| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Jan 2003 : Column 721—continued
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden): May I begin by thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement and for prior warning of it? I should like to add our support to his calls for the FBU to call off its irresponsible strike action. May I also take this opportunity, as he did, of offering the thanks of the House to the armed forces, the other emergency services and, most particularly, the retained firefighters, without whose service the safety of the public could not be guaranteed?
Sadly, we are becoming all too familiar with hearing a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on fire strikes. Today we will continue to look for answers to the questions that are still unanswered. By taking this opportunity to raise a number of practical matters with him before dealing with the substantive new announcement, I hope that I will give the House time to digest the full import of his proposal.
Throughout this action, we have tried to extract from the Government commitments in several areas, including transitional funding and the effects that modernisation will have on the fire service. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told a Select Committee that this 48-hour strike would cost the taxpayer £6 million; that is on top of the £70 million cost of the strikes to date. Will he confirm those figures to the House, and, given that this is such a large sum of money, precisely how he will meet the transitional funding required? Also, exactly which of the public services that he referred to will be reduced, or eliminated from his departmental budget, as a result of the union's needless strike action? Will he also confirm that those fire authorities that have already modernised will not be hit financially as a result of any budget shortfall?
As the Deputy Prime Minister said, throughout this action the Fire Brigades Union has repeatedly claimed that modernisation will mean job losses and the closure of fire stations. The best way to dispel lies is with the truth. Will he tell the House what job losses and station closures he expects as a result of modernisation? Since it is in everybody's interests to ensure that members of the
union return to work as soon as possible, can he refute union claims that his plans for the fire service will result in 4,500 job losses and the closure of 150 stations? If he cannot refute those claims, can he tell the House how he will maintain high service levels throughout the country and especially in rural areas, and—as I have asked him before—halve the level of deaths, as has been done in other countries?Given the FBU's irresponsible action, members of our military are yet again on the streets of the United Kingdom, protecting the public from fires. The cover they have provided throughout the action has been excellent, and we thank them for that. Everybody wants this series of strikes to come to a rapid end, and that means persuading the firefighters that Bain is a good deal, and that they should persuade the FBU to accept the deal.
The dominant and immediate issue, however, is that of public safety, particularly given the combination of possible terrorism at home and war in Iraq. Last week, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister specifically about the cover provided by 16 Air Assault Brigade, and how it was going to be replaced when that unit was committed elsewhere. I am afraid that he tried to bluster his way out of the question. As column 26 of Hansard shows, he said:
- "I should point out that most of the quotes that the right hon. Gentleman gave came from the press. I am not as confident as he is about press reports on these matters".—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 26.]
- "For strike action on 28 January"—
- "16th Air Assault will be replaced in full."
Of course, the Opposition have faced this lack of response from the Government before on raising public safety issues. First, the Government deny the significance of the issue, then they rubbish the feasibility of the proposal, and finally they try to claim credit for doing what we called for in the first place. We saw this with the red fire engines, and I suspect that we will do so again with the use of the law in this dispute. As we agreed last week, the risks of strike action increase every week with the combined threats of terrorism and war in Iraq. This week, the prospect of resolution of the strike looks as far away as ever. So the House can understand the Deputy Prime Minister's frustration, and his probable belief that these negotiations will get nowhere in the foreseeable future; indeed, that is pretty much what he said today.
As I understand the Deputy Prime Minister's proposal, he will take to himself the right to impose a conclusion of the negotiation process, and to decide the firefighters' terms and conditions. What is absolutely unclear is what he will do if they continue to strike, against his decision. We will look at this proposal carefully, and if we are persuaded that it will work we
will facilitate its progress through the House; however, we do not know that it will stop the strike. It may well end the negotiations, but it will not stop the strike, and doing so is the key issue.Throughout the strikes, the Deputy Prime Minister has rubbished our calls for an injunction, calling them inflammatory. Does not the action that he has proposed today inflame the situation without necessarily providing any prospect of a resolution? This morning, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions rightly said that the strikes are
- "completely pointless, would not achieve anything . . . and put the public at risk."
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister once more whether he will request the Attorney-General to seek an injunction against the strike on public interest grounds. We all know that the final decision will be made by the courts, but that will not happen without initial action by the Deputy Prime Minister. We will look carefully at his changes to the 1947 Act, but action to stop these dangerous strikes is what the public want.
The Deputy Prime Minister: At the beginning, I should express appreciation for the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation and support for the emergency services, which everyone on both sides of the House fully endorses.
On the cost of the dispute, I told the Select Committee that I thought that it was about £5 million, although there are other estimates. However, it is probably something like £1 million a day, but we have to pay more if we are using troops during the dispute, so it may well be £2 million a day. There are negotiations between different Departments, and various costs are involved, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot be precise. However, I have said that the net cost to the Department is £70 million; if other Departments are included, it is about £100 million, which is a considerable sum. I pointed out to the Select Committee that I therefore face some difficult choices, as that cost will not be funded from reserves but from my Department's budget. Sometimes, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, Departments underspend and sometimes they overspend, and I have to make a judgment about where that money will come from, but it will come from the Department. The more money that is used for the dispute, the more difficulties are created—do I cut back programmes or, indeed, do I find transference money necessary for the two or three-year deal proposed by Bain?
I shall have to deal with those difficulties as they arise, but we cannot be certain that they have been resolved until negotiations have been concluded. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that we would like the dispute to finish. I would like the negotiations to result in a settlement with as little bitterness as possible. The longer disputes go on, the greater the difficulties. It is far better to have an agreement, which is why I fundamentally believe that it is far better to provide opportunities for an agreeable negotiated position than to impose a solution. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether legislation will in fact secure what he wants—the ceasing of a strike if he made it illegal or the
Attorney-General took action. The situation is difficult, but the evidence does not necessarily lead one to accept that by introducing such legislation the dispute will be ended. I do not believe that that is the case, and my own experience shows why. One has to make a judgment, and I have sought to do so.If I can just deal with the role of the Attorney-General, I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the Government's job to make a judgment about the Attorney-General. I notice that every time a statement is made in the House, the shadow Attorney-General is never here to give his view.
David Davis: I will bring him next time.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Well, do that so I can ask him directly for his advice. It will be the same as the advice I get from the Attorney-General—he has to make a judgment. He consults, takes various matters into account and makes judgments about public safety, but it is he who makes the judgment—the Government cannot direct him to do so. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Attorney-General keeps himself fully informed of the situation. We are therefore at odds about the best way to use legislation. I have proposed intervention and the possibility of an imposed solution, which allows an awful lot more time while discussions are under way in the House and consultations are conducted for negotiations to continue. I would like a negotiated settlement—let us be clear about that. I want the employers and the employees to work to find a settlement themselves.
My proposal almost suggests an end-date for the negotiations that have been going on for nearly 12 months since the first announcement of strikes. In any reasonable assessment one would assume that a negotiated settlement could be achieved within a 12-month period. I hope that that will be done in a shorter time but, quite apart from the extra costs involved, we are in special circumstances and are reaching a stage where public safety is a concern. Everyone in the House praises the emergency services currently in operation but we all accept that they are not as good as having full-time firefighters. I am therefore obliged to bring the situation to a conclusion, hence the reason for my judgment today.
As for jobs lost, the Bain inquiry makes it clear that there is no need for compulsory redundancies, even through the modernisation proposals, and refers to the number of early retirements through the pension scheme. The situation faced by those in the union is quite different from that which was faced by the miners, who were told, "We're closing 100 pits and 100,000 workers will be redundant from tonight." That is not the position that is facing the fire workers, and it is wrong for them to suggest that it is.
The closure of fire stations is unjustified. Again, I refer to the Bain inquiry. At the end of the day, we have to strike a balance between intervention and prevention; that is what the new risk assessment is about. Risk assessment is not new to the fire service—it has constantly undertaken it in relation to the siting of fire stations. That should continue, and it is not proposed that it should change, but the balance between intervention and prevention that Bain talked about is an important part of it.
As regards public safety concerns and the use of armed forces, whenever there is a deployment of whatever divisions of whatever parts of the Army, the armed forces have told us clearly that there will be no reduction in the numbers of people deployed and that full cover will be provided. All that I have to do is to accept the word of armed forces representatives that they have the same amount of people, that the trained personnel are in place and that they can maintain the same level of service. I have no reason to doubt that, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was doubting it. He played around with which regiments are here and which are there. That is fair enough—he might find it interesting—but for me the reality is whether the same amount of troops are deployed in the same way and whether they possess the same skills. We are giving them extra equipment. That is good enough for me, and if it is good enough for the armed services, I accept their word on that.
In all such matters, Secretaries of State are accountable for making a balance of judgment, and I have given the House my best consideration of that. Apparently, the Opposition would rush into making legislation to ban strikes or to give directions to the Attorney-General. That would not help the situation. I have struck a balance that means that there is an end to the time in which negotiations can take place. I shall take powers, with the consent of the House, to implement such an agreement. If it is not implemented, I can implement it through the power that I am seeking today. The important point is that there is time to continue the negotiations. That is what we want—for both parties to get back to the negotiating table.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |