Marauding terrorist firearms attack (MTFA) - securing national agreement

At a meeting on 8th and 9th May 2013, the Fire and Rescue Service leads on
‘Marauding Terrorist and Firearms Attack’ MTFA, representatives of the Office of
Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) and lead FBU representatives discussed
significant issues that still require progress. At this latest meeting the fire and rescue
service leads were emphatic that they genuinely wish to actively engage with the FBU
with a view to reaching agreement. However, they were equally emphatic that
because of the security imperatives of government that they will proceed with their
plans for fire service MTFA activity even if such agreement cannot be reached with the
Union. These matters were considered by the FBU’s MTFA working group on 10th
May and then discussed with relevant national officials at the weekend immediately
preceding Conference. Having received a report on these issues the Executive
Council feels that Conference has no other opportunity to ensure that the Executive
Council is acting in accordance with the wishes of Conference on the issue of MTFA
other than to do so now. The Executive Council feels therefore that it is vital that this
Conference should, and would want to, consider the implications for our policies at
the earliest opportunity given this unhelpful development. The Executive Council is
also mindful that the issue of fire and rescue service involvement in MTFA has never
formally been considered in detail by Conference, the supreme government of the Fire
Brigades Union.

To this end the Executive Council recommends the following to our Conference in
2013.

The aim is to best inform members of the issues involved, to pursue satisfactory
national agreements and in the meantime to agree a policy position reflective of the
current situation to protect the union from the potential implications of MTFA
involvement until such time as satisfactory, national agreements are achieved. In
cognisance of what remains a fluid and on-going issue, Conference agrees that as
and when these matters are satisfactorily addressed the measures within this policy
position may be amended by the Executive Council.

Conference will be aware of the UK government’s intention for the Fire and Rescue
Service to have an increased role at incidents referenced as acts of MTFA. A similar
aspiration is held by the governments in the three devolved administrations. The
initiative was prompted by a number of events in the UK and abroad including
Mumbai, Cumbria and the Northumbria Police Force Area.

Their intention is for the Fire and Rescue Service to deal with casualties and fires in
the ‘warm zone’ at such incidents.

The broad definitions of the zones can be described thus:

Cold zone – all areas where there has been no terrorist activity and is unlikely
to become exposed;

Warm zone – an area in which there is no terrorist activity or threat from
terrorists, but is an area which has recently experienced such activity and one
which remains vulnerable to renewed activity (whereupon it would become,
once again, a designated hot zone);

Hot zone – an area where terrorists are located and where the area which is
within the reach of the effects of terrorist activity whether through the use of
firearms or explosives.

There is a closely associated body of work taking place to review Fire and Rescue
Service practice in the event of firearms incidents particularly where the shooting is
continuous and/or randomly targeted.

MTFA and warm zone working necessitates multi-agency response and on-site
collaboration.

The Executive Council has considered the issue on a number of occasions and has
monitored the progress in exploratory national discussions between FBU officials at
meetings organised for that purpose by fire and rescue service representatives.
There have been a number of circulars to brigade officials and members highlighting
some of the serious issues involved.

Conference is aware that our members face the prospect of being confronted with
such situations as a consequence of attending calls where the nature of the incident is
not known at the time of mobilising.

FBU members will have followed the events in the USA, including firearms attacks
over the last few months; notably the shooting of two volunteer firefighters in the town
of Webster in New York State in December 2012 and the more recent bomb incident
in Boston along with the subsequent shootings. As a consequence of the details that
have recently come to light Conference is also mindful of the potential outcomes that
could have transpired in Dewsbury had the attack planned to take place on 30 June
2012 not been averted.

Consistent with the aims and objects of the Union in our Rule Book, as the UK’s
principal Fire and Rescue Service professional body and primary representative body,
our key concerns have been centred on three themes:

•  Safety of our communities and the minimising of risk from these types on incident;
•  Improvement of the professional standards in the service to meet its expanding role;
•  Proper reward and recognition for our members for their commitment, activity and the risks they face.

Conference will recall that the General Secretary wrote to the national employers
some time ago informing them that the FBU was open-minded to discussion on the
principles involved in providing an MTFA response capability, but this was very much
dependent upon there being robust planning that must deliver effective and safe
operational procedures. These discussions must also include appropriate reward for
the increased activity and potential risks.

Both of these aspects are particularly poignant at a time when pay awards are, frankly,
miserly; when pensions (including those pensions payable to members and/or families
in the event of injury or death) are the subject of attack; and when the fire service is
suffering unprecedented cuts in the numbers of front-line personnel with the resultant
worsening of service delivery and response which will limit the ability of the Fire and
Rescue Service to provide a meaningful contribution to protecting life and property at
such incidents.

There has been no movement on the issue of pay in respect of an extension of the
role of Fire and Rescue Service personnel and there are no agreed operational
procedures and standards in respect of MTFA. The FBU have been engaged in
discussions at a national level with Fire and Rescue Service leads on the issues of
operational procedures and planning but at a pace which both sides probably agree
needs to be increased.

The elements of discussion related to operational procedures are, for reasons of both
safety and security, properly subject to appropriate and agreed levels of confidentiality
at this time. However, it is pertinent to highlight that there is mutual agreement that
should the Fire and Rescue Service adopt a role in MTFA activity:

•  It must conform to strict national protocols to ensure inter-operability and intra-operability between Fire and Rescue Services and other agencies;
•  Under no circumstances will Fire and Rescue personnel work within the hot zone.

MTFA is different to most incidents attended by Fire and Rescue Services in that they
have the potential to be multiple, and to move, in location. The risk of death, serious
injury and chronic ill-health is at the extreme end of tolerability. As a consequence, the
procedures must be consistent in content and delivery across the UK without
deviation.

It is appropriate to inform Conference that in one recent legal case involving injury and
incident-ground deaths of our members, the employing Fire and Rescue Authority
premised its defence in the most unequivocal and shameful way, asserting that a Fire
and Rescue Authority did not have a duty of care towards its employees. The
underlying argument the employer was promoting was that Fire and Rescue Services
are not required to ensure the safety of personnel at incidents.

Similarly, it must be remembered that in the case of the Atherstone on Stour fire, the
Crown Prosecution Service brought criminal charges of (alleged) neglect against
incident commanders at Watch Manager and Station Manager level.
In both cases, legal teams funded by the Fire Brigades Union fought these attacks.
We have been successful in the case of the prosecutions related to the Atherstone on
Stour fire and we await the outcome of the other case mentioned above.

It is of no small concern that the legal processes and pursuit of compensation
payments through litigation have taken many years and are still not settled.
Throughout this period the families of those firefighters killed have been living on a
reduced household income.

Conference notes that a number of members have volunteered on a temporary basis,
to become involved in MTFA activities, including warm zone working at MTFA
incidents. The Fire Brigades Union has provided UK-wide advice and information to
officials and members consistent with the principles outlined above. It is imperative
that members and officials observe such advice.

In spite of advice to members, which is based on sound, professional judgement, we
note that some Fire and Rescue Services have attempted to introduce single service
procedures. In April 2013, the Executive Council were informed by officials that one
Fire and Rescue Service employer has embarked on a unilateral campaign to extend
its list of volunteers, and that at least one other may also be suggesting that it will
make involvement in MTFA activities compulsory. Also in April 2013, the Executive
Council learned that a series of significant multi-FRS, multi-agency MTFA exercises
were imminent.

Conference is clear – there is no contractual obligation and there has been no
collective agreement with the FBU. Any fire service involvement must conform to
national protocols and procedures which must be reached by agreement with the Fire
Brigades Union at national level.

In relation to the above matters, Conference agrees the following:

1. Our local officials must continue to inform management that there is no
collective agreement locally on warm zone working at MTFA, and that any
agreement must be made nationally.
2. Our local officials must not agree local work practices or risk assessments
in respect of local MTFA until national agreement is reached.
3. Members who have volunteered for warm zone working at MTFA must:
a) Regularly inform line managers in writing and verbally that any
understanding between the individual and the Fire and Rescue Service
is on voluntary basis only. Members should emphasise that this can
and will be withdrawn, as appropriate, on the basis of an individual or
collective decision.
b) Make a note of the date and time of any verbal communication and of
course keep a copy of any memorandum or letter that is submitted.
4. National discussions should continue in respect of protection and
enhancement of pay, terms and conditions of employment and pensions.

Given the recent developments; the absence of national agreement; and the risks to
our members, we have to seriously consider the implications for both (a) the FBU’s
Accident Injury and Death Benefit Fund and (b) the provision of assistance to
members.

The Fire Brigades Union has a proud record of defending members against
disciplinary action by Fire and Rescue Services. Equally the FBU has not hesitated
from defending our members against criminal prosecution arising from their
professional activity on the incident ground.

However members need to be mindful of the recent court cases mentioned above
and that undertaking voluntary activities may leave them (and their families) vulnerable
to unsuccessful compensation claims.

Accordingly, Conference feels it appropriate to bring to the attention of members the
fact that the Executive Council must consider carefully the prospects for success of
any compensation claim before pursuing it against an employer made in respect of
MTFA activity.

The potential for serious injury to, and death of, members on a wide-scale at MTFA
incidents is high. Satisfactory procedures agreed with the FBU will have the greatest
likelihood of ensuring firefighter safety and reducing the chances of injury or death
that are tolerable to members of the FBU.

The Executive Council also has a duty to ensure that the members’ funds are
protected. The Accident Injury and Death Benefit Fund (AIF) is a members’ fund which
pays out in excess of £1,000,000 in benefits each year. It is imperative therefore that
potentially excessive and unbearable burden is not placed on the AIF. Accordingly, we
must ensure that the members’ well-managed AIF is not placed in jeopardy as a result
of a few members, however well-meaning their intentions, volunteering to involve
themselves in MTFA operations when procedures have not been agreed with the FBU.
Therefore Conference agrees the following policy position shall apply until such time
as satisfactory, national agreements are achieved with the FBU concerning
MTFA:

a. In respect of Rule 30(9)(d), any member who volunteers to undertake warm
and/or hot zone working at MTFA incidents shall not automatically qualify
for benefits under Rule 30 for any injury, disablement, illness, disease or
death sustained or arising from undertaking such voluntary activities at
operational incidents. For the avoidance of doubt:
        i. This does not include injury, illness or death sustained during MTFA
training events (unless occasioned by live gunfire);
        ii. this does not include injury, illness or death sustained at an incident to
which the member was mobilised without knowing it was an MTFA
incident, or prior to it being determined as an MTFA incident.
 

b. In accordance with Rule 25(3)(a), all members should be advised that FBU
assistance to members is not automatic and that assistance may only be
granted at the discretion of the Executive Council. In any case and given
the current circumstances, members volunteering to undertake MTFA
activities need to recognise their vulnerability and should be aware that
common law claims are unlikely to be successful.
 

c. The policy position and associated matters above shall be kept under
review by the Accident and Injury Fund Management Committee and the
Executive Council.