| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Jan 2003 : Column 725—continued
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement, and join him, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, in expressing our thanks to the armed forces, to the other emergency services and to the many retained firefighters who are working to help the public during strikes.
As he will know, Liberal Democrat Members have agreed with him on many of the actions that he is taking during the dispute, including the need for a fair pay settlement linked to real modernisation along the lines of the Bain review. However, we cannot agree with the statement. Does he not realise that rushing the proposed emergency legislation through the House will be seen as a measure that is designed to inflame the dispute, not to solve it? Throughout the dispute, the Deputy Prime Minister has worked hard to win over the hearts and minds of firefighters. Why, then, is he now seeking to alienate them with this panic measure? Will he acknowledge that rushed emergency legislation has a very chequered history in this House? Does he recognise that if rushed legislation on dangerous dogs was flawed, rushed legislation on fire services could be fatal?
The Deputy Prime Minister claims that yesterday's decision by the FBU executive was the trigger for today's statement. We share his regret and anger that the FBU has pressed ahead with strikes and appears to have decided to turn its back on ACAS, and we share his view that the Government could not leave that decision unanswered, and did indeed have to act. However, surely now is the time for compulsory and binding
arbitration. Why have the Government not announced that they will require the FBU and the employers to attend talks at ACAS, forcing both sides to the negotiating table? The Deputy Prime Minister says that he wants the involvement of the independent arbitrator, and that is the most sensible way forward.Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise what a dangerous precedent he is setting? Who will be next on the Government's hit list for imposed pay settlements without negotiation or independent arbitration? This is a huge centralisation of power. Will the Government's next target be health workers or teachers, or will Ministers reserve such treatment for the emergency services, including the ambulance service? The Deputy Prime Minister rightly tells us that his top priority is public safety. Does he not realise that if Ministers were to intervene in two-hour stoppages, however frustrating, the practical effect could be to reduce public safety, as firefighters would be likely to withdraw their labour completely?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is reported to have said that transitional funding for modernisation could be cut if strikes go ahead? Does he realise that far from punishing the firefighters, that would punish the British public and local communities? Will he also explain his astonishing revelation that the cost of the strike is coming not from the reserve, but from his own Department's budget? How he can justify that decision, which he himself admits will hit those most in need?
Throughout the dispute, Liberal Democrat Members have given the Government the benefit of the doubt. We completely agreed that the FBU's 40 per cent. pay claim was outrageous and that any fair pay settlement must be linked to real modernisation. Yet we also believe that today's statement is a major mistake by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister is in great danger of losing the support of the public and of the House.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for offering the typical support that Liberal Democrats provide in such difficult situations.
As I understand his case, he believes that there should be fair negotiations connected to modernisation, and that both parties should be involved. We can all put our hands up in favour of that—for nine months, we have been trying to get the two parties to do precisely that. His solution appears to be to force both sides to go to arbitration. Presumably, that would require some legislation to direct them, but he is telling me that I should not use legislation in that way. At the moment the firefighters are refusing to go to ACAS, and I do not think that they will change their minds simply because the Liberals get up and say that they should do so or that I should not introduce legislation. Does he accept that I would require legislation to direct them to go in as a negotiating team? Does he think that that is an easy process? It certainly is not. He is not jumping up to correct me, so I assume that he accepts that we need legislation. Curiously, the Liberals have supported similar legislation—the Fire Services Act 1947. Admittedly, there were not so many of them then, but nevertheless they supported the essential principles of that Act. In various disputes, the Secretary of State has
to make decisions in areas where public safety could be threatened, and that is presumably why such provisions were included in the 1947 Act.The hon. Gentleman suggested that I am rushing the legislation, but that is not so. I have to consult everybody, including the Liberals—I have started that process, and perhaps they will rethink their position—and I must then make a proposal to the House, which will debate the primary legislation. I suspect that there may even be a statutory requirement to lay an order, so that the House would have to debate the matter again. That is not a quick process. It will take several weeks for the House to discuss the proposals, which means that there are many weeks in which the negotiations can continue without any enforced situation. It is a matter of judgment, and I have decided to take this course of action, which allows for negotiations, but says to both parties, "You cannot continue to have deadlock in this situation without facing possible intervention with the agreement of this House."
Mr. John MacDougall (Central Fife): Would my right hon. Friend join me in expressing his condolences, and those of the House, to the family and friends of Sidney Lennon, who was affectionately known as John Lennon, his wife Linda and his son Paul, who tragically died through fire at their home in my constituency, in Hill Road, Kennoway in Fife, at 3 am on Sunday morning? Sadly, in those tragic circumstances, the issue of the Bain report cropped up in the media. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that there are no proposals by the Government that would weaken public safety during the early hours of the morning, which are known by fire brigade staff as the dead hours?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I can tell my hon. Friend that I read of a tragic case—I think that it was in the Daily Mirror—in which people died during the evening in terrible circumstances in a fire that occurred at their home. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to express their support and deepest sympathy, through my hon. Friend, for the family that is facing such tragedy.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that public safety will be maintained at the highest level. He mentioned the Bain report—the point of that was to increase fire coverage. It is not always a matter of intervention. The tragedy of many deaths that occur as a result of fires at night is that although the firefighters are quick to get there, a fire that might have been prevented by fire prevention techniques of some kind is often already well advanced. I do not know whether that was so in the case my hon. Friend mentioned. There is a great deal of evidence to show that we should emphasise prevention rather than intervention and achieve a better balance between them. That is precisely what the Bain inquiry proposed, and I want to discuss with the FBU how we can achieve that.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): As the last Secretary of State who had to face prolonged public sector strikes, may I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that he continues to take a firm stance on the firefighters' strike? Will he tell the House when, according to the latest Government estimate, the
continued need to use the armed forces in the dispute will start to impact negatively on national security in the context of Iraq?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words of support. As regards the armed services, we would take their advice. They tell us that the use of troops in the present dispute does not impinge in any way on the contribution of the armed forces to the situation in Iraq or to fighting the fire dispute. I am sure that they will make it clear if it does impinge on their capability. Obviously, these matters are assessed from time to time. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be better if we brought the dispute to an end, preferably by negotiation. What I have done today is to set an end date to the negotiations.
Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): I have a lot of sympathy with my right hon. Friend's suggestion in his statement that there is a need to reform the employers' side of the negotiating structure in the fire service. I understand the need for change in that respect, but may I prod him about his intentions in a situation where the Secretary of State imposes a settlement? Will there be an implied no-strike clause included in the legislation whereby in the event of a union not accepting the Secretary of State's position and taking industrial action, an injunction would be sought to bring the union and its members back into procedures?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |