Subscribe to our Newsletter
|
|
|
Under attack: protection for fire crews |
|
|
|
Legal specialist Noel Walsh assesses the threat faced by firefighters from the members of the public and assesses what can be done to mitigate the impact of violent attacks in terms of training, personal protective equipment and law enforcement
‘A CAR DELIBERATELY REVERSED INTO the appliance, which was then put out of action by children throwing stones’. No, this is not Beirut, but an extract from a report of an all too typical incident faced by fire crews in UK cities. In February, the Fire Brigades Union issued a research paper entitled Easy Targets aimed at tackling attacks on fire crews in the UK. Official figures for firefighters published by the DCLG claimed that attacks had fallen from 1,300 in 2005/2006 to 400 in 2006/2007. The report described these figures as being woefully inadequate, with the true level of violence and assaults against fire crews running at 40 plus incidents per week. The risk, as always with inaccurate data, is that it can drive an inaccurate response, either complacency or a mistaken belief that existing measures have led to improvement.
Strategy to Protect Firefighters
The report also criticises both the content of DCLG’s Good Practice Guidance document published in March 2007 and its implementation. Notwithstanding that the guidance was produced by a working group set up by the Chief Fire Officers Operations committee and the Practitioners Forum, which includes representatives from the FBU, the FBU have expressed concern that adoption of the practices outlined is voluntary and that it is not mandatory even to have a policy aimed at tackling violence at work. The FBU is calling for a coherent, national strategy on how to tackle attacks on fire crews, to include adequate reporting and collection of data together with a comprehensive good practice guide backed by sufficient resources. It urges all fire and rescue services to develop their own violence at work policies.
In February 2007, the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act came into force. This Act makes it an offence to obstruct or hinder emergency workers such as firefighters and ambulance workers responding to emergency circumstances and follows on from similar law introduced in Scotland in 2005. The offence carries a penalty of imprisonment (in Scotland), a fine of £5,000, or both. Obviously, the aim of such legislation is to act as a deterrent against perpetrators of such mindless acts. However, as with all criminal offences, it is only as effective as the police’s ability to enforce it and catch the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. What then can be done? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. It is accepted that figures provided by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service have proved more reliable and indicate a reduction in the number of incidents of violence in Scotland over the last year. It is suggested that this success reflects a more coherent structure in Scotland with individual fire and rescue services adopting and applying similar policies.
Whether north or south of the border, the law requires that all employers undertake an appropriate risk assessment and introduce measures to reduce risk of injury. Under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 employers have a duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees. This is further underpinned by regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which requires employers to undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of all foreseeable risk of injury in the workplace and introduce measures to prevent or control the risk. Finally, as a last resort, the provision of suitable personal protective equipment should be considered. That requirement is applicable to all workplace risks, whether it be a back injury from manual handling or a psychological reaction to an act of violence. When it comes to preventative measures, the FBU report recommends that there should be greater collaboration between fire and rescue services to develop a common code for alerting police to an attack and disorder situations. It also recommends collating and assessment of data, participation in youth inclusion and community education strategies and to fund research into why firefighters are being attacked. All of this will need to be backed by adequate funding. These recommendations are largely in line with those contained in the Good Practice Guidance. The real issue taken by the FBU is the need for consistency, for to complement each other and for there to be a national strategy.
Supporting Victims of Violence
As for the victims of violence, the report states that firefighters should not be penalised in terms of their pay and conditions as a result of sustaining an injury at work as a consequence of attack, but instead, help should be offered to rehabilitate victims. Welfare policies which specifically address sickness absense, and possible discretion in respect of sickness allowances, and return to work arrangements following violent attacks, are advocated. The British Crime Survey of 2007 recognises that those working in protective services such as the Fire and Rescue Service are at a higher risk of workplace violence than other professions. It follows that all FRSs should have in place a coherent policy on workplace violence. It is recognised across all sectors that in order to combat and reduce workplace violence, it is necessary to understand when and why it occurs. Accurate information and data gathering is essential for any organisation in order to properly evaluate and address the risk. The suggestion from the FBU that violence is under reported is a common problem across all workers, with employees accepting a level of abuse and violence as being “part of the job”.
Firefighters should be encouraged to report all incidents and there should be a clear and easy method for them to do so. Perhaps the most important weapon in the armoury against workplace violence is the adequacy of training – the ‘dos and don’ts’ should an incident occur and how to anticipate and de-escalate a situation. Firefighters need to be provided with the skill and confidence to make a ‘dynamic’ (on the spot) risk assessment. Refresher training to keep these skills fresh is also required. Training should also include the ability to communicate and secure assistance when needed. This requires a clear understanding and a common approach for the use of codes to summon police assistance, together with confidence that the police will respond within a reasonable time.
As to vehicles and equipment, all appliances should be fitted with toughened glass. All firefighters wear a high level of protective equipment. Protection against attack may not be its primary purpose but it may assist. At least one fire and rescue service has purchased helmets with full face visors, partly to provide better protection against attacks.
The more significant controversy centres on the use of CCTV. CCTV is now commonly used across all sectors both as a deterrent and means of catching perpetrators of violence and antisocial behaviour. The FBU raises the crews’ concerns that such a measure can be seen as a ‘Big Brother’ to ensure that crews are operating to safe operating procedures (SOPs) and it may also compromise their ‘neutral’ position within the community, should they be regarded as ‘Coppers Narks’. In reality CCTV is here to stay. Whilst its force as a deterrent may be on the wane; nevertheless it is a highly important tool to catch culprits. The extent of the ‘dynamic risk assessment’ undertaken by those perpetrating violence is whether they get caught and anything which makes them stop and think is helpful. Its use is extensive to include public transport, hospitals, shops and on security vans. Today, we even have doormen and police wearing ‘head cams’ and one FRS was piloting their use last year. There is no good evidence that CCTV is being used for any hidden agenda, such as the enforcement of operation procedures, but certainly devices such as head cams have had an impact in other sectors. In the security sector we have also seen the introduction of DNA/UV sprays which can be sprayed on an attacker without causing injury, but are water resilient and act as a mark for police attempting to apprehend suspected culprits. In a similar vein, increasing numbers of fire and rescue services are using ‘spit kits’ to collect valuable DNA evidence if firefighters are spat.
Many fire and rescue services embark on community education projects and youth inclusion strategies, which can range from workshops involving young people previously involved in antisocial behaviour through to community football. Whilst there is evidence that such programmes produce results, nevertheless, they place a high demand on resources and investment and the FBU call for any firefighters who are involved in such projects to be professionally trained. Whilst these campaigns focus on community education the FBU calls for greater publicity and media interest to raise public awareness. Unfortunately, antisocial behaviour is a phenomenon of society. Whilst research may help try and explain why attacks on firefighters occur, it remains a significant problem which must be addressed by employers. In 2007 the BBC Panorama documentary estimated that that violence cost the NHS £100 million a year.
So what is the cost to the Fire and Rescue Service through enhanced security, disruption to service, damage to equipment and absence from work? In addition, failure to address the risk could result in expensive civil claims, potential prosecution or enforcement, but more importantly the great personal cost to firefighters and their families caused through serious or fatal injury.
As yet civil cases involving firefighters and workplace violence are few. In February law firm Weightmans successfully defended Nottingham Fire and Rescue Service in a civil action brought by a member of a crew who suffered an injury to his right shoulder after having been attacked by a gang of youths. The Court found that the officer in charge carried out a reasonable and appropriate dynamic risk assessment of the situation that existed when the appliance arrived at the scene, and was not at fault for failing to withdraw the crew and/or await police assistance.
After the event, management is just as important as prevention of injury; whilst the limitations imposed by a physical injury may be obvious, those created by a psychological injury are difficult to observe and understand. Return to work programmes should be instigated with both the assistance of occupational health and the full understanding and support of senior officers. Sometimes the psychological impact of an attack or the prolonged verbal abuse may not be obvious or develop later. Therefore access to a confidential counselling/advice line is important.
Email:
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
About the Author: Noel Walsh is partner and head of Workplace Safety at law firm Weightmans and Peppy Marshall, and partner and head of Local Government Litigation at Weightmans. He specialises in workplace violence claims acting on behalf of and advising, amongst others UK security companies, the NHS and the transport sector. He is a member of the joint forum on physical intervention in the licensed sector. |
|
|
