The future of the fire and rescue service

1. Austerity Cuts

Unprecedented cuts to central and local funding
The fire and rescue service has experienced a prolonged period of budget cuts, which
started before 2010 but have accelerated since then. The coalition government has
cut central funding to the fire and rescue service in England by 30% over the last five
years. These central cuts are compounded by council tax freezes, which further
reduce local revenue. The level of expenditure by the fire and rescue service is still
lower in absolute terms at present than it was in 2010, and is significantly lower in real
terms, when inflation is taken into account.

Funding cuts are threatening not only emergency response, but also prevention and
enforcement work, and overall national resilience to a wide range of emergencies. The
FBU believes cuts cost lives and ruin communities. The union wants long-term,
strategic investment in the service, not the cuts, privatisation and casualisation we are
seeing. We want a fairer funding formula that better reflects the wider contribution
made by the fire and rescue service to society.

Reduction of firefighter numbers below resilient levels

Since the coalition government came to power over 5,000 frontline firefighter jobs
have been cut across the UK, threatening national resilience. More than 4,000
wholetime firefighter jobs have been lost, and over 1,000 retained jobs have gone.
Control room jobs received the hardest hit, with one-in-seven (14%) cut in just four
years. Overall, around one-in ten firefighter posts have been lost since 2010 across
the UK, with the reduction in England the highest of the four administrations. By 2015,
the fire and rescue service across the UK has been reduced to around 50,000
wholetime, retained and control firefighters.

The austerity agenda has not ended. Whoever wins the 2015 election, spending cuts
in the next parliament threaten to be more severe and devastating than those of the
recent past. Less than half the austerity cuts have been implemented so far, and only
two-thirds will be implemented by March 2016. Politicians have warned that further
public expenditure cuts and public sector pay freezes are planned until at least 2018.
If cuts carry on with such severity, then the future of the fire and rescue service as we
have known it is in peril. The FBU has warned that 10,000 firefighter jobs are at risk
from austerity. More cuts will make this a reality by 2020. To lose this many firefighters
would be irresponsible and reckless. Yet this is the prospect we all face if cumulative,
year-on-year reductions in funding continue under the next government.

Previous discussions

FBU conference 2013 recognised that the future of the fire and rescue service is at
stake and mandated the Executive Council to undertake a review of all the additional
roles and responsibilities and all additional work already taken on, or proposed, at
local level. The fire and rescue service has changed and developed throughout its
history and the FBU has often been at the forefront of this, for example our role in
developing fire safety legislation, fire safety inspections or attendance at road traffic
collisions and other special rescue services.
Firefighters have been willing to take on such roles but rightfully expect that such
developments should include full and adequate planning and training, the best
available equipment and resources, negotiations on roles, responsibilities and
payments. Crucially, our developing role should always be accompanied by the
necessary funding to ensure we can deliver it professionally.

2. The work firefighters do

Following the debate at conference 2013, the executive council has engaged in
discussion around these issues with the fire service national employers. As a result,
the Executive Council is taking part in a number of workstreams through the National
Joint Council (NJC), concerned with the future of the fire and rescue service. The
workstreams are examining the following areas:
1. Environmental challenges – e.g. flooding, inland water safety, snow, wild fires
2. Emergency medical response – e.g. co-responding, falls, on-site trauma care,
provision of community training
3. Multi agency emergency response – e.g. MTFA, joint working, any issues
falling out of JESIP
4. Youth and other social engagement work – e.g. arson reduction, working with
risk of offending youth groups
5. Inspections and enforcement – e.g. schools, illegal homes, crown properties,
expansion of unregulated business use, related fire safety advice
In each case the workstreams have begun to meet and initial progress reports given
to both sides at the NJC. The Executive Council has considered this work from
various aspects:
a. The need to protect the fire and rescue service from further devastating cuts
b. The need to constantly assess the changing risks facing society so that our
service and profession develops to reflect these changing risks
c. The need to develop a case for the long term improvement in the pay and
conditions of FBU members.
Fires
Firefighters in the UK have much to be proud of. The fire and rescue service is a real
success story when provided with sufficient personnel and the resources to do the job
of preventing, protecting and responding to emergencies. In Britain over the last
decade (since 2003-04):
● The total number of fires is down by almost a half (48%)
● Building fires are down by a quarter
● Total fire deaths are down by a third
● Non-fatal casualties have also been cut by 29%

However some politicians and commentators argue that the downward trend in fires
and fire deaths justifies making further cuts to the fire and rescue service. The FBU
rejects this conclusion. Firefighters have been active agents in bringing about the
progress made in successful fire prevention and protection, although there is still a
long way to go. It is irresponsible to decimate the active force that has catalysed
these improvements. The FBU rejects the flawed notion of deciding levels of fire and
rescue service resources based on cost rather than risk.
In contrast to the political rhetoric and crude justification for cuts, the independent
consultants Greenstreet Berman suggests that by 2020 slower response times will
mean:
● Between 14 and 41 additional deaths at dwelling fires
● Between 33 and 91 additional deaths at road traffic collisions
● Between 42 and 57 additional deaths at water incidents
● Between 98 and 212 additional deaths at special service incidents overall

Rescues

Firefighters have never just dealt with fires. Firefighters have tackled a wide range of
‘special services’ for decades, adapting to new hazards and assessing a wide range
of risks. Firefighters work for a rescue as well as a fire service.
The FBU’s “Sounding the Alarm” publication reported last year that:
“Firefighters are carrying out record-breaking levels of rescues from fires and
other incidents, proving that emergency intervention remains at the heart of
the fire and rescue service. FBU research reveals how high levels of life-ordeath
rescues – long ignored by the Westminster government – prove the
value of firefighting to society.

In the last year (2013-14), over 40,000 people were rescued by firefighters in
the UK – that’s more than 100 rescues a day, reinforcing the vital role of
emergency intervention.

Annually there are a huge number of rescues from non-fire incidents –
including flooding, road traffic collisions, hazardous chemicals and lift
rescues. For the UK as a whole, over 36,000 rescues were carried out at nonfire
incidents in 2013-14, a remarkable figure.

The figures for fires indicate that firefighters still make a significant
intervention in these types of incidents, which is well appreciated by
members of the public. For the UK as a whole, some 4,240 people were
rescued at fires by firefighters over the last year.”

Quite simply, firefighters are an all-hazards response and protection force,
professionals who constantly develop our skills to better serve our communities. This
includes all aspects of our work; preventative work with businesses and communities;
inspection and enforcement work; and, of course, emergency intervention – beginning
with the essential role of our emergency fire controls. In the context of this ever
widening role, the downward trend in the numbers of fires and fire deaths simply does
not justify making further cuts to the fire and rescue service.

Floods

Firefighters have increasingly tackled major flooding in recent years, doing everything
from shoring up flood defences to emergency evacuation and rescue, as well as flood
recovery. Politicians have rightly praised this magnificent response, and the public are
understandably highly appreciative of firefighters’ efforts. Increased flood risk is the
greatest threat to the UK from climate change. But the legal framework and resourcing
of this work are inadequate.

The coalition government has systematically failed to manage the risks of floods. They
have cut flood spending by around 20% in real terms compared to the previous
spending period, including vital maintenance of flood defences and funding for
emergency responders such as the fire and rescue service. With 6,500 fewer
firefighters now than at the time of 2007 floods, the UK today is less flood-resilient
than it was just a few years ago, with an over-reliance on volunteers, who for
understandable reasons may not always be available.

Since the 2007 floods, the FBU has raised concerns about national resilience,
firefighters’ equipment, welfare and health. In particular the union has concluded that
(where such a provision is not in place) the government must introduce a statutory
duty on fire and rescue authorities to respond to significant water-related events such
as flooding, and make the necessary resources available to meet these obligations.
This demand has been backed by the Pitt review and other stakeholders.

Politicians often ask why the fire and rescue service needs a statutory duty when
firefighters will turn out to floods anyway. Without a statutory duty, flood risks may not
be fully assessed and the necessary resources made available to tackling major
flooding. Without a change in the law, responsibilities for emergency response will not
be clear and transparent. Without a specific duty, there is no right of authorised entry.
Without a duty, there is no ring-fencing for essential equipment such as boats, poles,
kit, welfare facilities etc, so that firefighters can intervene for as long as it takes to
tackle major floods. There may not be sufficient firefighters available to tackle these
and other emergencies, especially as these incidents often require cross-border
support. This has been recognised in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It should be
recognised in England and Wales.

Medical response

Firefighters already undertake some medical duties. All firefighters receive basic first
aid training and some – such as USAR teams – receive more specialist training and
many fire and rescue services routinely respond to bariatric incidents. The majority of
fire appliances now carry defibrillators. The fire and rescue service is already
responding to thousands of emergency medical incidents and in increasing numbers.
Currently around 40% of fire and rescue services in England engage in some form of
co-responding or first responding, despite FBU opposition. Northern Ireland
firefighters don’t undertake this work. Only Mid & West does so in Wales. Firefighters
in Scotland don’t currently co-respond, although a pilot project is proposed.
In the NHS, there is a growing demand for medical services and larger numbers of
people who need a swift response. Ambulance calls in England have increased
enormously over the last decade. Co-responding and first responding by firefighters
are at best a small complement to the ambulance service as a whole. But firefighters’
interventions are important enough to save some lives and help some people in
distress, allowing professionally-trained paramedics to concentrate on the most
serious cases.

When the FBU won our co-responding court case in 2006, the judges said they hoped
the union and the employers would sit down and discuss the issue of co-responding.
At no time since have the government or the employers put forward serious
proposals, addressing our legitimate concerns – for example at the National Joint
Council. The FBU has always said it would consider proposed changes to firefighters’
working practices on their merits. That remains our position.

Terrorism and multi-agency working

Firefighters have long tackled emergencies far beyond our fire and rescue remit.
Threats to human welfare, in terms of loss of life, injury or damage to property,
alongside damage to the environment and threats to security are key civil
contingencies for which fire and rescue services have a statutory duty under the Civil
Contingencies Act 2004 to plan and prepare for properly. The risks of further
emergencies, civil disturbances and terrorist attacks are widely discussed in public
life. However, not all the additional and expanding civil contingency roles the
government and chief fire officers want firefighters to undertake fall within the agreed
role maps and nor have the government provided additional or “new burden” funding
for the fire and rescue service to prepare for all the emerging civil contingency risks
being identified.

For example, after the Mumbai attacks of 2008, the government has highlighted the
risks of marauding terrorist and firearms activity (MTFA) and the need to prepare for
such eventualities in the UK. The FBU has engaged in negotiations on this matter,
given the expectation that firefighters would respond if an attack took place.
Regrettably, it has been necessary for the FBU to express our concern at the lack of
consistency on these issues between different fire and rescue services. There is a
need to for proper negotiations, agreements and standards at national level.
Given the enormous threats to firefighters’ lives in such an incident, the FBU has
sought assurances that risk assessments, safety control measures and standard
operating procedures are fit for purpose. If politicians expect a professional response
to every type of incident conceivable, then they need to ensure that appropriate
funding is made available to provide the necessary resources and proper operational
systems are in place to make this work as safe as possible. The FBU is also seeking
that proper indemnity and compensation arrangements are in place and agreed, to
protect firefighters expected to deliver these high risk areas of work.

3. The structure of the fire and rescue service

The pressure of austerity cuts is forcing the pace of organisational and structural
change within the fire and rescue service. The cuts and consequent underfunding of
our service are the main drivers behind the various initiatives and suggestions which
have emerged in the fire and rescue service.
These include:
● Pressure for greater ‘blue-light collaboration’
● Demands for a greater role for Police and crime commissioners (OPCCs)
including taking over fire and rescue
● Cost driven mergers of emergency fire controls
● Other cost driven local mergers or collaboration
● Suggestions for regionalisation of the service in England
● Suggestions for a single fire and rescue service in England
● Greater use of outsourcing and privatisation
● The threat of wholesale mutualisation/privatisation

These discussions in and around the service have included the suggestions that reorganisation,
including possibly a single service for England would provide the best
protection of the service in terms of standardisation of policies, procedures,
equipment and operational planning. It is further suggested that as a result this offers
the best way to improve firefighter and public safety and deliver oversight and
accountability.

However, it must be noted that any re-structuring or reorganisation alongside further
cuts in funding will not achieve any such improvement. The issue of underfunding of
our service needs to be addressed. The experience of the single service in Scotland
highlights some of the opportunities and the risks from such a process.
The Scottish fire and rescue service was formed in April 2013. A balance sheet on the
impact of a single service in Scotland is necessarily provisional for now after less than
two years in operation. The result is the possibility of a more coherent overall
structure, rather than eight separate fire boards and eight chief fire officers. There is
the possibility of looking at issues on a Scotland-wide basis, while also attuned to
local needs. Another advantage lies with the standardisation of equipment, BA sets,
PPE, standing operating procedures and training. The creation of a single
management structure has led to a review of response standards and firefighter safety
that, if conducted properly, will have an immediate impact on the safety of over 5,000
members. In contrast, in England the fragmentation of the service in relation to issues
such as national guidance has continued.

However there have also been considerable costs, particularly in terms of job losses.
The Scottish government’s own figures show a reduction of all roles in the first year
after the merger, with 297 frontline firefighter jobs lost between April 2013 and March
2014. In fact more firefighter jobs were lost in the first year after the merger than in the
previous three years (251, going back to April 2010).

FBU position

The Executive Council has received no serious proposals from either the Westminster
government, the opposition or fire service employers about reorganising the fire and
rescue service in England. Without costed and transparent proposals, it is not
possible to draw conclusions as to the best institutional shape for the fire and rescue
service going forward. However the FBU remains willing to discuss serious proposals
from all quarters.

However there are important principles involved. The FBU wants to see a resilient fire
and rescue service, capable of dealing with the full range of risks consistently across
the UK. That requires resources and most of all, the firefighters to do the job. The
union wants the fire and rescue service to be democratically accountable, both to the
public we serve and to the firefighters who work in it.

Whatever plans may come forth in the coming period, the FBU is clear that austerity
cuts are the worst environment for reorganisation. Any mergers or consolidation will
incur transition costs, which would have to be met to make any changes viable. The
union will continue to fight for investment in the fire and rescue service and to oppose
cuts.

Whatever institutional structures are proposed, they will require consistent and
common national standards that can improve firefighter and public safety and can
stand up to professional and public scrutiny at a national and local level. The fire and
rescue service is out of step with other sectors by not having an independent
inspectorate (except in Scotland). As public bodies, fire and rescue authorities are
financially audited, but an inspectorate would look more widely at the operational
performance and effectiveness of the service. Confidence and assurance in the
service provided are significantly assisted by an independent regulator and
inspectorate setting the standards and bringing the providers to account. The
absence of such a body for fire and rescue in England is a serious anomaly.
The fire and rescue service has become dangerously fragmented since the scrapping
of national standards and some national oversight bodies such as the Central Fire
Brigades Advisory Council (CFBAC) and the fire inspectorate. These trends have
continued under the Westminster coalition government, which scrapped the
Practitioners’ Forum. This has led to substantial gaps in vital operational guidance as
well as to the deterioration in the speed and weight of emergency response needed to
deal efficiently with an expanding range of incident types. There is a crying need for a
high-level and professional advisory and standard-setting body, with a wider remit and
more resources than those of the current chief fire and rescue advisor arrangements,
and which would include senior elected FBU officials to contribute to and oversee the
production of operational guidance throughout the service.

Recommendations

1. That the Executive Council should continue to discuss through the NJC all
aspects of the changing role of the fire and rescue service and of firefighters. In these
discussions the Executive Council must seek to:
a. Protect and improve our service
b. Defend and enhance the professionalism of our members
c. Develop good quality professional standards, with clearly defined roles and
job descriptions
d. Ensure high quality professional, training and competence standards
e. Ensure adequate resourcing for additional roles and responsibilities
f. Improve the pay and conditions of service of firefighters.
2. That the Executive Council must monitor closely all proposals and suggestions in
relation to the future structure and governance of the fire and rescue service in all
parts of the UK. The Executive Council should engage in all serious discussions about
future structures. In doing so it must seek to:
a. Improve levels of service provision
b. Ensure the protection of jobs
c. Defend the independent – and non-police – role of the fire and rescue service
d. Ensure the improvement of democratic accountability of fire and rescue
services
e. Promote improved inspection and scrutiny arrangements for the operational
performance and effectiveness of fire and rescue services
f. Oppose privatisation and mutualisation.