| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Jan 2003 : Column 29—continued
The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House joins the hon. Gentleman in extending sympathy in the tragic circumstances in which that fire worker died and in acknowledging the risks that firemen face every day. Members of the armed forces face similar risks in such situations. We must not only offer our sympathy but reduce the risk of such tragedies happening in what we all agree is a dangerous profession. The best way of achieving that is to get to a new service, deal with the changes necessary for a modernised service and return to providing one—rather than being in dispute.
Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): Is there is not a fundamental problem with getting ACAS to work when a precondition appears to be signing up to the Bain report—which includes terms that the Deputy Prime Minister would never have accepted as a trade union negotiator? It would appear that the employers and the FBU agree on the need for change to the risk-based assessments upon which shifts, hours and staffing
depend, but the shift from property-based to life-based risk has yet to be made. Would it not make more sense for that to be done first, before asking firefighters to sign up to the consequences? The second matter, which is connected, is that before the dispute—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like more than one question to me.
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks me to consider whether I would have accepted preconditions in respect of ACAS discussions. Anyone who is familiar with ACAS procedures knows that the employer states his position and the employees state their position. They do not agree. They go into two different rooms and ACAS shuffles between them. They are at ACAS because they do not agree. Lots of conditions are often laid down by both parties. The FBU's wish not to talk about Bain or reorganisation is a condition. ACAS gets the two parties in different rooms in the hope of finding some way forward and I am sure that the House agrees with that objective.
My hon. Friend is right about risk assessment. In the present circumstances, more importance is placed on property than human life. That approach existed under the old system but we are proposing change. That is called modernisation and I hope that everybody will accept it.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): Will the right hon. Gentleman help me to understand the Prime Minister's comment in Prime Minister's questions last week that
- "the decision whether to seek an injunction is taken by the Attorney-General, on the basis of whether such an injunction would succeed or not. It is a decision for him, and not one that I can or should take."—[Official Report, 15 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 680.]
The Deputy Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has made a number of comments and does not solely rest his case on the Attorney-General and whether or not an injunction might succeed. However, the right hon. Gentleman may agree that the Attorney-General might take that matter into account. He must take into account the threat to public safety and order—which he does by making an assessment of the situation, talking to the Ministers involved, then making a judgment. The Prime Minister made it clear that that matter is for the Attorney-General's judgment—not for him or Ministers.
John Cryer (Hornchurch): Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), when firefighters retire, will they be replaced by new recruits or not? On the back of the loss of hundreds of firefighters' jobs and scores of pumps; station closures over the past 20 years; the Audit Commission's report; and the White Paper published
three or four years ago, which recommended expanding the service and moving to risk-based assessment, will my right hon. Friend look at expanding the fire service, not cutting it?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Under the present system, retired firefighters have not necessarily been replaced. The FBU makes that precise point to us from time to time. The union is not saying that should not happen but that there should be effective deployment of people in the fire services—and the FBU has been prepared to consider that as part of modernisation. Bain has said that is proper—and that there should be proper risk assessment before arriving at judgments locally on what changes should be made. It is not up to me to make such judgments in local areas but for local authorities to decide the provision of public services. We have endorsed and adopted the Bain proposals and hope that the FBU will now starting talking about them.
Mr. Michael Weir (Angus): The Deputy Prime Minister has made very clear this afternoon the Government's commitment to Bain, but is he aware that it is being reported that local authority leaders have written to the FBU and are said to have withdrawn a demand that the union commit itself to the Bain review's recommendations? Can he tell us whether that is indeed the case and, if so, will he allow the employers and unions to negotiate outwith the constraints of Bain, or will he step in to scupper such negotiations?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The local authorities have made it clear, since the Bain inquiry reported, that they expect the negotiations to take place on the basis of the Bain proposals. That is precisely the Government's position; it is the local authorities' position, and it is now being discussed in ACAS.
Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire): I share my right hon. Friend's concern that any further strike by firefighters will be extremely damaging, but may I remind him that there was a period of good will during the festive period when disputes were suspended? That suggests that a feeling of good will and maturity is creeping into the dispute, but does he agree that any progress will be undermined by the terrible attacks by some in the national press of the firefighters' leaders and, equally, by the personal attacks by local firefighters on politicians at all levels, but particularly those at local level who have little or no influence in this dispute?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I certainly agree that good will is important—an awful lot of it exists—but it is sometimes undermined by some outrageous statements made by all parties in the dispute, which are often exploited by the press. At the end of the day, though, people should focus their attention on the real issue: providing a good and safe fire service—a modernised fire service—involving all the members of the FBU, who need to sit down and discuss the proposals. The inquiry has produced what I think is a very good solution; we now need to work out exactly how we will implement it.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that the Government have now got
themselves into the absurd position of calling up striking firemen as reservists for service in the Gulf, while regular servicemen remain on stand-by here to cover for striking firemen? Has he explained to the Attorney-General that that does not appear to be in the public interest? If he has not done so, will he do so?
The Deputy Prime Minister: To be honest, that could only come from a military mind. That is an anomaly, as the hon. Gentleman properly points out. If it is true—[Interruption.] Well, it is a concern, but it is not a matter of great consideration. There may be one or two individuals in the fire brigade who presumably offer to stand by to play a part in such emergencies, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman condones that and believes that it is proper for them to do so. Where there are anomalies like that, I am sure that those firefighters' places will be covered by other available people. That arrangement creates a certain anomaly, but it is certainly not on any scale that would require a major policy to deal with it.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): When the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on this subject back in November does he remember saying, quite rightly, that hoax calls were utterly unacceptable, that they would be dealt with very severely and that there would be exemplary sentences? Is he aware that the Solicitor-General revealed in a written answer to me published on Tuesday 17 December in column 661W of Hansard that the number of individuals who were actually charged during the first firemen's strike was just two? What happened?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am advised that there have been more than that and that the sentences have been severe. There have been some exemplary sentences—they have been referred to in debates—but I am prepared to look at that matter again, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): The Deputy Prime Minister has been rightly critical of the FBU. Will he today publicly encourage firefighers who are members of that union but share his dissatisfaction with it to resign from the union?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |