As firefighters start to vote on whether to take industrial action over a 40 per cent pay claim, The Northern Echo gives both sides the chance to put their case.

FOR: WHY would dedicated firefighters, officers and emergency control staff from every part of the United Kingdom be prepared to withdraw the service that we provide to the public 24 hours a day 365 days a year?

Since 1977, the pay of firefighters has been linked to the earnings of manual workers, an agreement that was drawn up after a bitter nine-week national strike, the only one in the history of the British fire service. This formula was appropriate to the job of a firefighter at the time and has maintained industrial harmony for 25 years.

However, over this period, the level of service that fire and rescue brigades offer to the public has had to expand to meet modern demands. Whether you dial 999 for a fire, flooding, road accident, chemical spillage, water or cliff rescue, we respond, and behind the scenes there is continuous training, equipment maint- enance and fire safety.

With this, the demands that have been placed on firefighters and control staff in terms of expertise, training and professionalism have moved us to a stage where comparisons with manual workers are no longer relevant to the job that we do. Independent research commissioned by the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) compared our role to other technical workers, and the Government's earnings survey has reclassified a firefighter as an associate professional and technical occup- ation.

The membership of the FBU has not demanded a percentage pay rise as is widely reported, but has asked that our modern role be rewarded with a modern pay formula and a link to the other workers in our earnings group.

There will be times in any firefighter's career when no amount of money is sufficient reward: searching a smoke-filled house, hoping desperately that a life can be saved, maintaining professionalism amongst the devastation of a road or rail tragedy, or missing Christmas morning with your children because cover has to be provided all year round.

But then, there are the times when the appreciation and gratitude that the public show for your hard work is benefit enough - but praise does not pay the bills.

After four years training, a full-time qualified firefighter earns £100 a week less than the national average earnings of full-time male workers, with no extra payments for working night shifts or weekends. After tax, national insurance and pension contributions, that leaves a take home pay of around £270. For emergency control staff, the rate of pay is even less.

Retained firefighters in rural parts of County Durham provide 24-hour cover from home for 23p an hour. In some cases the men and women who are employed to risk their lives for the public can claim Working Families Tax Credit to help support their families.

This is a situation that needs to be addressed urgently and, in February, the FBU informed our national employers that we would be seeking to change our level of pay and asked them to jointly approach the Government on the issue of funding.

After six months of negotiations, common ground has been achieved between the two sides, but on the crucial issue of pay, the national employers have not stated what they believe would be a fair wage for the professional job of a firefighter.

Whilst these meetings have been going on, a huge amount of public money has been spent training and equipping the armed forces, which would have been better invested in resolving our dispute.

The Government has set up a review of the future organisation and management of the fire service which, we believe, for one of the highest performers in local government, is totally unnecessary. The only area overdue a review is the issue of pay.

No member of the FBU wants confrontation or to place public safety at risk, but if no progress can be made through negotiation, then we have been left with little choice but to consider the last resort of industrial action.

Talks aimed at avoiding an unwanted strike will continue until the eleventh hour and, hopefully, a resolution can be achieved. Meanwhile, we are asking the public to support our claim. We've always been there for you, please be there for us.

Ian Moore - FBU chief negotiator, County Durham and Darlington.

AGAINST: AS the chairmen of the four North-East fire authorities we, collectively, have a good deal of experience in trade unionism and therefore appreciate the role of a representative body in seeking to secure the best possible pay and conditions for its members.

Equally, as comparatively long-standing members of fire authorities, we have a sound grasp of the issues facing the modern fire service inclusive of the current debate relating to salary levels.

As the tensions surrounding the Fire Brigades Union's pay claim begin to rise, we think the best course of action is simply to set aside emotive issues and calmly examine the facts of this matter.

In the first instance, we believe there is already a genuine recognition on behalf of the employers that fire service personnel merit an increase in pay. Equally, we believe that there is a true and full appreciation of the excellent service provided to our communities by our fire brigades.

However, fine words and plaudits don't increase living standards. Having said that, there is far too much common ground between the Local Government Employers and the Fire Brigades Union to justify industrial action being taken.

The facts of the matter are that there is agreement that the current benchmark - of the upper quartile of the skilled manual labour - is no longer the appropriate occupational grouping for fire service personnel; there is agreement that additional finance is desperately required for the fire service, inclusive of improved salary levels; there is agreement that levels of pay for retained personnel should be reviewed with a view to it being increased, and it is agreed that control room personnel's salary levels should be reviewed.

In simple terms, there is far too much common ground to destroy relationships, lose money and, most importantly, put the public at risk by taking strike action at this delicate stage in the process.

Perhaps the next fact to consider is that the Fire Brigades Union's claim will place an additional £400m on the national fire service pay bill. Taking this into account, and that the vast majority of funding for the fire service comes from central government, means that the only realistic opportunity to gain that additional funding is with the assistance and agreement of the Government.

It would not seem unreasonable for them to require evidence in support of the union pay claim or, as in the case of all public services, for there to be an expectation that the fire service will continue to improve through the process of modernisation.

Our view is that the quality of the people within the fire service means that they should have absolutely nothing to fear from either an independent review or modernisation.

Equally, if the Fire Brigades Union has strong evidence in support of its claim, then it would also seem quite reasonable for that to be placed before the review so that it can be considered and hopefully accepted.

One thing is certain, if the Fire Brigades Union refuses to provide its evidence and refuses to play a part in an independent review that has been established by the Government, it will lose a major opportunity to influence the outcome and that surely cannot be in the best interest of its members.

Finally, let us examine what a fire service strike will mean. The facts again are clear: there will be a loss of pay to those taking industrial action; there will be potential for a amaging effect on pension rights by those taking industrial action; there may be a loss of public sympathy, particularly in light of the opportunities presented by the Fire Brigades Union participating in a truly independent review and, inevitably, the general public will be exposed to completely unnecessary levels of risk.

In conclusion, therefore, in our view there is too much agreement, too much opportunity and far too much to lose to consider strike action.

In short, the sensible thing to do is 'give peace a chance'.

Councillor George Tennant,

County Durham and Darlington.

Councillor Peter Hillman, Northumberland.

Councillor Peter Young, Tyne and Wear.

Councillor John Jones, Cleveland.