Search

Merging of Emergency Services

The President : The General Council supports the motion.

Andy Gilchrist (Fire Brigades Union), moved Motion 58:

He said: Congress, there is more than a whiff of panic among us and indeed around Glasgow over the current blockade of fuel. I want to speak here today, I have to say, about the emergencies which we, in the fire service, deal with on a daily basis.

When you dial 999 you want a response immediately. At that critical moment in your life you are totally dependent on the expertise of emergency service operators, in the police, the fire and the ambulance services. For our part, in the fire service, there are approximately 1500 emergency fire control operators. Among their many priorities, when that call is made, is to get the maximum amount of accurate information from the caller as fast as possible so the appropriate fire engines can be despatched. If that caller is trapped, we attempt to keep them on the line until that fire engine arrives and we give what we hope is indeed life‑saving advice.

Our colleagues in the ambulance service and police, of course, do as very similar job. Obviously, as emergency service workers we are usually at incidents together. Whether it is a road traffic accident, a train cash or indeed, a fire, we work in close co‑operation with all of our colleagues in the emergency services. In trying to be an effective and efficient team together, we knit together our complementary skills. But, while those skills are complementary, they most certainly are not interchangeable.

The Government has some plans. There are now firm proposals to integrate the emergency control rooms of the police, fire and ambulance services. There are also moves towards merging the roles of fire fighters and the ambulance worker, as well as creating larger control rooms to cover bigger, geographical areas. Both unions representing the workers in these areas, the FBU and UNISON, are asking you, the public ‑ effectively our employers, to tell your MP and tell your local Councillor that this should not happen.

It is fair for people to ask, "Why?" One simple reason is, if it were to happen, it would diminish the skills of both groups of workers, resulting in a poorer service for the public. The Government have told us that, with the rapid advance of technology, there will be no need for these skills any more; that the job of an emergency fire control operator cannot, surely, be any different to those of an ambulance control operator. I repeat. There are some fairly obvious differences. The advice that an ambulance control operator might give somebody who has had a heart attack is just a bit different to the advice a fire control operator might give to a parent with children trapped in a burning building. There is also, then, the need to know the precise nature and layout of the building involved: high‑rise flat; detached premises; are there any other particular dangers; chemical factories; a storeyard of timber, perhaps. All of these questions have a bearing on the number and type of fire engines emergency fire control operators turn out.

Can I say that, as a former fire fighter, I am only too aware that emergency fire control operators are in fact the first people at an incident. As a former fire fighter I know that, without emergency fire control operators, fire engines simply could not turn up. Without their expertise it would take us far longer to respond effectively to an incident.

This is all, of course, without the important information ‑ the location of the incident. Of course, when people phone the fire service they are often upset and distressed; in fact, most are incoherent with fear and panic. It is a very special skill ‑ a very special skill indeed ‑ that elicits from them the precise location of the incident.

Just think, for a minute, about the number of High Streets in Scotland alone and the number of London Roads or Trafalgar Avenues in any part of England and Wales. Of course, the caller will expect that control operator to know exactly where they are. Local knowledge is hugely important and we know that seconds do indeed save lives. Technology can and does assist us but at the end of the day it is the person that is important.

In terms of our campaign to turn back these proposals, I want us to be clear. We are saying, very loud and clear today, cuts in emergency services do cost lives. The efficiency of our members is proven. The commitment of our members is proven. Since 1990, 28 of our members went to work but did not go home because they were killed on duty trying to save others. We say to the Government and to local authorities, "Please, please let us not be wise after the event".

We are going to need your support because the Fire Brigade Union is determined to ensure that when you call 999 we have the same service we have now and because we put people first we will take strike action to defend the current position. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Linda Coey (UNISON), seconding the motion, said: President and Congress, I am proud to be seconding the motion on the merging of emergency services. What Andy said is true: fire, police and ambulance skills can never be generic. These workers have different pay, conditions, hours of work and pressures. Morale is affected when people from different services get a brief but incomplete view of the work, benefits and facilities of colleagues in other services. This is particularly demotivating when staff share premises and facilities.

Control staff have specialist skills. Fire controls will direct specialist crews and vehicles to a fire or even, for example, where there are perhaps chemical hazards involved. Police control staff despatch vehicles and officers and act as a communication resource between officers and other appropriate services. Ambulance control give medical advice to patients and callers of 999 as well as keeping the ambulance crew advised of the patient's condition while the ambulance is en route. Similar skills are deployed very differently. Staff in the three services have very discrete specialities. Let me give you an example. I would not want a gynaecologist to replace my arthritic hip, nor would I want an orthopaedic surgeon to do my hysterectomy, even though they are both surgeons. The emergency services deal, every day, with life‑threatening, distressing and traumatic incidents and nowhere is this more important than the country where I live. For years the emergency services in Northern Ireland have coped with ranges of incidents from everyday domestic events to the horrendous terrorist attack on the small town of Omagh just over two years ago. Mayhem raised its ugly head on that occasion and mayhem ruled. But had it not been for the expert specialist services of our three individual emergency services and their separately expertly trained control staff who sent out the necessary crews, contacting and connecting with the necessary aids and associations in the different areas throughout Northern Ireland with efficiency and speed, things could have been much worse, believe me.

Comrades, I say to you today without those people the death toll would have been higher. I take this opportunity, yet again, to thank them and to thank all our emergency services UK‑wide. If your house is on fire, you do not want a police officer turning up with a hose. If you have had a heart attack you want an ambulance paramedic and not a fire fighter and if your house is burgled you certainly do not want an ambulance person. Similarly, the control staff need to know their speciality and direct the appropriate staff and vehicles.

All of these amalgamation discussions are about saving money. If you have just any service responding to an emergency situation it will be expensive in more ways than one because that service will be under‑utilised and this will cost lives. Delegates, I urge you to support this motion. (Applause)

* Motion 58 was CARRIED

Congress adjourned forthe day

Contents