Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
4 NOVEMBER 2003
MR ANDY
GILCHRIST, MS
RUTH WINTERS
AND MR
MIKE FORDHAM
Q200 Mr Betts: Do you want to express
some of your concerns? I think one of them has probably been about
the timescales for implementation. Perhaps you feel that the dispute
acted as a bit of a catalyst to get some change through, and it
may be being a bit rushed now and done too quickly. Is that a
fair summary?
Mr Gilchrist: I think the description
of a "catalyst" is a bit kind. There is an approach
that was tried back in 2001 (because this is not an unfamiliar
process—the development of a White Paper) and that sought
to be what we would describe as both evidence based, incremental,
inclusive and seemed to have a step-by-step approach about reforming
of the Service. What you need to remember is that you start from
the basis of an extremely professional and exceedingly high-performing
Fire Service in the United Kingdom so therefore reform, change,
modernisation, whatever you wish to call it, needs to be done
on this basis. This is not something that needs tearing apart
and starting from scratch. When you go on to the approach in this
White Paper (and how we got to that we can discuss somewhere else,
perhaps) I think it is about the expectations of speed of progress
which are of concern. It is not hidden there, and there are number
of references to what we would see as a move to a more centrally
driven Fire Service, but we have got concerns, therefore, about
local democracy, about the delivery locally of the Fire Service
and so on and so forth. They are the two key issues: one is about
speed, and one is the over-centralisation proposed for the future.
Q201 Mr Betts: Another issue, the
integrated Risk Management Plans. You may have suggested you are
concerned, at a time when the Fire Service is taking on more and
more responsibilities, that these will be a way of cutting the
expenditure involved. A lot of people might say they are
a way of redistributing existing resources to actually provide
a better service with the same resources. Could you elaborate
on that?
Mr Gilchrist: I think the first
thing to say is that we broadly support the risk based approach—the
future of fire cover. Again, we have concerns about how it is
being approached inside the White Paper, and that is about the
lack of pilots or tests to see if these proposals work. It is
also about not including the people at the right occasions to
see if things can be tested properly. Your point about whether
the whole business about the risk based approach is about cuts—there
are people in very senior positions in the Fire Service who have
made it quite clear publicly that that is what the intention is.
With the increase in workload and responsibilities of the Fire
Service, and also the very real future problems of the Fire Service
in terms of wide-scale flooding which now seems to be an annual
event and, of course, the increased risk from international terrorists,
I think this is not the time to be looking for cutting the numbers
of firefighters and fire officers across the United Kingdom. There
is a good example here in London where just to meet the increased
risk in terms of terrorism the London Fire Service is planning
to increase the number of firefighters in its establishment.
Q202 Mr Betts: Do you accept there
are some areas of the Service where maybe resources could be reduced
and put to better use elsewhere?
Mr Gilchrist: We accept the risk
based approach. As long as what is proposed is on the basis of
increased safety to the public and increased safety to the firefighter
and fire officers then we would obviously look at that very positively.
As I say, we have got very senior figures inside the Fire Service—
Q203 Mr Betts: Would you like to
name them?
Mr Gilchrist: No, I am not going
to name them here. They will speak for themselves. We have got
plenty of evidence people are saying this is an exercise where,
yes, they can make significant savings by cutting the number of
firefighters. That is not a risk based approach to the future
of fire cover—that is something else.
Mr Fordham: Could I just give
an example of our concern in that. There is a lot of effort and
publicity going into the issue of smoke detectors in the home
which is an issue we support, it is a good safety measure; but
to actually make the change to the response before you have found
out what the impact of installing those smoke detectors is, is
actually a danger. Some evidence exists out there which actually
says the effect of the smoke detector in the home does not have
the effect that some people in theory thought it might have because
of where they are sited, the sort of homes they have been fitted
in etc.
Q204 Chairman: Can I just be clear.
We have had evidence that if the smoke detector is wired- in and
is not battery controlled, or if it is battery controlled with
a battery that last ten years it is pretty effective. If, on the
other hand, you leave it to the general public to replace the
batteries then a very high proportion of supposed smoke detectors
do not work. Are you saying that even when they are wired in or
they have 10-year batteries still the performance of them is not
that good?
Mr Fordham: The wired-in one and
the 10-year battery are two different arguments. The wired-in
has definitely got advantages to it. The 10-year battery still
does not stop somebody taking the battery out and actually make
the alarm ineffective. The point we are making is, until the results
of that are seen so you can see it is having the results people
are at the moment guessing it will have, you should not actually
make an alteration to the response. Test it first.
Q205 Chairman: We do not have that
evidence?
Mr Fordham: No.
Q206 Chris Mole: Although you are
broadly supportive of the approach in the White Paper, you have
just said you support the risk based assessment approach. Are
your members on the ground going to be happy with what this means
for them?
Mr Gilchrist: I think again any
historical look at the Fire Service shows that, where firefighters
are convinced (either by their fire officers, managers, employers
and those that work around the Service) that changes in the Service
are necessary to improve service delivery (i.e. better procedures
for cutting people out of vehicles on motorways etc or a new process
of delivering fire prevention, or community fire safety as we
now call it) and the evidence is there, the change has occurred.
Because of the very nature of the Fire Service, firefighters and
emergency fire control staff have to be flexible, have to have
initiative and have to recognise that the world around them changes
within which they deliver the service. The evidence is before
you. I repeat this often, but it is not an accident that we have
got the finest Fire Service in the world—it is because of
that flexibility.
Q207 Chris Mole: There are going
to have to be some very difficult decisions that Chief Fire Officers
will meet and Fire Authorities are going to have to make
about fire cover provision, crewing arrangements and the balance
of operational and preventative work. These have got to be negotiated
locally very often. Do you think there is sufficient commitment
from your members at the grass roots to making this happen, or
are they going to be popping up with their local paper arguing
for a pile of bricks and a shiny red vehicle in every town of
more than 10,000 population?
Mr Gilchrist: The end part of
your question I think is extremely unfair and is unnecessary,
with respect. We have never argued that position. What I think
is important in the new process—
Q208 Chris Mole: I am not suggesting
the FBU have, but some of your members?
Mr Gilchrist: I do not know. I
have been around firefighters for an awfully long time and I have
not heard anyone make that case. The point you make is important
in relation to how these changes, should they be necessary, are
going to come about. As we understand it, it is implicitly written
that the IRMP is open for full consultation and we will be involved
in that process; if a Risk Management Plan equals some significant
change in the structure or the way in which the Fire Service is
delivered then, of course, it needs to be discussed properly and
openly with the Fire Brigades' Union locally. I have no reason
to think that will not happen. We will only have a difficulty
if, as I have said, we determine through a professional analysis
(because our representatives are the people who do the job) that
in fact this does not improve the safety of the public or does
not enhance the safety of the firefighters and fire officers themselves.
I do not see the rather gloomy analysis that your question implies.
Q209 Christine Russell: Could I ask
Ruth a question about the macho culture that there is in the Fire
Service. Do you accept that it does exist? Do you accept that
it deters women perhaps from joining the Service? Is the Union
supportive of trying to make the Service more diverse and more
appealing to not only women but to ethnic groups and ethnic minorities?
Ms Winters: The Fire Brigades'
Union has always, as we would argue, been at the forefront of
change in the Fire Service in terms of equality. The HMI `s own
report into the Fire Service in equality actually said that we
were the main body who pushed for change in equality. There is
no doubt there is a macho culture in the Fire Service. I also
think there is a macho culture in a lot of other places. It could
be Parliament, it could be in the military, it could be in the
Police Force, it could be anywhere. It is a macho culture we have
got and we have tried to change. Our own women's committee, black
and ethnic committee and gay and lesbian committee have been working
extremely hard, which is why they are extremely disappointed
at the disappearance of the Equal Opportunities Task Group at
the moment. Because of the changes proposed, the CFBAC disappearing,
they are not quite sure where they are going to fit, and how much
priority is going to be given to equality any more. They would
argue, as people who work and myself who worked in the Fire Service,
it is all very well having nice statements on equality but you
do have to change things. One of the batons that has been used
to beat our working patterns and shift practices is the fact that
it is not conducive to equality. An all-women's committee in particular,
talking about family friendly working, have actually put in writing
and documented their own evidence to say that is actually one
of the most family friendly shift patterns that most have ever
come across, and a lot of women have worked in other industries
before going into the Fire Service.
Q210 Christine Russell: The Union
has concerned over what may happen to shift patterns?
Ms Winters: Absolutely.
Q211 Christine Russell: You genuinely
you think it could become less family friendly?
Ms Winters: We deny or do not
accept the criticism that the present shift system—the two
days/two nights shift system—has been a deterrent to family
friendly working. What we have done is put in papers to the CFBAC
and others to push for proper family friendly working, proper
child care. Job share actually does exist. I think it was said
in somebody's evidence that job share does not exist in the Fire
Service—it does; it just does not exist for firefighters.
It exists for emergency fire control staff and works very well.
Q212 Chairman: Could it be extended
easily to firefighters?
Ms Winters: Yes, it is certainly
our view that it could be extended. There are obviously logistical
issues we have to get round, but we have done that in the control
rooms.
Q213 Christine Russell: Can I move
on to ask you what you think about the suggested changes to the
negotiations framework because there obviously has been considerable
criticism in the past that the FBU has been too dominant and perhaps
the voices of the other organisations within the Service have
not been heard?
Ms Winters: In our evidence the
very first paragraph tells you how many people we represent. We
represent almost all of the emergency fire control staff in the
UK Fire Service; I think there is only possibly two control rooms
we do not, one of which is London. We represent the vast majority
of retained firefighters and the vast majority of whole time firefighters.
Q214 Christine Russell: What percentage
of the retained are members?
Ms Winters: Our membership is
11,790; and nationally I believe the number is about 70% which
we represent. The point is, we see that with that much representation
we should be involved in every single level. Whether people like
what we say when we are there or not, we should be involved in
every single level in every forum that discusses the emergency
service having an effect on public safety and the safety of our
members when they are working in that service.
Q215 Christine Russell: Do you support
the proposal contained in the White Paper to scrap the current
discipline regulations and replace them with the ACAS best practice
guidance? What are your views on that?
Ms Winters: On equality we have
said in the past that the discipline regulations themselves, and
the fact that they are statutory, is not the problem. The issue
is a militaristic system can be easily changed. A lot of militaristic
style is about the guidance. The fact there is no charge in there
for harassment, bullying or whatever, actually we pushed for an
extra charge to be put in there but it was the employers' side
that did not want that at the time. We say there is no reason
why that cannot stay, but there is no reason why it cannot amended.
Q216 Christine Russell: What concerns
have you got over the future of industrial relations within the
Service beyond the immediate issue?
Mr Gilchrist: Can we do that later!
Seriously, I think the whole approach is somewhat at odds with
what I understand to be the Government's approach, which is one
of social partnership, which is one of a partnership of equals
and about engaging people in something they can actually feel
is credible. When you see in the paper it talks about the new
industrial relations machinery and the framework will be effectively,
if not agreed, forced through, then that is an interesting way
to suggest the social partners can reach agreement. The fact we
are going to move back from a single table bargaining position
to a multi-tiered or multi-table approach—so once we force
through the arrangements we want if you do not agree to them anyway
then we are going to set limits to what you can talk within about
pay or conditions; and just in case that is not enough what we
will do is have the Fire Services Bill (which is proceeding merrily
through the parliamentary process) so that we can impose almost
anything we like with regard to any particular Fire Service agenda.—I
do not think that is in keeping with what the Government says
it sees as the future of employer/employee relationships. I have
no problem with what we understand as robust and firm exchanges
of views, but ultimately people understand you have to reach agreements
about whatever the issues are before you. Inside of that, it does
seem to me again there is a big emphasis here on centralising
what will be, one, the framework you work in and, two, the things
you talk about; and ultimately we are going to agree, by the way,
the things you are going to agree. I do not see that as looking
forward to a rosy future.
Q217 Christine Russell: If you had
been in the room earlier you would have heard previous witnesses
saying that prolonged industrial disputes mean that inevitably
the Service cannot reach its performance indicators and all that
as envisaged. What is your comment from that?
Mr Gilchrist: Are you talking
about the last industrial dispute. You are not suggesting there
have been a lot of these things, are you?
Q218 Christine Russell: In the future?
Ms Winters: That was the first
one in 25 years.
Mr Gilchrist: I am not predicting
in the rest of 2003-04 necessarily there needs to be protracted
industrial disputes. What I am saying is, if you give people a
proper and grown-up industrial relations machinery within which
people can feel they can have robust exchanges of views but then
come to agreement, they have a much better chance, it seems to
me, of bedding in the Service for the future than something which
people think is a bit theatrical, because at the end of the day
the Fire Services Bill or, indeed, the terms of reference which
have been set externally, are already determining the outcome.
I do not see that as being attractive to anybody inside the Service.
The employers can speak for themselves, but I cannot see them
enjoying that either.
Mr Fordham: I think there is another
side to that as well, and that is the consultative machinery that
is replacing the CFBAC. In our view, that has been a very good
example of a partnership approach. You start with many issues
over many years, and recently people have tried to use it as an
excuse for progress that has not been made but there are arguments
as to why some of that progress has not been made. It was put
to us by the ODPM not very long ago in early August (and the line
basically was), "Unless we have your prior agreement to whatever
we want to do, then you are not part of this process". It
literally got down to saying, "You're within the tent, or
not within the tent". What has been said to the FBU, for
instance on Integrated Risk Management, is "Because we read
occasionally you're not happy with parts of it, we are not actually
going to involve you into that process". That is not a way
of making industrial relations better, because ultimately the
problem will come and then we will be back to pursuing it either
locally or nationally where the FBU have got to take some other
form of action because it impacts on our members' safety, for
instance. Breaking down of the partnership approach, both in industrial
relations terms, direct negotiation and the consultative process,
is probably the most dangerous part of the White Paper.
Q219 Chris Mole: People have felt
that national agreements have been achieved but then have not
been delivered locally. You refer to only one dispute in 25 years
but there have been a number of significant local disagreements?
I can think of the Essex one not so long back.
Mr Gilchrist: The Essex one was
an issue (and the public of Essex seemed to support every single
firefighter and emergency fire control staff in this) about an
unsafe proposal for the future of fire cover in Essex. That is
why that dispute occurred. When you say "a number of disputes",
there was a problem in Essex, there was a problem in Merseyside—
| 
