Examination of Witnesses (Questions 282-299)
11 NOVEMBER 2003
SIR JEREMY
BEECHAM AND
KEN KNIGHT
Q282 Chairman: Can I welcome you
both to the Committee and ask you to formally identify yourselves
for the record, please.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Jeremy Beecham,
Chairman of the Local Government Association.
Mr Knight: Ken Knight. I am an
LGA advisor.
Q283 Chairman: Do you want to say
anything by way of introduction or are you happy for us to go
straight to questions?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Could I, very
briefly, say that the LGA warmly welcomes the thrust of the White
Paper. We are sure that it is right now to set the Service in
the context appropriate for the 21st century rather than circumstances
prevailing in 1947 and, indeed, the previous predatory attentions
of the Luftwaffe which rather dictated the shape of the Service
and the way it has been carried out. We are confident that the
right way to proceed is on the basis of locally assessed risk
and processes to deal with that. The Service should be much more
geared to preventative work and liaise very closely with other
emergency services, and the cultural changes—which you have
just been asking about—should be promoted and we should
have a service which is more widely representative of the community
that it serves.
Q284 Mr Cummings: The recent pay
settlement between the FBU and the employers has again been the
subject of high profile media attention. Can you tell the Committee
why has the settlement been such a mess? Who do you believe is
at fault? Yourselves? The Employer's Organisation? The Audit Commission?
It is a matter of grave national concern.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I think you
left out one possible party in that list, if I may say so. I do
not think blame is the appropriate avenue to pursue, but I think
it has been very clear since the agreement was signed in June
that the whole deal depended on two things. First, progress on
negotiations around issues like the overtime ban and so forth;
and second—and crucially, and this has been the theme right
from the beginning of the process last year, almost exactly a
year ago—verification of delivered improvements at local
level by the Audit Commission. That was explicitly referred to
in the June agreement. We believed it was properly understood
by the Union and I was present at a meeting on 5 August with colleagues
and other representatives of the Union in which it was made clear
that the process had to be satisfactorily implemented and that
it would be unlikely—given the late starting date of all
this—that by 7 November the Audit Commission would be in
a position to verify anything. Indeed, the deal specifically referred
to a figure of 7% being payable from—not on—7 November.
That was followed up by a joint circular, signed by the joint
secretaries—that is the Union General Secretary and Mr Nolda
representing the Employers—on 18 September, again making
it very clear that the verification was a pre-requisite, that
it would be unlikely to be available by November; that, as often
has been the case in the past, there would be an element of backdating
as from the date when, in this case, the verification actually
occurred. I understand that there was correspondence between the
Union and the Deputy Prime Minister at the beginning of October
in which a request was made that, in the light of good progress
on negotiations, in effect that the 7% should be payable at the
beginning of November, which clearly suggests that the Union were
aware that that was very much in issue. It was, to put it mildly,
a surprise when, towards the end of October, when the Employers
went beyond what was required of them by the agreement and said
they would put 3½% on the table on account—providing
that the agreement had been reached—with the rest to be
backdated, that this was somehow regarded as provocative. It was
not; on the contrary. Judging by the comments that one has seen
in the Press I fear that a minority of people on the Trade Union
side—I am not speaking here of the Executive, I am speaking
of lay members—are perhaps seeking the opportunity to re-open
the whole issue and sabotage the deal. I do not think that has
been the Union leadership's position, but some of their members
may have had that aspiration. From our point of view it has been
clear all along and we are as anxious as any people on the Union
side that the 7% should be paid. However it must be—and
always has been—subject to that verification by the Audit
Commission. As yet, of course, there is no agreement never mind
any material progress on the ground that can be measured.
Q285 Mr Cummings: Do you believe
the Employer's Organisation is equipped to deal with the sophistication
of negotiations?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: This issue
did come to a head about this time last year and it is agreed
that we do need to refine the way we do things not just, I may
say, in relation to the Fire Service. We are also making changes
in the rest of the local government negotiating machinery.
Q286 Mr Cummings: Where do you see
the problem lying, Sir Jeremy?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I think the
difficulty that we have in local government in a sense is that
we tend to be almost too representative. We have to balance a
whole range of views. We have elaborate machinery to do that and
with the pressure of events—as we saw a year ago—it
is often inadequate and too cumbersome to allow for swift decision
making. We need more trust, if you like, given to the negotiators
to proceed in the context where the policy is clearly identified
in advance. I think we are moving in the right direction, but
I would have to say that here—as in other areas—the
machinery is now outdated and does need overhauling.
Q287 Mr Cummings: When is it going
to be sorted?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: It is in the
process of being sorted on the Employer's side now. We are trying
to get that put together. I think the Union is also seized of
the need to improve the machinery. It is on-going as we speak.
Q288 Chairman: When?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I would have
thought it would be sorted on our side within a couple of months.
Mr Knight: Meetings are taking
place today with all parties, including the other trade unions
to be involved in new NJC arrangements, being chaired by Rees
Donohue of ACAS. Those meetings are taking place as we speak in
order to have a speedy resolution to a new NJC arrangement.
Q289 Mr Clelland: Sir Jeremy mentioned
that Mr Cummings had missed out one possible party to the list
he read out. On that basis, does Sir Jeremy regard the Government's
intervention as helpful or unhelpful; wise or unwise; necessary
or unnecessary? What lessons does he think can be learned for
the future in these types of negotiations?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Can I ask
which intervention?
Q290 Mr Clelland: The Government's
part.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Overall?
Q291 Mr Clelland: Yes. If you think
the Government should have a part.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: It should
certainly have a part. We pressed the Government over a year ago
to move in order to create a new framework within which the Service
could be developed. We needed new legislation and we suggested
a year last July a commission to look into the pay issue because
we were getting absolutely nowhere in terms of negotiations. Eventually,
of course—as we now know—the Commission was established,
the FBU declined to take part and matters then ran on. At one
stage I think there was a temptation for some people to blame
the Government for the breakdown. I do not think that was a reasonable
interpretation. Since that time the Government's role has been
entirely constructive and we welcome most of the provisions of
the White Paper. There are areas where we perhaps have some disagreement
or wish them to go further, but the Government is certainly now
on the right lines and they are making available £32 million
of transitional money to facilitate the process because the savings
will not accrue immediately from some of the changes that are
now being contemplated at local level.
Q292 Chris Mole: We have had a number
of submissions to this inquiry along the lines that "Our
brigade is already doing a lot of this preventative type of work".
Are the changes in the White Paper really such a big deal or are
a lot of the brigades and authorities already doing a lot of this?
Or is it that they are doing it in part but not doing it generally?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: It is a very
variable picture. Some brigades have made considerable advances.
In the north east the Tyne and Wear service is generally reckoned
to be much advanced along the White Paper route, but the critical
issue is getting away—as you have just heard again—from
nationally prescribed procedures and standards and going onto
something which is based on a proper local assessment of risk.
That is fundamental. Equally, on things like co-responding, the
practice varies in terms of the use of defibrillators, for example,
for cardiac victims. In some brigades firefighters will use equipment
and in others they will not. The Union policy, as I understand
it, is that they should not. We do need to advance significantly
along a number of these issues and the White Paper, when enacted,
will provide the statutory framework which will facilitate that
and bring, hopefully, all brigades up to the standards of the
best and even perhaps allow the best more flexibility to address
needs properly.
Q293 Chris Mole: If the scope for
improvement is significant—as the White Paper suggests—then
do you feel you are starting with the right building blocks in
terms of the people and resources the services have in order to
take on these new roles of fire and rescue?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: In some respects
yes. The new system which is competence led should certainly facilitate
that. We also welcome the notion that people might be recruited
from outside and, reflecting back on some of the questions that
were put to previous witnesses, it does seem that that may be
helpful. I do not know if one wants to get into the position of
accountants running the Fire Service or, perhaps, anything else,
but I recall giving evidence to the Public Administration Committee
and hearing the Chief Executive of the Staffordshire Ambulance
Service giving very compelling evidence of how that Service had
changed very significantly. The interesting thing was that he
had come to that Service from the Army, not from the Health Service
at all. I think there is the potential to refresh recruitment
at all levels of a service and perhaps help change the culture.
Q294 Chris Mole: I think you touched
on the next aspect, which is whether the authorities themselves
within local government are going to cope with this change and
equip themselves to direct, evaluate and make key decisions around
the Integrated Risk Management Planning. That is going to be a
difficult task. If you look at doing a standards of fire cover
review it is like doing a lot of those all at once. Is the capacity
there amongst your members?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: It will need
developing just as national standards of fire cover provided a
kind of safety blanket for fire officers and no doubt authorities,
so the existence of a national pay formula obviated the necessity
for any great consideration about issues around pay and therefore
the potential for change has never been perhaps as high in this
Service as in others and again that requires a cultural change
in the attitudes of members. There will need to be more training
of members, more support for members, but perhaps because the
task is likely to become more challenging it should therefore
attract more interested members able to take a fresh look at this
Service.
Q295 Chris Mole: Is that something
which will be led through the Improvement and Development Agencies?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Yes.
Q296 Chris Mole: You could consider
that an underlying factor of government policy has been expressed
through the operational standards but they rather drag resources
away from the right places. Is that a view that you would share?
Do you think there is a risk in changing that rather too quickly
before some of the preventative approaches have been proven?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I think each
brigade has to look at its own local circumstances. You will have
heard evidence from London, for example, and you have just heard
evidence about the situation in Birmingham where it is clear that
the standards that are currently operating do not reflect need
or risk. That has to be changed in any event. I think that is
an absolutely fundamental change which will allow better use of
existing resources and facilitate the greater drive on the preventative
side. Having said that, I do think we need more from Government—if
I might say so—on the preventative side as well. There is
an apparent reluctance to press on with changes in building regulations
to promote perhaps the use of sprinkler systems in new buildings,
and so on. I would like to see it a requirement for all tenanted
property, for example, to have smoke alarms. That is not of course
in itself a sufficient measure, but it would certainly be helpful.
A number of authorities—including my own—are installing
smoke alarms free of charge in all council properties. This could
be extended to all rented properties, I suggest. There are measures
like that which need to complement the day to day activities of
the Service in terms of prevention.
Q297 Mr Betts: You touched on the
issue of resources and some of the fire authorities have sent
evidence to us and have basically said that the Government is
asking them to do more, particularly in the non-fire emergencies,
therefore they need more resources. I suppose the other way of
looking at it is, are the fire services now being asked to do
a different job so perhaps resources will be spent differently
and maybe there will have to be re-allocation between authorities
accordingly. Is more money actually needed or is it a matter of
looking to see how it is spent?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: There is likely
to be some more money needed initially. For example, if you are
going to encourage co-responding and the use of defibrillators
you have actually got to provide the equipment and there is a
cost to that. If you are going to establish joint control rooms,
perhaps on a regional basis or jointly with other services—and
I think the general feeling now is a more regional basis rather
than necessarily linking to police and ambulance services—that
is going to involve capital investment in terms of specialist
equipment. There is some up-front money needed. Over time it is
estimated that other changes will lead to some significant savings.
If you rationalise control room operations, for example, there
will be a saving there. There will be a saving on the new risk
based basis if you equate the manpower on duty with the actual
risks. It will take time to build up. The Baine forecast leads
to £165 million annual savings in the third year, and that
is where the transitional money will come in. The other aspect
of the current arrangement, of course, is that retained firefighters
are—perhaps not before time—being properly recognised
in the pay structure and there is obviously a differential impact
on the finances of authorities which are more heavily dependent
on retained firefighters than full time fire fighters (that is
in mostly rural areas). It is partly a question of investing to
save and better, more efficient management of the resources which
ought not necessarily lead overall—after the transitional
period—to the need for larger resources. Of course this
is critically dependent on the Risk Management Plans; that is
the cornerstone of the whole exercise.
Q298 Mr Betts: One of the issues
that we have to explore is the possibility of charging for some
services. I think the LGA has generally come out against, with
the exception of maybe looking at the contribution the insurance
companies might make in the case of road traffic accidents. The
other issue is perhaps advisory services; you might be prepared
to look at some charging there. Do you want to say any more about
your attitude to charging?
Sir Jeremy Beecham: I think that
this is perhaps worth looking into in a bit more detail, particularly
the issue of false alarms which is sometimes difficult for a fire
service itself to cope with. It may be—and I speak entirely
personally here—that there are areas where financial incentives
or, to put it another way, disincentives might lead to some improvement.
However, we do not see charging as a major factor in the financial
equation.
Q299 Chairman: What about getting
cats out of trees? That can be quite expensive on occasions.
Sir Jeremy Beecham: Yes. I am
not sure how many firefighters actually spend their time shinnying
up trees.
| 
