| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Jan 2003 : Column 26—continued
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and I agree that the latest strikes are unnecessary. The FBU leadership should be back talking with the employers at ACAS, rather than striking. However, can he clear up one confusion as to his own position? He talks about the publication of a White Paper for the fire services—in which Ministers will set out their detailed reactions to Bain—some time before Easter, yet Ministers are asking employers and the FBU leadership to make up their minds on the details of Bain even before the White Paper's publication. Is there not some inconsistency in this regard? Can he tell the House exactly when the Government's detailed position on Bain will be known? Surely that would be helpful for the talks at ACAS.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister say more about the fire cover arrangements for the strikes, particularly, as the Conservative spokesman said, in the context of the latest deployment of armed forces to the Gulf? Will he confirm that some of the troops covering the strike, including the 3rd Parachute Regiment, are currently on training before deployment, and that they must break that training to cover the strikes and will then be sent out to Kuwait immediately after the strike on 28 January? Is that a sensible way either to train our forces before deployment or to cover the fire strikes? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that some of the specialists trained for the breathing apparatus rescue teams and rescue equipment support teams are among those being deployed? Is that gap to be filled by other specialists?
As regards future talks, will the Deputy Prime Minister make it clear again that the Government are willing to provide sufficient transitional funding to assist any settlement that is agreed? Will he ensure that those
fire authorities that have already modernised, and therefore cannot make the savings available to others, will not be penalised by the way in which that funding is provided? Will he further reassure fire authorities that they will not be left by themselves to negotiate every aspect of Bain modernisation with their local FBU branch? If and when the FBU decides to return to the negotiating table, will the Deputy Prime Minister support the new local employer negotiating team in providing clear guidelines for fire authorities about agreements reached on Bain modernisation?Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that the firefighters to whom I have talked accept the need for modernisation and understand that better fire prevention is the surest way to save lives, particularly at night? Will he urgently look into Bain's proposals for greater use of local and even regional pay settlements? Does he agree that those may be one way out of the present cul-de-sac?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. I assure him that the Government accept the broad thrust of the Bain report, as I have stated in the House. We will provide more details about the White Paper, and we will enter into discussions with many of those who will be directly affected by the Bain report. I told the general secretary of the FBU and the employers about the broad framework, and the Government will discuss the Bain proposals with all those who have an active interest in them. It is clear that the broad thrust of that report is accepted. I accept that there are difficulties concerning the implications for different areas, and we will take those into account. We do not want to see areas penalised because of their geography.
Whatever agreement is arrived at, the package has to be self-financing. We have made that clear, and Bain made it clear. The period for the introduction of the pay proposals will be longer than the two years that have been discussed; Bain suggests that three years will be necessary. We recognise that we may have to find more resources in the early stages of the agreement, and I have agreed to that, but the terms and conditions will have to fit into the overall policy that the package is self-financing, albeit over three years.
On the provision of troops, as I said earlier, there may be some change in the deployment, and specialist units may be removed because of the situation regarding Iraq. There is to be a statement about that later, and detailed matters can be pursued then, but I am assured that we have the same number of people with the same amount of specialist training to carry out the fire service obligations.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): I thank my right hon. Friend for reassuring me that Dumfries and Galloway will be covered during tomorrow's strike. Like him, I do not necessarily always respond to what the national press says. I urge him not to listen to the main Opposition party: the solution to the dispute lies not in the courts but at ACAS, with negotiations involving all sides.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Bain inquiry and the recommendation for a salary increase of 11.3 per cent. over time. I recently met an FBU officer from my
local branch who told me that a 4 per cent. increase will be funded, but there is no guarantee of a 7.3 per cent. rise beyond that because of difficulties concerning the amount that would have to be paid to retained firefighters. Is my right hon. Friend in a position to clarify that point?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
As regards solutions, I agree with my hon. Friend that, when negotiations are going on, it is best not to inflame the situation by advocating all sorts of legal action. However, we all understand the position of the Opposition: they are not interested in a solution, but only in making political capital out of it. The general feeling of the House is that people should be talking and reaching agreement through ACAS. That is the overwhelming view of the House.
The employers offered a 4 per cent. wage increase for the first year, which was referred to in the Bain inquiry. The figure of 11.3 per cent. was made up of the 7.3 per cent. to which my hon. Friend referred and that 4 per cent. increase, and is part of the modernisation proposals on which the firefighters have to enter negotiations. As he pointed out, the 7.3 per cent. is part of the overall pay bill. As he knows, there was considerable discussion in the earlier negotiations about the full-time workers, the retained workers and the whole range of workers who are involved in the fire service. Those matters are for negotiation between the employers and the employees. The funding of the package has now been decided. It was recommended by Bain and accepted by the Government, and the firefighters should now sit down and negotiate.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Has the Deputy Prime Minister formed a view on whether it would be advisable to lock striking firemen out of their fire stations, for example, to enable the Army to use the red engines?
The Deputy Prime Minister : That is another helpful and constructive view from the Opposition. I have already given the House the Government's point of view.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the past two or three weeks, I have detected in meetings with some FBU people that the argument has shifted just a little towards jobs and is no longer so much on the pay front? Some of my colleagues have been present at meetings where such matters were discussed.
In view of the fact that, over the years, both my right hon. Friend and I have fought to save jobs in our respective industries, does he agree that people should be prepared to discuss and deal with some aspects of Bain, but that we should be very careful over the question of job losses? One of the Government's proudest claims is that we have managed to get more than 1 million people back into work, so it sits uneasily to tell a union, "You'll have to lose some jobs." I hope that we can have a modernisation that is not dissimilar
to the one in the House of Commons, where we have modernised everything, there is no night shift and nobody has lost their job.
The Deputy Prime Minister : I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend, especially that the Government have a tremendous record in increasing the level of employment.
An awful lot has been said about job cuts, but I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, overall, we have to take the safety of the public into account when providing the service. That is our first requirement. However, the process does not require job cuts. The controversy about job cuts was addressed by Bain, who said that there was no need for enforced redundancies in the industry. He pointed out that changes to the pension scheme would bring about a considerable amount of retirement by choice as people reached 50 to 53 years of age. That means that change could be brought about without enforced redundancies.
My hon. Friend will know that often in negotiations, the position on redundancy is strict—"You're out"—and that is what people have to accept. In this case, there would be no enforced redundancy, simply negotiations and readjustment. That is unlike the position in my hon. Friend's industry, which faced the threat that thousands would be out of work; indeed, 100,000 workers lost their jobs and 100 pits were closed. There was no choice—they were out. That is not the situation that faces the fire workers.
Mr. Charles Hendry (Wealden): Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to Alex Kent, a 25-year-old firefighter in Crowborough in my constituency, who lost his life a week ago trying to save the life of his younger brother? None of us can understand the grief of his parents who lost everything—their children and their home—in a few devastating hours.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one unfortunate aspect of this dispute is that, by forcing people to take entrenched positions, we have lost sight of the fact that firefighters daily put their lives on the line to save the lives of others?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |