Forum Brief: Fire service reform

Ahead of more talks on the fire service pay dispute, a row has broken out over a "secret" plan for cutting jobs.

Leaders of the Fire Brigades Union have accused the government of approving plans for job cuts.

The union claimed that government plans to abolish section 19 of the 1947 Fire Services Act would mean that services could be cut without consulting communities.

But local government employers rejected the claims, saying that abolishing section 19 was an essential requirement for the introduction of more flexible working practices.

Forum Response: Fire Brigades Union

Mike Lawson, political officer for the FBU, told ePolitix.com: "Minister Nick Raynsford announced yesterday in the House of Commons that the government was to bring an amendment to local government bill at committee stage to abolish section 19 of the Fire Services Act.

"The Fire Brigades Union condemn this move by the government as a vehicle to fast-track cuts in the fire service recommended by the Bain inquiry.

"Section 19 of the Fire Services Act requires the secretary of state to consult with members of the public on changes to fire services and the provision of fire stations, fire appliances and fire fighters.

"The union believes that members of the public and indeed employees of the fire service are entitled to have their views considered by the secretary of state before fire stations are closed, appliances scrapped and fire fighters sacked."

Forum Response: Local Government Association

A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: "Section 19 of the 1947 Fire Service Act forces fire authorities to apply for permission from the secretary of state every time they wish to make better use of their resources, for example, by spending more money on fire prevention and less on providing unnecessary fire cover for empty office buildings during night hours.

"The removal of section 19 is not about cuts in the fire service. It is about creating a more effective fire service.

"Currently the fire service gives protection to the community within a rigid framework of attendance times that are directed at protecting property not lives. Consequently, more fire engines are expected to arrive in shorter time frames at deserted and well-protected office buildings in city centres than they are to the homes of vulnerable older people or houses in multiple occupation.

"Repealing section 19 is an important step in replacing these rigid attendance times by a new system of fire risk management that will allow fire authorities to give protection to people who need it, not waste their resources on buildings that don't.

"Public consultation will continue. Sadly the FBU has used the public consultation process in the past to mislead the public into thinking that they will be in greater danger if fire engines are moved from where they are not needed.

"It is time the union's hysterical scare-mongering was exposed for what it is. A cynical attempt to protect unacceptable working practices by creating completely unjustified fear in the mind of the public. If they are successful lives will be needlessly lost.

"The Bain report recommends that all fire authorities will be required to prepare a fire risk management plan, and as part of this they will have to consult the public.

"We hope in the future that the Fire Brigades Union will take a more responsible attitude to public consultation and lay off the anti-change spin."