| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Feb 2009 : Column 428WH—continued
That sums up the attitude of the people who are there and working as retained firemen.
The silly thing is that if a retained fireman who was an agricultural employee and worked for the fire service, as often happens in my constituency, was called out to a major muirburn fire—if he were to heed the call, don his kit and safety gear at the station and work under the auspices of the trained leadership that he enjoyed—he would be subject to a limit on the number of hours he could work. However, if he went straight to the fire without obeying a call to go to the station, remained in civilian clothes and did not use any of the fire service’s equipment, but was one of the many civilian volunteers who always turn out, he could work as long as he liked. That is completely back to front; it is the wrong way to do it.
I urge hon. Members to take into account the voluntary nature of the work, the excellent training in health and safety that is given and the fact that the full-time officers understand and take care of the men under their command. I suggest that this is one of those unintended consequences that are the result of so much legislation, particularly from Europe. I say to the Minister that this is an unintended consequence that we need to deal with, so will the Government do so?
10.39 am
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate, and I agree with much of what he said about the retained firefighter system. The debate has benefited hugely from the input and expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), but I do not agree with the hon Gentleman’ core contention that the issue is not the working time directive—it is the core of the debate. This is a key time in the destructive history of the directive, so it is a timely debate.
The working time directive requires employers to take reasonable steps to ensure that workers do not work more than 48 hours a week, averaged over four months. Despite that, workers may currently opt out of the 48-hour limit on the working week. For workers who opt to derogate from the 48-hour limit, the common position adopted by the Council of Ministers in 2008 lays down a maximum of 60 hours’ work a week, averaged over three months. That may be increased to an average of 65 hours over three months when there is no collective bargaining agreement and when an inactive period of on-call time is regarded as working time. Inactive on-call time is a period in which a worker is on call but is not required by his employer to work, as opposed to active on-call time, which is a period in which the worker must be available at the workplace to work when required to do so by the employer.
There is not enough time to discuss the wider issue of the working time directive. I would have liked to address the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), but I shall simply say that for us the evil is not allowing people to work when they want to do so. The opt-out provision, which enables key workers to be available for longer hours as and when necessary, is flexible, and for workers who undertake potentially life-saving work, such as firefighters, that is extremely
important. However, in December last year, the European Parliament voted to abolish the opt-out provisions, which have been widely used in the UK. The new category of “inactive” on-call time, approved by the Council and the Commission, was disapproved by the European Parliament. Consequently, there is a possibility that the ability to opt out will be abolished, contrary to the common-sense approach currently in place and developed by the common position. If implemented in the UK, there will be an across-the-board limit of 48 hours with no concession for inactive on-call time. That appalling position was strongly supported by the unions and, unbelievably, voted for by Labour MEPs over whom the Labour leadership seem to have lost control. The impact on the retained duty system is significant.
The background is important. Retained-duty firefighters respond to calls on a needs-only basis. They are often fully employed in other occupations, and their commitment as firefighters is typically part-time. They are indeed a valuable part of society, and a national asset, as many hon. Members have said. They are a crucial supplement to the full-time force. They are qualified to deal with the full range of everyday emergencies, and statistically the system covers 30 per cent. of all firefighters. Indeed, only 96 stations are wholly staffed by full-time firefighters, which gives a great deal of support to the point made by my hon. Friend that the debate is not a city-rural debate.
Retained firefighters play a crucial role in communities throughout the United Kingdom, and their flexibility is a particular strength. The rules reflect that importance, and allow a more flexible interpretation of the regulations, but as a result of the vote by the European Parliament on 17 December, we risk damaging that vital lifeline. In the current political climate, which is overshadowed by terrorism, it seems perverse that we are putting vital security and safety services under threat. Unfortunately, it is not only in the specific case of firefighters that the proposals will have an impact. Even without the implementation of these proposals, the directive has placed a great burden on businesses and service providers throughout the UK. Preventing people from exercising their ability to opt out of the 48-hour week would make things far worse for thousands of hard-working firefighters and many other employees in valuable employment. Unemployment is expected to reach a 12-year high without this extra legislation. For firefighters particularly, any justification for ending the opt-out rings hollow. The issue is not one of heath and safety—some Labour Members suggested that it was—as the Retained Firefighters Union confirmed:
“Appropriate management within the Fire Service has ensured that our members do not work excessive hours with any negative impact on their Health, Safety and Welfare. There are arrangements in place to relieve crews at protracted incidents”.
That being the case, the legislation serves no valid purpose, and is in fact counter-productive, denying retained firefighters and others vital work. The Minister with responsibility for fire and rescue, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) confirmed those fears and, to be fair, only last month said:
“Application of the working time directive, by setting a 48-hour maximum to the working week, would be likely to greatly reduce the hours which firefighters working the retained duty system
could be available for duty, especially the substantial numbers who work full-time for their primary employer. The UK Government, therefore, places great importance on retaining its opt-out from the directive, a position that was acknowledged by the European Union Council of Ministers in June when it agreed in the Common Position that it should be retained, and will continue to defend it.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 1076W.]
Will the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs tell us whether that is still the position? He, too, has said in my presence, that the Government place great importance on retaining the opt-out, but that is what the Government said for six years about the temporary and agency workers directive until they folded under the great weight of the unions. Will he give us the comfort that this time they really intend to hold their ground, and can he persuade us that the nonsense emanating from his MEP colleagues and the unions is all smoke and no fire?
10.45 am
The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs (Mr. Pat McFadden): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. The issue is important, and in the time available I want to deal with two aspects of it: the importance of the retained firefighting service, and updating the House generally on the working time directive and the individual opt-out, which is at the heart of the difficulties that he and other hon. Members have raised this morning.
We have heard about the importance of the retained firefighting service as part of the overall fire and rescue service in the United Kingdom, and I endorse the comments of support, gratitude and appreciation for the role that the retained fire service plays. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), with his first-hand experience as a firefighter, told us how the full-time and retained services operate together. On the working hours of retained firefighters, my information is that about 10 per cent. of firefighters who work in the retained duty system already work 49 hours or more for their primary employer, and a further 25 per cent. work between 41 and 48 hours. It is clear what effect the opt-out could have on that group of workers.
One benefit of the debate is that although we have concentrated on a particular service and a particular sector, it shows the sort of impact—it has not been brought out properly in other debates—of simply adopting the European Parliament’s amendments to get rid of the opt-out and of not dealing properly with European Court judgments on inactive, on-call time, and the effect of that on our labour market. I shall explain the Government’s position. First, the opt-out from the 48-hour week is sometimes referred to as a UK opt-out. That is not so. The European Commission estimates that 14 or 15 member states use the opt-out. It is not a British issue, but extends throughout the European Union, as I know from my regular discussions with other employment and social affairs Ministers.
In June last year, we reached agreement in the Council of Ministers on a common position, which would have retained the opt-out and would have also dealt with the issue of on-call time, which has caused difficulty in a number of services, particularly health and social care,
where residential on-call—that is at the heart of those judgments—has caused problems in shift patterns and so on. We were able to reach that agreement, precisely because it was not just a UK issue. We had the support of the majority in the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament amendments, to which the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) referred, were then introduced, and there is a process called conciliation between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament to try to reach a solution.
The UK Government’s position has not changed. It is our aim, in the process of conciliation, to secure the future of the opt-out. Throughout the discussions, one thing that we have stressed is that it is a matter of choice for the individual and for member states. It is important, in European legislation on these issues, that we respect the different labour markets that operate in the 27 member states and that there is a choice. We have stressed that throughout the negotiations. That does not mean that we were not prepared to support change in the way in which the opt-out worked. For example, we were happy to support a position whereby the opt-out would not be signed at the same time as an employment contract, so that people could be assured that it was a genuine choice, because choice is important. We were happy for workers to renew their agreement to the opt-out periodically, making it clear that it is a matter of choice. However, with those changes, we have made it clear that we want to retain the opt-out. I was asked whether that was still the Government’s position, and it is.
Let me deal with the issue of health and safety. The working time directive has been in operation in the UK for a number of years, with the opt-out as part of it. Some 3 million workers in the UK regularly work more than 48 hours a week, and we do not have a worse health and safety record than other countries. In fact, the UK has the lowest rate of work-related fatal injuries and the third-lowest rate of non-fatal injuries, according to recent surveys of EU member states. Compared with many other countries, we have a low proportion of those in employment reporting that work affects their health or causes them to suffer stress. In fact, since the working time directive was introduced, the proportion of UK full-time employees working longer hours has fallen by about one fifth, so it is not the case that there is a longer and longer working hours culture in the UK. The proportion of people working long hours has fallen, but we want to retain that important flexibility for workers.
This is not just about retained firefighters; it is also a matter of choice for workers in other areas. Let us say that during the downturn, one partner in a married couple loses their job. I want the other partner in that relationship to retain the choice to increase their hours, if possible, increase their earning power and help to keep mortgage, home and family together. It is important that people have the right to choose their working hours. That is why the Government intend to do what they can to retain the opt-out.
We are in the conciliation process. We are arguing for the retention of the opt-out and we will maintain that position during the current negotiations. The Government’s position has been consistent throughout, not only because of the retained firefighter service, which has been stressed in the debate today, but because of wider reasons relating to the economy. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead asked about sectoral opt-outs and specific changes. The view that we have advanced is that the opt-out is widely
used across the economy and a sector-by-sector approach would not give us the same flexibility. We believe that we should retain a wider choice in relation to the opt-out.
Malcolm Bruce: The Minister has made a very powerful argument and I think that he has reassured us about the Government’s commitment. Given that the current Commission reaches the end of its life in a few months, and given the impasse between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, does he have any indication of whether there will be an agreement or whether we might have to negotiate the whole process again?
Mr. McFadden: We would like to reach an agreement that preserves the opt-out. There are scheduled time scales built into the conciliation process of six weeks for this process and eight weeks for that process, so it should be possible to reach agreement before the present Commission and European Parliament reach the end of their life in a few months, but of course there is a danger that if we cannot reach agreement, the directive will fall. That is not the Government’s intention. We would like to reach agreement. This issue has been hanging over Europe for six years, but we want to reach the right agreement for the UK.
To pick up on what the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, when it came to agency workers, the reason why we were able to sign the directive in the end was that we negotiated an agreement that gave us the flexibility that earlier drafts of the agreement did not. We did not simply sign the draft that had been put in front of us in the past; we negotiated an agreement that suited the UK. We want to retain the opt-out. It is important to stress that, while the negotiations are going on, a sudden change will not occur in UK workers’ hours. If there is an impression that that is about to happen, it is mistaken. Nothing will happen in the short term. In the immediate future, our priority is to negotiate a deal in Europe that continues to offer choice for individual workers and choice for member states about how they implement the provisions on working hours. We have argued for that throughout and we will keep arguing for it in the negotiations.
10.56 am
Further Education Colleges
11 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I thank you, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to raise this important subject in an Adjournment debate. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) for being here to provide further illumination.
I am sorry to have to stand here today to represent two colleges in my constituency that I have visited on many occasions while representing the Cotswolds. The first is the National Star college, which the Minister visited recently. Under its principal, Helen Sexton, it is the leading national provider of specialist education for severely disabled people. The Minister knows, but others may not, that it provides magnificent residential training for disabled people who can do virtually nothing, but who emerge from a residential course at the college able to live a largely independent life and to hold down a job.
Yesterday, the Minister presented the college with an Association of Colleges beacon award for its innovation. I am sure that the college would welcome a visit from the Secretary of State, so that it can demonstrate its work to him. The dedicated and talented staff provide opportunities and assistance for those with disabilities. They are a lifeline for students and their families.
The second college, Cirencester college, remains one of the most popular choices for over-16s in my constituency. It is a beacon college and the principal, Nigel Robbins, is rightly proud of the consistently excellent performance of his staff and students. The college was rated outstanding by Ofsted in the most recent inspection and for the past three years has topped the national league tables for tertiary and general further education colleges for level 3 students.
I hope that I have made clear the esteem in which I hold both colleges. I was therefore disturbed to hear of the delay in capital funding for colleges announced by the Learning and Skills Council, because it will affect both institutions. That is the reason for this debate. I know that colleagues have experienced similar problems with colleges in their constituencies and they may wish to intervene to give some of the details. In the debate on skills and further education in the main Chamber on 3 February, many hon. Members mentioned how the announcement has affected colleges in their constituencies. I welcome this opportunity to mention the colleges in mine.
The National Star college was the first independent specialist college in the Cotswolds to secure a groundbreaking 50 per cent. capital support from an application to the LSC for principal status in 2006. The funding was for its development programme to secure first-class resources and accommodation for specialist education for young people and adults with disabilities.
In 2007, I was invited, as the vice-president of the college, to open student accommodation built at a cost of about £1 million as part of phase 1 of the development. According to the principal, that development has enabled severely disabled students who had previously been totally reliant on personal support to develop skills to use specialist technology that allows them to open and close doors, windows and curtains and to switch on
lights and televisions. When I visited the college, I saw a disabled student who was able to drive a wheelchair merely using eye movement. That is the type of technology that that college and others up and down the country deploy to help severely disabled people.
Being in control of their environment for the first time in their lives leads to a growth in confidence and a sense of achievement for severely disabled people, which increases their motivation, enhances their quality of life and advances their belief in their own skills and abilities. Consequently, many seek employment with the help of the college. Many of my constituents are generous in adapting their workplaces so that such people can gain employment.
Phase 2 of the development is near completion, with £3 million of investment enabling infrastructure development, the introduction of biomass sustainable heating, a new access road, car parking and an improvement in the student accommodation. However, phases 3 and 4 have been affected by the announcement of the delay in funding. About £700,000 has been spent in readying those phases for approval in detail. Work should have started on site immediately and completion is due in early 2010.
Phases 3 and 4 are the most substantive phases of the development and will provide about £10.5 million of specialist education and therapy facilities and residential student accommodation. A new community and work-related learning centre will provide enhanced opportunities for the development of work-based skills. The new therapy centre—the hub of the college—will build on the college’s exemplary practice. Its highly successful multi-disciplinary approach is recognised as outstanding by Ofsted. I pay tribute to the excellent staff at the Star college, who are exemplars for everybody. Their patience with the students is amazing to watch.
The funding delay has serious consequences for the Star college. Contractors have undergone extensive tender submission processes, and the college’s supporting teams of consultants have been placed on hold until a revised funding approval process is established for the LSC.
The college has raised two serious concerns about the implications of the LSC announcement. Delay to the completion of the project in the following academic year will result in the college’s resources being reduced, which will affect its leading specialist provision and its delivery of the national learning for living and work strategy for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. Furthermore, the development is unlikely to be in place before the college’s next full Ofsted inspection. Anybody who has heard what the college can do for the most disadvantaged students will think it a national scandal if its improvement is delayed, postponed or cancelled.
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): In recent years, no organisations have done more than FE colleges to tackle disadvantage and to provide opportunity for all. They are the great unsung successes of our education sector and provide perhaps the best value for money in that sector.
The move of the East Riding college to the centre of Beverley will play a major role in the regeneration of the town. It is important to continue to provide opportunity, not least to those who have not had a great deal of it. Any danger of a spending freeze from the Government will impact greatly on Beverley.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |