Letters: Seek the facts

No journalists seem to be questioning the employers or Government about the sweeping statements they are making.

The Bain report has been discredited by several top academics and yet it has gone largely unquestioned by the Press. Indulge me while I make a few points.

Whole time fire-fighters refuse to work with retained fire fighters: Untrue. We work as a matter of course with retained fire fighters, the vast majority of whom are FBU members.

Fire-fighters refuse to use resusitators/defibrilators: Again, not true. We have been using this kit for years and have embraced its use. Anything that enhances our role protecting the communities we serve is good.

Fire-fighters refuse to work overtime: The reason we refuse to work pre-arranged overtime is because of the way our pay formulae work. Any extra money earned from doing pre-arranged overtime was deducted from next year's pay settlement. Unfair I think you will agree.

The FBU is against "family friendly policies": Again untrue. The FBU asked for the introduction of job share and the employers dismissed this. In the UK fire Service there are, as far as I am aware five shifts running alongside each other. Not just the one reported.

There is also a misconception that increasing our pay from £6.20 per hour to £8.50 per hour, (take home), will increase mortgage rates and income tax. At the moment the average family pays £1.40 per week council tax towards the fire service. To fully fund the pay claim this would increase to £1.80 per week, (Ernst & Young). Fantastic value I think you will agree.

We are currently earning £6.20 an hour, we want a take-home pay of £8.50 an hour. We have already embraced community fire safety and the risk based approach, (as per Bain), and have continued to evolve and modernise. The service is almost unrecognisable to the service of 25 years ago.

RICHARD HENRY

Red Watch

Harrogate Fire Station.

Half-truths and lies

Sir, - One of the features of the firefighters' dispute has been the outpouring of bile and invective against some of the bravest, most dedicated and most skilled of all public employees from ministers, journalists and individuals, most of whom do less for society in a whole year than an average firefighter does in a week.

The bile is accompanied by half-truths and lies from the Press and Government to try to persuade the public, whose natural instincts are to side with the strikers, to oppose their campaign for a fair wage.

Accusations of greed coming from journalists and politicians would be funny if they weren't so hypocritical. Our self-sacrificing MPs voted themselves an 11pc rise this year with no productivity clause, and journalists salaries and expense accounts are legendary.

Ministers' accusations that the FBU is opposed to modernisation is simply a lie. Firefighters are constantly taking on new responsibilties and have made it clear that they will discuss changes to work practices which do not reduce the level of service to the public.

The truth is that "modernisation" as defined by ministers will mean fewer firemen and appliances, the closure of some stations and the downgrading of others to part-time status. That will inevitably lead to longer response times and more deaths and serious injuries.

Somewhere in Whitehall economists and risk assessors will have calculated the cost of each life saved by the fire service and politicians will have decided that it is too high, just as happened with train safety systems after the Southall and Paddington crashes. In other words, the lives of some citizens will have to be sacrificed to the god of low taxation.

But don't just take my word for it. The Bain report, which has become the government's bible on firefighters' pay, recommends that the fire fighting facilities available in any area should be proportional to local property values. That means that in poor areas, where the probablility of a child being killed in a fire is already 30 times that in wealthy areas, fire fighting facilities will be reduced, resulting in even more deaths. That is the reality of "modernisation".

PETER ATKINSON

Park House,

Keld,

Richmond

What they deserve

Sir, - I was disgusted at your leading article (D&S, Nov 15).

I thought strongly that a person in your position should not express such biased and uninformed views, clearly in line with the Government's policy of shaming disgruntled workers back to work with moral blackmail and bully-boy tactics.

Yes, you could say I am biased, having a daughter and a brother-in-law as firefighters. These are the frontline people on which you rely when your life blood is dripping away after a vehicle accident or when you are struggling to escape from a smoke-filled building.

What price a hero? What price a life? Especially when it is yours? Is it right that these everyday heroes, who I can assure you are not in it for the money or the glory, have to resort to strike measures to highlight their case which was last dealt with 25 years ago.

You insult these people by glibly trotting out opinions which are based on the Government propaganda. Have you taken the trouble to question a firefighter for the facts? I think not. Perhaps you should.

The pay dispute was settled in 1977 at a percentage below inflation so they weren't even greedy then. You say they have part time jobs on days off. Does this possibly indicate a need? None of them live in wickedly affluent circumstances.

Is it so wrong that these highly-trained personnel can afford a house to live in when a modest rabbit hutch now costs well above £100,000?

Surely, in this increasingly lazy society they would rather spend time with their families as they are obviously not entitled to sleep either. A shift consists of 42 hours working and 54 on call. Sleep, who needs it?

Firefighters have a better chance than most of paying the ultimate price, what of their families then? They retire at 55, and not with a pension that will support them for the rest of their days, which incidentally they pay well over 10pc of their wages towards.

Any fool can see that there will be no 40pc rise but it is no use asking for £2 when you really want £3, and incidentally it was apparently the same firm of independent consultants who suggested 40pc that also suggested that MPs had the same, which they had no hesitation in accepting.

Come on, Editor, do what you do best. You are entitled to your opinion but remember when you are ever in need of emergency help it is someone's unselfish son or daughter putting their life on the line to save yours. How much are you worth?

F GRAINGER

Station Yard,

Masham.

A new brigade

Sir, - The true situation regarding the fire brigades union action is beginning to clarify. It must be clear to all that there needs to be a radical re-think on how our fire fighting services are to be managed in the long term.

A good many years ago, there was a perceived need to have trained foot soldiers available to the captains of our naval vessels. Thus the Royal Marines came into being. More recently, there was a perceived need to have infantry specifically trained and equipped to defend RAF stations. The RAF Regiment was raised to do this. These are examples of specialised military units. There are others.

Is it perhaps appropriate to consider raising a new regiment with specific responsibility for fire-fighting and other civil defence duties? Such a force could be controlled by the Army and be part and parcel of our armed services.

The management thereof could surely not be worse than the quality of management who at present exercise fragmented control over our fire brigades and the rates of pay would be in accordance with the army units, which are providing cover during the present emergency

ALAN BENN

Burneston Village Stores,

Burneston.

Where fault lies

Sir, - The reason local residents have been without adequate cover from the fire brigade over recent weeks has to be laid fairly and squarely at the Government's door.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the fire fighters' pay claim , and I for one don' t think it is justified without radical changes in working practices, the Government should have been prepared.

The sanctity of the "picket-line" has no place in the minds of Government ministers and has obviously clouded judgments early on. If Mr Prescott wanted to find a settlement it would have been easier to achieve if the union knew he was willing to have troops train on real fire engines and make the equipment available.

Mr Blair clearly sees this dispute as his miners' strike but unlike Mrs Thatcher he has no adequate contingency plan , his ministers have little credibility with the union and he has failed to maintain the sort of fire emergency cover that households and businesses have paid for.

JONATHAN SCOTT

Carnaby Road,

Darlington.