Pay structure reform - reflections on the output of information/consultation sessions
November consultation sessions
The National Employers organised information and consultation sessions during November so that we could update the sector on this work, gather ideas and hear views on how to take this all forward. Given that this work has not just started now and dates back to the NJC working group in 2023, it has been important to place this conversation into context and build on work already undertaken.
The sessions were all held online, and were interactive conversations. We held seven sessions altogether, five for the most senior operational and political leadership across the sector, and two for People Directors/HR leads. Forty-seven Fire and Rescue services were represented at the sessions.
We promised during the sessions that we would take notes just for our own purposes, so that people could speak openly and freely, we tried to draw out what works in the Grey Book pay structure, what the frustrations are, and what we should seek to improve. We used those notes to support an intensive thought session with the National Employers Advisory Forum, where we dedicated two days to discuss and debate how we should advise the National Employers to progress this piece of work. More on that soon, but in the meantime, here’s a run down of the issues and ideas that were captured, grouped into themes across the seven sessions.
Key messages from the sessions
It is important to say at the outset that there were two over-riding messages; firstly, that services welcome the opportunity for change and to have input into these discussions and secondly there are serious concerns about funding. It is clear therefore that any suggestions for change which would result in cost pressures to services would only be supported if there was funding attached to the proposals.
Opportunities identified by roundtable colleagues
Acknowledgement that key organisations (FBU, employers and government) are all engaged and there are a number of shared objectives. This presents a good opportunity to modernise the pay structure, and it would be wrong to not explore this further.
A frequently stated desire to bring about consistency in a number of areas such as standards, timeframes, amounts paid in relation to reward etc. We heard support for simplicity, and consistency.
Broad agreement that consistency is needed in both the standards which are applied to assess an individual’s competence and the timeframe in which competence could be achieved.
Idea expressed for a longer, staged journey (e.g. Competent 1 → Competent 2) with clear skills milestones and linked pay points.
Anchored by a College of Fire & Rescue curriculum, and to split the current £8k jump (from Development pay to Competent Pay) across staged milestones (e.g. ~24 months then ~48 months) tied to road mapped skills.
Discussions about the possibility of ‘layering’ skills so there is a national baseline for all but with the ability for services to build on that when needed. This sits with the idea of more developed career paths, and the building up of skills within role.
Kent FRS shared a practical “Acquisition → Confidence → Mastery” pathway (non-pay related at this stage at Kent FRS) which was welcomed and generated interest:
removed trainee rate; pay as practicing firefighter post pathway
reward demonstrated mastery in specialisms; use recognition and coaching responsibilities to validate and (ideally) remunerate
aim to sustain learning over 40 years (varied modalities, assessment, coaching), not just repeat mandatory courses.
Opportunity to develop this idea and offer. Strong support particularly from large city services who want to do more in this space and feel the FRS is the obvious and perfectly placed emergency service to support communities. Additional link here for supporting a broader case for increased government funding into the service.
Strong view that CPD (ranging £400–£1,500) is not functioning as true professional development; consider re profiling the national CPD agreement into structured skill progression.
Discussions around whether role maps need updating or is there an alternative?
Suggestions of using the core firefighter safety units from the current role map as the building blocks for any progression model; building into 'advanced' units (e.g. driving or 'FF9') as the pathway develops.
Lots of frustration and debate expressed on what is 'in-out' of the role map and concerns around 'paying twice'.
Discussion around implications of those not working to the role map, idea to fund higher end skills i.e. align pay with verified practice, not potential eligibility.
Shift the language away from previous debates avoiding lists and percentages towards skills, competence, and training linkage, using the College of Fire and Rescue as an enabler.
Debate between 'menu/pick and mix' vs universal baseline skills; strong indication from services about ensuring equality between services, consensus probably leaned towards a national spine & new language (moving away from describing ‘development’ and ‘competent’ with local options based on risk/CRMP), providing we keep within affordability.
Culture and behaviours must be threaded through any framework (not as an afterthought), with local ownership and visible leadership.
Challenges and concerns expressed
Widespread warning about funding risk (multi-year settlement unknowns; fair funding review re distribution; precept flexibility not guaranteed by local politics).
Several services reported recent pay awards outstripping funding, resulting in cuts.
Concerns that a new pay structure will mean services will be required to pay additional money for skills already renumerated for (in basic pay).
Multiple chiefs highlighted the dependency on government to define the service role (statutory expectations, resilience, duties like flooding) to unlock sustainable reform. Debate about whether the sector should lead, or ask that question.
Recognition of the growing overlap between Grey Book and Green Book roles, especially in prevention and protection, some expressed a desire for greater consistency and fairness across the workforce.
Some practical suggestions on maintaining good 'IR' with some polarised expressions in relation to the risk industrial action would pose to the sector. Questions raised about balance of pay negotiations and pay structure discussions.
Where to from here?
Following the round table sessions, the Advisory Forum spent time discussing all these issues, understanding the common ground and distinctive points in the aims and objectives of the employers’ side, the unions and the government(s). This work has fed into broader discussions between all parties, and we will update on how that work is progressing early in 2026.