04-29-2007, 09:18 AM
6 3.1 The Bain Review - Recommendations
Although established to consider the issue of firefighter's pay, the Bain Review goes to great lengths to stress the urgent need to adopt a risk-based approach to providing fire service emergency cover. This theme is reiterated throughout the review.
"The development of an integrated risk-based approach is central to the development
cf a modern Fire Service....." Bain Review 5.2
"We believe there is a compelling case to move to a risk-based approach and to do so
now." Bain Review 5.17
"We therefore recommend that ODPM issue the necessary guidance to implement a risk-based approach to fire cover as a matter of urgency." Bain Review 5.19
If a risk-based approach was to be adopted, it would be reasonable to expect some reference to Pathfinder. This was not the case other than to dismiss it out of hand. What the Review clearly does do, however, is set out to remove all the long-established safeguards which mitigated against implementing the new methodology with the cost savings that had been envisaged..
The fact that "Working practices state that for 75% of calkmts five firefighters must crew the first appliance and four the second and this cannot be varied" W3S Seen BS 3
restrictive practice rather than a long-standing health and safety policy.. There is no credible attempt to put in place any alternative measures. It would appear that the principles of safe working practices, as embodied in the WCPS, were no longer to be a constraint in the 'modern' fire service.
The other condition which the Pathfinder brigades had struggled to satisfy, the level of risk criteria, is dismissed even more comprehensively.
The current national standards of fire cover wUl need to be lifted......." Bain
Review 12.32
"There mill be national principles, standards and expectations though fewer than
there are now " Bain Review 4.8
"Removing or reducing the rigid national prescriptions, such as those about fire
cover or the level of staffing through the day (constant crewing), will make it
possible to meet local needs " Bain 4.9
"departing from the national fire cover standards did not appear to put people at
additional risk." Bain Review 12.20
".....we make recommendations about.....doing away with the current national prescriptions which drive so much of the disposition of fire stations, appliances and staff." Bain Review 10.1
Finally, having abolished the statutory obligation on fire authorities to maintain response times, the Review goes on to remove another check intended to safeguard the public against over-zealous politicians: Section 19 of the 1947 Fire Service Act.
"Under this provision, afire authority in Great Britain may not close afire station or reduce the number of fire appliances or firefighters posts without the consent of the
Secretary of State Unless it is repealed, the sorts of efficiency improvements
we are looking for as a result of a move to the new system will not be realized.. We therefore recommend that ODPM amends or removes Section 19." Bain Review 5-20
Section 19 required that local authorities undertake thorough public consultation and seek Government approval for any changes in fire cover. To comply with the requirements of Section 19 may take a little more time but did NOT preclude such change as Bain seems to imply. It is not made clear whether it is the consultation process or the need for ministerial approval that would prevent 'efficiency improvements' from being realized.
To summarise, Bain proposes the immediate adoption of a risk-based approach to emergency fire cover (ie Pathfinder). In order to avoid the increased costs that Pathfinder predicts would be necessary to implement the new methodology, Bain strips away the regulations and criteria that had safeguarded public and firefighter safety for more than half a century. By removing these 'rigid prescriptions', the Review was then able to advocate the loss of several thousand front-line firefighting jobs in order to pay for any pay-rise. There is no indication that this reduction in the number of firefighters was based on any form of risk assessment. Rather it was based on purely economic factors.
3.2 Was the Bain Review Independent ?
Was Bain truly independent? Many people claim that Bain was a sham; that Mr Prescott had taken advantage of the firefighter's dispute and grasped the opportunity to resurrect Pathfinder under a different name.
8
It has been argued tha the composition of the review body, comprising three recently elevated Labour peers, the uncharacteristic speed with which the review was set up, and the fact that its findings read like a Government wish list all point to this being the case.
There are other specific reasons to believe that Bain was not truly independent. The Review finds emphatically in favour of adopting a risk-based approach to emergency fire cover as proposed in Pathfinder. Yet the only direct reference to Pathfinder is to dismiss it as 'flawed and notoriously unreliable'. For Bain to have any credibility at all it would have needed to acknowledged the work done in Pathfinder, addressed the alleged flaws in those trials and made clear how those problems had been resolved.
Although Pathfinder had not been widely published at this time all parties involved in the Review were fully aware of its existence and its implications. Such a fundamental omission must be seen to invalidate the entire report. It must also raise serious doubts about the Reviews claim to be independent.
"....the Boon Report was simply gesture politics to give the impression that the government was responding to an objective approach. This is clearly not the case in view of the prior existence of afar more comprehensive report and the contradictions between this and the Bain Report." Lynne Jones MP
"The Bain report should be seen essentially as one ordered by the government in response to the strike threat. In other words, it could never be independent". Professor Roger Setfert Keele University
"..—Bain was not truly independent and was constrained by Government policy." Lynne Jones MP Labour Birmingham, Setty Oak
"I think (the Bain Review)is significantly flawed because it did not collect the evidence available to it. I think it is a political report; I think it errs on the side of Government...."
Dr Dennett Independent Fire Consultant Evidence to ODPM Committee
4th November 2003
".....to a degree the Bain Review, is a reaction to the action taken by the Fire
Brigades Union. Although we accept this is an understandable political
response we would argue that this has brought about conclusions being
made for the long-term future of the Fire & Rescue Service which are in some cases lightweight verging on the superficial".
County Councils Network of Chief Officers ODPM The Fire Service; Written
Evidence' 20th October 2003
"....the Review is aping government opinion and is clearly part of the negotiating process rather than independent from it". Professor Roger Sejfert Keele University
Following its publication, I questioned the Reports validity in the absence of any assumption of risk criteria. A spokesman for the Committee explained that "it does
not matter how many firefighters there are." SJPCe Calculations Were based OH the assumption Of "a massive increase in the level of community fire safety education". ThlS
was in spite of the fact that there had been no empirical studies on the effects of such initiatives. To arrive at detailed costings and recommend reductions in the number of firefighters on the basis of such a premise can not be seen as objective..
The Bain Review was very clearly output-led rather than input-driven; it provides answers without asking questions.
Although established to consider the issue of firefighter's pay, the Bain Review goes to great lengths to stress the urgent need to adopt a risk-based approach to providing fire service emergency cover. This theme is reiterated throughout the review.
"The development of an integrated risk-based approach is central to the development
cf a modern Fire Service....." Bain Review 5.2
"We believe there is a compelling case to move to a risk-based approach and to do so
now." Bain Review 5.17
"We therefore recommend that ODPM issue the necessary guidance to implement a risk-based approach to fire cover as a matter of urgency." Bain Review 5.19
If a risk-based approach was to be adopted, it would be reasonable to expect some reference to Pathfinder. This was not the case other than to dismiss it out of hand. What the Review clearly does do, however, is set out to remove all the long-established safeguards which mitigated against implementing the new methodology with the cost savings that had been envisaged..
The fact that "Working practices state that for 75% of calkmts five firefighters must crew the first appliance and four the second and this cannot be varied" W3S Seen BS 3
restrictive practice rather than a long-standing health and safety policy.. There is no credible attempt to put in place any alternative measures. It would appear that the principles of safe working practices, as embodied in the WCPS, were no longer to be a constraint in the 'modern' fire service.
The other condition which the Pathfinder brigades had struggled to satisfy, the level of risk criteria, is dismissed even more comprehensively.
The current national standards of fire cover wUl need to be lifted......." Bain
Review 12.32
"There mill be national principles, standards and expectations though fewer than
there are now " Bain Review 4.8
"Removing or reducing the rigid national prescriptions, such as those about fire
cover or the level of staffing through the day (constant crewing), will make it
possible to meet local needs " Bain 4.9
"departing from the national fire cover standards did not appear to put people at
additional risk." Bain Review 12.20
".....we make recommendations about.....doing away with the current national prescriptions which drive so much of the disposition of fire stations, appliances and staff." Bain Review 10.1
Finally, having abolished the statutory obligation on fire authorities to maintain response times, the Review goes on to remove another check intended to safeguard the public against over-zealous politicians: Section 19 of the 1947 Fire Service Act.
"Under this provision, afire authority in Great Britain may not close afire station or reduce the number of fire appliances or firefighters posts without the consent of the
Secretary of State Unless it is repealed, the sorts of efficiency improvements
we are looking for as a result of a move to the new system will not be realized.. We therefore recommend that ODPM amends or removes Section 19." Bain Review 5-20
Section 19 required that local authorities undertake thorough public consultation and seek Government approval for any changes in fire cover. To comply with the requirements of Section 19 may take a little more time but did NOT preclude such change as Bain seems to imply. It is not made clear whether it is the consultation process or the need for ministerial approval that would prevent 'efficiency improvements' from being realized.
To summarise, Bain proposes the immediate adoption of a risk-based approach to emergency fire cover (ie Pathfinder). In order to avoid the increased costs that Pathfinder predicts would be necessary to implement the new methodology, Bain strips away the regulations and criteria that had safeguarded public and firefighter safety for more than half a century. By removing these 'rigid prescriptions', the Review was then able to advocate the loss of several thousand front-line firefighting jobs in order to pay for any pay-rise. There is no indication that this reduction in the number of firefighters was based on any form of risk assessment. Rather it was based on purely economic factors.
3.2 Was the Bain Review Independent ?
Was Bain truly independent? Many people claim that Bain was a sham; that Mr Prescott had taken advantage of the firefighter's dispute and grasped the opportunity to resurrect Pathfinder under a different name.
8
It has been argued tha the composition of the review body, comprising three recently elevated Labour peers, the uncharacteristic speed with which the review was set up, and the fact that its findings read like a Government wish list all point to this being the case.
There are other specific reasons to believe that Bain was not truly independent. The Review finds emphatically in favour of adopting a risk-based approach to emergency fire cover as proposed in Pathfinder. Yet the only direct reference to Pathfinder is to dismiss it as 'flawed and notoriously unreliable'. For Bain to have any credibility at all it would have needed to acknowledged the work done in Pathfinder, addressed the alleged flaws in those trials and made clear how those problems had been resolved.
Although Pathfinder had not been widely published at this time all parties involved in the Review were fully aware of its existence and its implications. Such a fundamental omission must be seen to invalidate the entire report. It must also raise serious doubts about the Reviews claim to be independent.
"....the Boon Report was simply gesture politics to give the impression that the government was responding to an objective approach. This is clearly not the case in view of the prior existence of afar more comprehensive report and the contradictions between this and the Bain Report." Lynne Jones MP
"The Bain report should be seen essentially as one ordered by the government in response to the strike threat. In other words, it could never be independent". Professor Roger Setfert Keele University
"..—Bain was not truly independent and was constrained by Government policy." Lynne Jones MP Labour Birmingham, Setty Oak
"I think (the Bain Review)is significantly flawed because it did not collect the evidence available to it. I think it is a political report; I think it errs on the side of Government...."
Dr Dennett Independent Fire Consultant Evidence to ODPM Committee
4th November 2003
".....to a degree the Bain Review, is a reaction to the action taken by the Fire
Brigades Union. Although we accept this is an understandable political
response we would argue that this has brought about conclusions being
made for the long-term future of the Fire & Rescue Service which are in some cases lightweight verging on the superficial".
County Councils Network of Chief Officers ODPM The Fire Service; Written
Evidence' 20th October 2003
"....the Review is aping government opinion and is clearly part of the negotiating process rather than independent from it". Professor Roger Sejfert Keele University
Following its publication, I questioned the Reports validity in the absence of any assumption of risk criteria. A spokesman for the Committee explained that "it does
not matter how many firefighters there are." SJPCe Calculations Were based OH the assumption Of "a massive increase in the level of community fire safety education". ThlS
was in spite of the fact that there had been no empirical studies on the effects of such initiatives. To arrive at detailed costings and recommend reductions in the number of firefighters on the basis of such a premise can not be seen as objective..
The Bain Review was very clearly output-led rather than input-driven; it provides answers without asking questions.
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted countsâ€.
Einstein
Einstein