| Fire and Rescue Services Bill
|
|
Mr. Raynsford: My understanding is that if a voluntary agreement is reached to replace the existing NJC arrangements with new ones that satisfy the conditions that we have set out as objectives, that can happen without the requirement for a new statutory underpinning, but this is a technical issue on which I would prefer to seek further advice before giving a definitive response. The hon. Gentleman asked how the provisions would change the framework from that which applied during the dispute that occurred last year and the year before. The answer is that the Government were in a curious position throughout that dispute, because unlike in every other major area of public service, there was no provision for us to indicate through the negotiating procedures the overall financial framework within which both employers and employees would need to negotiate. As he will recall, as a result, there were one or two moments when it was suggested that highly inflationary settlements had been agreed, imposing huge additional costs on fire and rescue authorities, which did not have the means to meet them. Inevitably, they would have come to the Government and said, ''Can we have more money to meet these costs?'' Against that background, it is only reasonable that the Government should have the ability to inform the negotiations by setting out in advance a proper framework of understanding showing what employees and employers can expect in terms of financial subvention from the Government. Anyone who suggests otherwise is frankly living in a world of fantasy. It is precisely to address the problems of the failings of the former machinery that we have proposed these changes. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask about the significance of the phrasing and the reference to ''one or more bodies''. The Interpretation Act 1978 gives us helpful guidance. It tells us that the singular includes the plural except when the context indicates otherwise. I am not sure that that leads us any further forward. However, that is the correct interpretation of the provision. We included the plural to avoid any possible doubt. In line with what I said earlier, our Column Number: 301 view is that there probably should be three separate bodies, which would represent: chief fire officers and assistant chief fire officers; middle managers; and firefighters and control room staff.The hon. Gentleman asked whether local agreements might not be consistent with human rights legislation, with International Labour Organisation agreements, and with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Mr. Hammond: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. My question was whether the exclusion of agreements not reached through machinery sanctioned by the Secretary of State might offend those conventions and arrangements. One can readily imagine—not, of course, in this context, but in that of other, less benign nations and regimes—a situation where Government-sanctioned negotiating machinery having an exclusive right to negotiate enforceable labour agreements might be regarded with a sideways look. I wonder how the Minister has been able to assure himself that measures designed to deal with despotic regimes do not bite on a Government-sanctioned negotiating machinery. Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will probably recall the years when his party was in government, and no doubt that was what prompted his reference to despotic regimes. It is our approach to avoid unnecessary confrontation, to ensure that there is a sensible framework for resolving disputes in a way that avoids disruptive strike action, such as occurred in the fire service 18 months ago, and to ensure that the negotiating machinery works properly. I am advised that there is nothing in the provisions of the Bill that would in any way disapply the requirements of other legislation, including that relating to human rights and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The hon. Gentleman asked why the phrasing
is included in the consultation obligations. The problem with any over-precise definition of obligations to consult is that it leaves scope for litigation if parties who believe that they should have been included are not. Inevitably, in a sensitive situation, it is desirable not to take the list approach, which we have debated on previous occasions. That can have the perverse consequence of implying that organisations that are not included in the list should be excluded, when that is not the intention; they were simply not thought of at the time the list was compiled. The other unsatisfactory outcome is a very general definition that is open to widespread interpretation and potential litigation. Against that background, it seems entirely proper that the Secretary of State—who has indicated clearly, throughout the dispute and subsequently, his wish to consult and involve all parties—has had regular meetings with the full range of parties involved. The Under-Secretary and I have also been involved in Column Number: 302 discussions with many of the parties involved and will continue to be involved. That is our intention. We have a positive approach to consultation, and the wording of the Bill allows some discretion without vulnerability to litigation. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that that is appropriate.The hon. Member for Teignbridge asked about the position of retained firefighters. I assure him that the Government is determined that retained firefighters should have full recognition and should be treated in a way that ensures parity with full-time firefighters. Obviously there are variations in terms of the conditions, because retained firefighters also receive a retainer and a fee for individual call-out. There has to be a proper framework for reaching agreement about what the balance of those components should be and how that relates to the position of full-time firefighters. The principle of parity, though, is one that we agree with. We believe that retained firefighters perform a hugely important role. It is right that they should have certainty and confidence. As the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted, that may help recruitment in those areas where there is a shortage of retained firefighters. The service's only recruitment difficulties are for retained firefighters, and we want to ensure that practical steps are taken to help overcome those problems.
4.15 pmAs far as involvement in the negotiating processes is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know from my earlier answers that we have made it absolutely clear that we want representatives of retained firefighters to be involved. Some are represented by the Fire Brigades Union and some are represented by the retained firefighters union, but we believe that both representative bodies should be able to play a full part in the negotiating machinery, and we have made that quite clear. The hon. Gentleman raised a question about accommodation for firefighters. He will know that our initiative to provide opportunities for affordable housing for key public sector workers—the starter home initiative—has provided some genuine opportunities for a range of public sector workers. There is indeed a possibility that that will extend to cover certain groups of firefighters. I am keen that that should be the case. We are well aware of the issue of accommodation. With those remarks, I hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 31 is an important new component that allows the Secretary of State to act if necessary to ensure that there are appropriate negotiating arrangements in place in future that will remedy the deficiencies that were highlighted during the dispute of 2002–03, and will improve enormously the working of the negotiating arrangements for pay and conditions issues in the fire and rescue service. I hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 31 as amended should stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Column Number: 303 Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 26 February 2004 |
