This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6078426.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Firefighters' medic role rejected Firefighters' medic role rejected
(about 13 hours later)
Attempts to make medically-trained firefighters answer emergencies on behalf of ambulance services have been rejected by the High Court.Attempts to make medically-trained firefighters answer emergencies on behalf of ambulance services have been rejected by the High Court.
A judge ruled medical treatment was not part of firefighters' normal duties.A judge ruled medical treatment was not part of firefighters' normal duties.
Lincolnshire council and Nottingham's fire authority claimed firefighters should provide life-saving treatment in their role as "co-responders".Lincolnshire council and Nottingham's fire authority claimed firefighters should provide life-saving treatment in their role as "co-responders".
But the Fire Brigade Union, which welcomed the judgement, said the proposals were too dangerous. But the Fire Brigades Union, which welcomed the judgement, said the proposals were too dangerous.
Medically trained firefighters can provide vital medical attention in situations such as cardiac arrests, when acting as co-responders while awaiting the arrival of paramedics.Medically trained firefighters can provide vital medical attention in situations such as cardiac arrests, when acting as co-responders while awaiting the arrival of paramedics.
More than one third of fire and rescue authorities in England have agreed such schemes.More than one third of fire and rescue authorities in England have agreed such schemes.
But in a landmark judgment, Mr Justice Butterfield said co-responding was not part of the contracts of employment of firefighters in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.But in a landmark judgment, Mr Justice Butterfield said co-responding was not part of the contracts of employment of firefighters in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
He was told by counsel for the Fire Brigades Union, Jason Galbraith-Marten, that the case involved an issue "of some national importance to all parties" as it was regarded as being a test case. He was told by counsel for the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), Jason Galbraith-Marten, that the case involved an issue "of some national importance to all parties" as it was regarded as being a test case.
Contract demandsContract demands
The fire authorities had argued that they had the right to assign additional duties - such as co-responding - to a firefighter in line with local fire safety plans, known as Integrated Risk Management Plans (IRMP).The fire authorities had argued that they had the right to assign additional duties - such as co-responding - to a firefighter in line with local fire safety plans, known as Integrated Risk Management Plans (IRMP).
They had also asked that firefighters should be required to be trained and undertake such duties as part of their normal work, and that any refusal constituted a breach of contract.They had also asked that firefighters should be required to be trained and undertake such duties as part of their normal work, and that any refusal constituted a breach of contract.
But the FBU said such duties were outside the scope of firefighters' contractual obligations.But the FBU said such duties were outside the scope of firefighters' contractual obligations.
Perhaps in the future there will be one integrated emergency service, but that is for the future and not the present Mr Justice ButterfieldPerhaps in the future there will be one integrated emergency service, but that is for the future and not the present Mr Justice Butterfield
It claimed such schemes would only "paper over cracks" in operational deficiencies of the ambulance service and would also hinder and dilute the efficiency of the fire service.It claimed such schemes would only "paper over cracks" in operational deficiencies of the ambulance service and would also hinder and dilute the efficiency of the fire service.
Mr Butterfield said terms and conditions firefighters agreed to when they signed their contracts did not mean they had to enter co-responding schemes.Mr Butterfield said terms and conditions firefighters agreed to when they signed their contracts did not mean they had to enter co-responding schemes.
He said if firefighters were required to offer assistance to heart attack victims - the principle reason behind co-responder schemes - then they would "not be acting as firefighters at all".He said if firefighters were required to offer assistance to heart attack victims - the principle reason behind co-responder schemes - then they would "not be acting as firefighters at all".
He said: "There is no fire accident, there's no hazard, no missing person, no rescue. They are deployed because they can get to the medical emergency quickly and have the requisite level of skill.He said: "There is no fire accident, there's no hazard, no missing person, no rescue. They are deployed because they can get to the medical emergency quickly and have the requisite level of skill.
"I have no doubt it is a very valuable use of their expertise but it is essentially the job of a paramedic or ambulance crew.""I have no doubt it is a very valuable use of their expertise but it is essentially the job of a paramedic or ambulance crew."
Integrated roleIntegrated role
He also said that one solution could be a situation where there was no limit to the firefighter's role.He also said that one solution could be a situation where there was no limit to the firefighter's role.
"Perhaps in the future there will be one integrated emergency service, but that is for the future and not the present.""Perhaps in the future there will be one integrated emergency service, but that is for the future and not the present."
FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack welcomed Monday's judgement, claiming that co-responding was "being used to mask and potentially worsen performance problems in the ambulance service".FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack welcomed Monday's judgement, claiming that co-responding was "being used to mask and potentially worsen performance problems in the ambulance service".
"It is unacceptable that NHS targets allow the basic first aid, provided under a co-responding scheme, to count as the time of the ambulance service response, in place of the actual ambulance response time," he said."It is unacceptable that NHS targets allow the basic first aid, provided under a co-responding scheme, to count as the time of the ambulance service response, in place of the actual ambulance response time," he said.
Ambulances are currently supposed to attend emergencies within eight minutes.Ambulances are currently supposed to attend emergencies within eight minutes.
The row over co-responding has previously led to industrial action, with firefighters in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire refusing to be trained with heart defibrillators and other life-saving equipment.The row over co-responding has previously led to industrial action, with firefighters in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire refusing to be trained with heart defibrillators and other life-saving equipment.
The court also heard how firefighters in Nottinghamshire had 10% of their wages docked because of their refusal to participate in the co-responder scheme.The court also heard how firefighters in Nottinghamshire had 10% of their wages docked because of their refusal to participate in the co-responder scheme.