FBU already supports many of these initiatives and firefighters have been putting various schemes into practice for a number of years. However, no-one can seriously believe that safety will be improved by reducing the number of firefighters.
If the 'modern' Fire Service requires flexibility, then it requires good will and co-operation on both sides. Threatening to cut jobs and impose settlements on the firefighters is hardly likely to foster such co-operation. Mr Prescott has huffed and puffed but the firefighters remain resolute. Despite all his bluff, Mr Prescotts back is against the wall: he must realise that although he can lead a horse to water he cannot make it fight fires. Firefighting is not some production line, firefighters do not go in when everyone else is running the other way on the basis of an imposed 'settlement'. The men and women of the Fire Service do what they do because they are dedicated and committed. They will continue to do so regardless of what politicians try to dictate. However, the day-to-day running of the Fire Service depends on the good will of firefighters; in one Brigade, the Audit Commission estimated that 17% of the total work was based on good will. That good will is rapidly running out.
It is time that Mr Prescott and the Employers realised that the way forward is together. There has been too much imposition and dogmatism throughout this whole dispute. There is much to be made up and many fences to mend, it is a time for respect and dignity, for until these qualities are forthcoming from both sides, no-one will benefit.
Thursday 6th February David Howell
Although a majority of the British public have expressed their opposition to war with Iraq, we can only stand helplessly by as the war machine grinds on to its inevitably conclusion. Mr Blair and Mr Bush warn us about the 'evil ones' who would inflict harm upon us. How much more so if we if we launch an attack on Iraq, for it will not be Mr Hussein who suffers but innocent men, women and children.
Under the circumstances, we would do well to expect an escalation of terrorist activity in our own country. Acts of terrorism can no more be condoned than the attack on Iraq. Nonetheless, it would be wise to anticipate the possibility of such retaliation. Obviously the Government are well aware of this for they have put measures in place to contain the effects of chemical or biological attacks. They have fine sounding names - 'New Dimension', UK resilience, they have 'pods', 'modules' - but there has been very little details about these schemes. Perhaps this is because the truth is more like 'Dad's Army' than it is hi-tech.
The truth is that in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack the Government have handed responsibility for 'mass decontamination' to the Fire Service. This is the same Fire Service that they would have us believe has refused to embrace any form of modernisation since the last ice age. In fact, they have not so much handed over responsibility as passed the buck. Firefighters have not been consulted at any time as to whether they are willing to undertake this arduous role. Firefighters have not yet been trained in any of the special procedures which the public have been led to expect. They certainly have not been paid to undertake these duties.
What the Government expect fire crews to do in the event of such an attack, is to drive into the contaminated areas, park two fire engines side by side, place a ladder between them and then dangle a hose-reel in the middle. That is a 'mass decontamination' unit.
It is something straight out of Dad's Army, except that this is deadly serious. The Government have already acknowledged that firefighters attending such incidents may face dangers from secondary devices or 'undetected perpetrators trying to escape' as well as possible public disorder. What they do not warn fire crews about is the threat from their own Government. They are ready to volunteer them for hazardous duty but no so ready to provide adequate training or equipment. Each fire appliance carries only two gas-tight, chemical protection suits with a working duration of twenty minutes. Yet each fire appliance will crewed by four or five firefighters.
If that is what they wanted me to do, I would be asking for a lot more than £30k. I would expect a little more respect than the Government and the media have shown so far. Above all, I would expect the courtesy of being trained and equipped to a degree that would allow me some chance of coming out alive. I would also want to be very sure that my pension scheme was securely in place.
'New Dimension'. is a phrase coined to reflect the extent which the potential to inflict mass destruction has escalated. It does not reflect our ability to respond. Ask any firefighter.
|
