Fire Dispute (Hansard, 14 November 2002)

§ The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the present national fire service strike. The Government believe the strike to be wrong, unnecessary and unreasonable. I last made a statement to the House on Tuesday 22 October, when I set out the history of the dispute and undertook to keep the House informed.
The House will recall that the Fire Brigades Union's claim, made on 28 May, which remains in place, is for a 40 per cent. no strings attached pay increase for firefighters, a 50 per cent. pay increase for control room staff, parity of pay for retained firefighters, and a review of the 1978 pay formula that has governed firefighters' wages for the past 25 years, since their last strike.
At the national joint council meeting on 2 September, the employers finalised their offer of a 4 per cent. increase and requested a joint appeal with the FBU for an independent review of fire service pay and conditions. The union rejected the offer and the review, so the employers made their request direct to Government, and three days later, on 5 September, the Government set up an independent review under Sir George Bain. The union refused to participate in the review or even discuss its terms of reference, and indeed attempted to discredit it-and continues to do so. On 18 October, it announced a programme of 36 days of national strikes due to start on 29 October.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I held a series of meetings with the Fire Brigades Union on 24 and 25 October. Those discussions resulted in the cancellation of the first two 48-hour strikes, and the first eight-day action was converted into the present 48-hour stoppage. Negotiations between the local government employers and the FBU resumed on 30 October. Because the FBU was not prepared to wait until mid-December for Sir George Bain's report, we agreed to bring forward a position paper on 11 November. Sir George's final report will be available in a few weeks' time. I am extremely grateful to Sir George and his team for their efforts, and I look forward to their final report.
Sir George's position paper was made available to the FBU, the employers and the Government on Monday morning. The paper is comprehensive, practical and forward-looking. It is already deposited in the Library, and I urge all Members of the House to read it carefully. It sets out a vision for a single, more broadly based and modernised service, with multiple roles offering a wider range of services and expertise. It proposes a reward structure in which individuals are valued for the contribution that they make. It encourages a more diverse work force, with a wider range of career paths, responsibilities and skills, and makes it clear that pay and modernisation must go hand in hand and be consistent with the Government's public sector pay policy.
The paper recommends an increase in the pay bill of up to 11 per cent. over two years, subject to necessary and long overdue modernisation. The employers and the FBU met for further discussions on Tuesday morning, and the employers tabled a revised offer. That 141 offer proposed an immediate increase of 4 per cent., backdated to 7 November, and—subject to the modernisation proposals set out in the Bain report—a further 7 per cent. increase in 12 months' time, in November 2003.
At the moment, a qualified firefighter earns £21,500 a year. Under this offer, a qualified firefighter would earn £23,960 a year, and a leading firefighter would earn £25,656. However, in London, where London weighting allowances apply, a qualified firefighter would earn £28,268 a year, and a leading firefighter would earn £29,964 a year—just a few pounds short of the £30,000 a year demanded by the FBU. This compares very well with nurses, teachers and other public servants.
Sir George has always made it clear that his position paper was not designed to end the strike, but to provide the negotiators with a menu of options for negotiations, which would put in place substantial reform in exchange for substantial pay increases. The Government remain convinced that the Bain review is the key to resolving this dispute, and to providing the basis for a modern fire service that is equipped to deal with modern demands. Unfortunately, when the employers tabled their pay offer on Tuesday morning, the FBU walked out, and at 6 o'clock last night it started a 48-hour strike. Under any reasonable circumstances, the FBU would be sitting down with the employers and discussing the Bain proposals. Instead, 18,000 members of the armed forces, supported by the police, are on the streets today, taking the place of the firefighters. They are using the standby fleet of green goddesses, and sophisticated rescue apparatus and cutting equipment.
I am sure that the whole House will want to express its appreciation for the services of the armed forces— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the police and others who are actively engaged in providing cover during this strike. However, this is an emergency service, not a replacement service. No matter how professional our armed forces are, and no matter how much they train, it is clear that they could not provide the same level of service that we normally expect-particularly where major incidents such as a terrorist attack or a rail crash are concerned.
I have spoken to the general secretary of the FBU again this morning. He is unable to sign up to an agreement setting out how his members would respond in the event of a major incident. He has assured me that his members would consider responding to catastrophic incidents if called to do so. I have no doubt that individual firefighters would want to help; indeed, we saw some of that last night. However, we cannot run a system on the basis that assistance might be available after precious minutes have been lost, and with ambiguity about what kind of incident firefighters would respond to.
So it is with huge regret that I inform the House that we have no agreement with the FBU on the availability of its manpower in respect of major incidents. The FBU has not given an undertaking to abide even by the spirit of the 1979 Trades Union Congress code on the provision of emergency or essential services, which it signed up to in 1978. I believe that this adds to the wrong and irresponsible decisions that the FBU has taken. The 142 Government, and, I am sure, the House and the general public, regret that decision to strike without any further discussion of the Bain proposals.
It is with great sadness that I have to inform the House that overnight there have been four terrible fire-related deaths. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families of those who died. Those deaths and the death of Leicester firefighter Bob Miller on 31 October tragically serve to remind us of the daily danger posed by fire, and of the vital work that firefighters do.
On average, more than 11 members of the public die each week in fire-related incidents. I have to report to the House that we have received reports of a large number of hoax calls, which means that our already limited service is stretched even further, putting even more lives at risk. That is wholly unacceptable. It is hard to understand the mentality of people who do that at any time, let alone during a fire strike at a time of heightened sensitivity.
Let there be no doubt, however: the Crown Prosecution Service will take action against anyone caught, making hoax calls. Yesterday, it was estimated that in the Strathclyde area as many as 300 hoax calls were made, and I think that the public hope that hoax callers will be dealt with very severely indeed.
Against that background, talking, negotiation and discussion are better than the withdrawal of labour. I continue to believe that Bain is the right way forward. During the past 24 hours, we have heard in the media that the general secretary of the FBU has an alternative vision for modernisation. It would have been better if that vision had been put to the Bain review to form part of its debate. Even now the union has an opportunity to make an input. Sir George's position paper is not a final report. It has been put forward at this stage to help the negotiations.
The employers have made it clear that they stand ready to continue discussions at any time. Would not it be better to negotiate? Would not it be better to sit down again? An 8-day strike can lead only to more deaths, more injuries and more distress.
It is clear that our joint obligation—the Government, the employers and the firefighters—is to provide the highest level of safety. That is our job. We have an obligation to work towards it: all of us—the Government, the employers and the unions. If, once this 48-hour strike is over, we then face an 8-day strike—yet to be confirmed—the Government may have to review many of the issues which until now we have kept off the table.
We have bent over backwards to be fair and reasonable. We have been met with action that is wrong and unjustified, and puts lives at risk. Faced with that, the Government will do what we have to do to protect the public. I say, "Talk, don't walk."

§ David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that statement and for prior sight of it. I am sure that the whole House will want to join him in expressing sorrow at the deaths of four people in fires overnight and at the death of firefighter Bob Miller, and in his outrage at the action of hoax callers who put the lives of other people at risk. I also 143 associate the Opposition with the Deputy Prime Minister's expression of gratitude for the actions of the armed services in protecting the safety of the public.
There was much in what the Deputy Prime Minister said about the actions of the FBU and its unwillingness to negotiate with which I agree. Today, however, I want to focus on the most important thing: the consequences of the strike for public safety and the steps that are being taken to minimise the risk to life.
The Deputy Prime Minister told us that yesterday and this morning he spoke to the head of the FBU about the willingness of firefighters to assist in the event of a major emergency. I need hardly remind the House that with Britain under heightened threat of terrorist attack, it is imperative that all possible measures are in place to protect the public.
It is clear that individual firefighters do not want to see unnecessary deaths. However, in a major emergency speed is essential, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out. Minutes matter. Seconds saved can preserve lives, so organisation, command and control are vital to get firefighters to the scene of the emergency rapidly and to co-ordinate them with other emergency services. It is simply not good enough merely to consider assistance in the event of catastrophe—I think that was what the Deputy Prime Minister said. He has already referred to this, but what exact proposals for such command and control did he put to the FBU and precisely what was the response?
Before the strike began, we called on the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that troops had access to modern fire engines and to the latest firefighting and rescue equipment.
Unfortunately, the Government proved unhelpful. In fact, they came up with a series of spurious reasons why it would not be possible to give troops the best equipment, which would safeguard them and the public against the inevitable dangers of the strike. They said, for example, that it would take three months to train soldiers to use the equipment. That is wrong. The Retained Firefighters Union said that it would take two weeks to train troops to drive a modern fire engine, learn the basics of using specialist cutting equipment and master the use of breathing apparatus.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now confirm to the House that Ministers were mistaken in their answers? Will he also confirm that there is no practical reason why troops should not be using today's firefighting technology rather than the antiquated kit of 50 years ago?
The Government have also claimed that the only modern fire engines are effectively sidelined because they are locked away behind FBU picket lines. What the right hon. Gentleman has not said is that throughout the country there are many reserve and training fire engines that could be released for use by troops. I can disclose to the House that the House of Commons Library has told me that there are about 400 reserve and training fire appliances at the national training centre and in fire brigades up and down the country. Why does he not bring those into the service of the military and use them to supplement the 800 green goddesses that are now in the front line?
The Opposition want the Government to take all available measures to protect the public. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm—I think that he has 144 said this—that that is also the Government's policy? Or is there some ambiguity in the Government's stance, as appears to be the case? The Prime Minister said that allowing troops access to modern firefighting equipment would "inflame the dispute". Now, the firemen are on strike. Fire stations throughout the country are closed and longer strikes are planned until Christmas. Tube stations are closed. In London, there is a risk of wider knock-on disruption from the strike. The Government have given us several reasons for not giving the military the most modern equipment. Can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure the House that the real reason for keeping life-saving equipment under union lock and key is not a misplaced sympathy for the sanctity of the picket line?
The right hon. Gentleman said today that his principal responsibility is to protect the lives of the public. One chief fire officer has already asked the Attorney-General whether the strike action contravenes section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That law states that strike action that "wilfully or maliciously" endangers human life is illegal. The Attorney-General replied on 25 October that that matter required "constant review" and that he had not formed a concluded view in the context of the ongoing negotiations. He did not consider it in the public interest to act at that time because discussions were taking place…with the hope of resolving the dispute without industrial action Now that industrial action has started and given that there have been fatalities, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Attorney-General to revisit that issue? If there is the possibility that the strike can be stopped under current legislation, will the Government use their powers to seek an injunction?
Strike action may take other forms. The Health and Safety Executive has said that rail services can still run despite the strikes, and yet Bob Crow of the RMT has threatened to advise his union members not to work. Today, we learn that there has been serious disruption on at least three underground lines in London, causing misery for commuters. What action will the Deputy Prime Minister take if trade unions in vital services disregard the advice of the HSE?
The right hon. Gentleman has given us an account of the run of this negotiation. Now is not the time to rehearse his role in the failed negotiations that led up to the strike. I simply give him notice that we will return to the Government's handling of those negotiations at the earliest opportunity.
The lives of innocent members of the public are at risk today. At the peak of the last national strike, three people died every day. The elderly, children and the disabled—the vulnerable in society—are the most exposed to these risks, so all possible steps must now be taken by the public and by the Government to protect the public.
I recognise that there are also wider issues at stake. A new climate of industrial militancy has returned to haunt the country. Trade union bosses, emboldened by the employment legislation passed by this Government, are set on inflation-busting pay increases, not just in the fire service.
145 Labour Ministers boast about modernising Britain. Today, we are seeing the true face of Labour—the strike-torn landscape of the past, not the future.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
The statement of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) may have satisfied his Back Benchers, but it is not the sanctity of picket lines that governs me, but the sanctity of life. For every day—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There will be no shouting across the Chamber.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
We have just heard the terrible facts—four people have died during the dispute. I thought that that might have impressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the challenge that we face in trying to avoid a dispute. Every day that we prevent a strike from happening, lives are saved. I have to make a balanced judgment, in all the difficult negotiations, about the sanctity of life, which, as I say to the trade unions and the right hon. Gentleman alike, has always governed my approach to this matter.
When the 12-day strike was proposed, in the form of two 48-hour strikes and one of eight days, my strategy was to avoid that happening. We achieved that for 10 of the strike days proposed, but failed in respect of the last two. That was not entirely my fault, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that avoiding the strike for those 10 days saved unnecessary loss of life. The sanctity of life governs my approach, not the sanctity of the picket line; that suggestion has more to do with the right hon. Gentleman's politics than the national interest.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support at the beginning of his remarks. We are agreed on those points and have had discussions. It is right for him to point out where he disagrees with me and not to criticise me about the delay. However, as I pointed out, the negotiations did not break down until 1 September, and within three days I had set up an inquiry despite the view of the trade union. Therefore, I think that I acted within an appropriate time scale.
Let me deal with some of the essential questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He reminded us of the heightened tension that exists because of the possibility of emergencies. I am of course concerned to reach an agreement with the union. The command and control is known as gold command; it applies to emergency situations with floods or on the railways, and the agreement between the police and the firefighters is still in place. We have a communications structure. I asked the Fire Brigades Union to have people with the appropriate skills using the proper vehicles going out if incidents occur. It was not prepared to give me such an agreement. I could accept nothing less than an agreement that its people would be available. The union argued that its pickets are following the 24-hour watch system and that the same people who would be on watch are on pickets and could get straight on to the vehicles. I cannot and will not accept that we have to leave it to a debate at the fire station about who turns out for a particular incident. The House would never have accepted that proposal had I come here with it. That is why I rejected it, with great regret.
146 I have to take into account what the commanders in the armed forces told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about equipment. They made it clear that under these circumstances they would prefer to use the green goddesses because the technique is familiar and the same for all of them. The armed forces do not have the training to use the many different types of fire engine vehicle that are available. [Interruption.] I have to take the advice of the commanders, whose obligation is to see that their soldiers work in safe conditions. They do not want their men to work with unfamiliar vehicles. [Interruption.] That is the advice given to me. Two weeks' training is not adequate, whatever is said.
I informed the House that it took 12 weeks to be adequately trained on this equipment. There was some controversy about that, so I followed it up to see exactly what it was, and I was shown the sequence of events. That does not mean to say that it is impossible to train a person to do one particular operation, like driving the vehicle, in less time, and that is under way. Before the right hon. Gentleman asked his questions, I had already asked whether vehicles were available at the stations or various centres. The estimate was that there were over 100. There are various estimates. Some vehicles are operating, some are not. [Interruption.] I am not disputing what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Library; I am just saying that there are a number of different estimates depending on whether the vehicles are operating, their condition and so on. It is a matter of judgment. There are certainly more than 100. We have made a number of them, and training, available to the emergency command. Days ago they were distributed.
I have had responsibility for the fire service for less than 12 months and I am astounded— [Interruption.] Wait for the point. I am astounded that we have not been replacing the green goddesses with modern machines. For 20 years, the Opposition were in power—[Interruption.] —and if they had replaced the vehicles at a rate of 200 to 300 a year we would have had the modern fleet that we are talking about. That is the reality. We would have had the equipment and the training. [Interruption.] Each can make their point on that. The vehicles should have been replaced. I have no doubt about that. We will accept our responsibility for the few years when we did not replace them. Will the Opposition accept their responsibility for the 20 years when they were in charge? No, of course they will not.
I was asked what legal actions could be taken in these matters. Yes, the Attorney-General was asked to review this by one of the fire brigade authorities and he was reviewing whether an action could be taken. When he was first asked we were in negotiations with the unions, which decided to call off the strike. So on the first occasion the Attorney-General was actively involved. I know that he has been having discussions or an exchange of correspondence with the Opposition about this particular point. An action could be taken now. He has been considering how it would apply. Even an application under this injunction in these circumstances would probably be being processed by the court when the strike was over.
I want to bring home this point, which is a consideration of mine and hon. Members can reject it if they like. If the strike is 48 hours, I want those fire engines working from minute one after the strike. If the 147 legal actions that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about are taken under these circumstances, or had been taken under the previous circumstances, we would face the difficult question of whether such vehicles were available or whether we had inflamed the strike. These are difficult decisions. The right hon. Gentleman can be indifferent to them. Do not forget, whatever the solution is, lives are saved if firemen can be prevented from going out on a long strike. That may be a matter of complete indifference to him, but it is not to me. I am constantly making that judgment.
The right hon. Gentleman raised some points about the RMT. What is happening is quite unacceptable when the Health and Safety Executive has made it clear that it is safe. The accusation is that it is possible that 20-odd stations may create certain difficulties. The transport authority has taken action to close them. What is unacceptable are the actions taken on the Piccadilly line and others, causing disruption when the Health and Safety Executive, an independent body set up by this House, has said that operation is safe. That cannot be condoned. It is unacceptable.
In conclusion, I have to make a balanced judgment about the 48-hour strike. All the options to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and which have been discussed between us are under continual review. What may be acceptable for a 48-hour stoppage, in the balance of judgment, may not remain acceptable in the balance of judgment for an eight-day dispute. It is all under review. Whatever I have to do, I will do it. Be clear about that.

§ Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that statement, and for providing a copy in advance. I join him in sending condolences to all the families who have lost loved ones in the tragedies of the past 18 hours. I also pay tribute to firefighter Robert Miller, and pass on my party's sympathies to his family and close colleagues as they come to terms with their loss.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that the strike was wrong, unnecessary and unreasonable, and that the FBU should end its action and return to the negotiating table. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches fully agree with that. Does he agree that the dispute is about modernisation as much as pay? Does he share my deep regret not only that the FBU leadership has blocked reform in recent months, but that it has been a major obstacle to modernisation for more than two decades? Will he reassure the House that the Government will urge the employers to stand firm in negotiations, and to insist that any pay settlement is inextricably linked to radical reform of working practices, as Bain set out?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister also reassure the House that, if the FBU were to call off the strike and agree to negotiate about real modernisation, the Government would find ways to fund conditional increases, over and above the offer proposed by Bain? Does he agree that, although new working practices can improve the quality and standard of protection for the public, the financial savings will be limited, especially in the first year or two? Would not it be sensible, therefore, for the Government to front-end funding to win a pay deal so that we can secure back-end savings and long-term reform?
148 Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my view that it is unacceptable for London tube drivers to take unofficial secondary action, and will he condemn that? Will he confirm to the House once again, especially for the benefit of those on the Conservative Front Bench, that our armed forces are not seizing control of fire appliances at fire stations because military commanders have asked specifically not to have to do that? Is it not disgraceful that party political points are being made over this issue? However, will he keep the matter under review with those senior military personnel? If circumstances change, does he recognise that their judgment may need to be reviewed?
Finally, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what action he intends to take to support the police in tracking down hoax callers? Given the fabulous efforts of our armed forces and police, and the risk to public safety, is not it right that anyone caught making hoax calls should be punished severely?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
That is how a serious Opposition make a contribution to the debate. Anyone who reads Hansard will be able to contrast the two approaches that have been adopted. People will make their judgment accordingly. That is why the Conservatives are going down and the Liberals are going up.
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his supportive remarks, and for his call to the FBU to return to negotiations. The general secretary of the FBU has said that the union has proposals for modernisation and that they have been put forward, but they were not put forward to Bain. If those proposals are available, and if the general secretary agrees with some of the Bain report's implications, why does he not put them on the table? Even if he decides to go for an eight-day strike—and we must be clear that no one wants that—there would still be seven or eight days in which he could sit down and talk, talk, talk. He should put as much energy into talking as into the walking that is happening at the moment. He should come down to London from Edinburgh and begin meetings with employers to talk about the FBU's modernisation proposals. I do not see anything wrong with that, and it is what the public would expect. We could then see the true nature of the FBU's proposals, and compare them with Bain's. I hope that that is what the general secretary will do, and indeed I appeal yet again to the union to take that approach.
I certainly make it clear that modernisation will have to happen. The general secretary of the FBU has told me that the union has its own modernisation proposals, and that the union is not scared of modernising. To that, I say, "Fine, then pay can be related to modernisation." We have to negotiate that.
As to whether extra money should be made available, I set up the Bain inquiry because there were so many disputes about what could be saved through modernisation, and about what efficiency meant. The Bain report makes it clear that all its recommendations have been agreed within the industry, but that they have failed to be implemented. That is a serious matter, but Bain makes it clear that it is possible to negotiate on these matters and that pay rises can be paid for through modernisation. There is an issue about the forward and back funding of the rises. I understand the point that the 149 hon. Gentleman makes, but the firefighters should go in and negotiate. If they do not agree with Bain, they can walk out again, if they want, but they should at least talk to him about their proposals and his proposals. That is why we always have inquiries in this country—to arrive at an objective judgment. Governments are bound to take account of that objective judgment. That is our position.
As for whether 11 per cent. is adequate, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a very generous offer because the firefighters are a special case. We have connected it with the modernisation proposals. I ask him to take into account the consequential effect on public pay. It is all right to say, "What is a fireman worth?" but why should a nurse not say, "What is a nurse worth?"? If nurses walked out of the wards, there would be more deaths and accidents than when firefighters walk out. There is a special obligation. That is why we treat certain groups in a special way. I cannot ignore the consequences for public pay by simply offering 11 per cent. We have already seen that some of the firefighters at airports are now saying, "If they can get a rise, why shouldn't we have it?" The effects are complicated, and the Government have to justify what they are doing. The issue is not solely about firefighters, although the offer is generous, but about public pay.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the military is right. We have to take the military into account. The hoax calls are deplorable; I hope that we catch more hoax callers. However, hoax calls do not happen only during disputes. Many firefighters face the problem all the time. They have to rush out with machinery and risk their lives because someone has made a hoax call. Something like 8 per cent. of all call-outs are hoaxes. That is unacceptable.
I have made clear my view about the underground.

§ Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making it so clear that his approach to this regrettable dispute is firmly based on the sanctity of life, in marked contrast to that of Conservative Members who, despite their newly found concerns for the frail, the vulnerable and the elderly, were perfectly prepared to let them die from hypothermia winter after winter when they were in government. What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with London Underground to ensure that there is a better than adequate contingency plan to provide services to Londoners should the regrettable secondary action continue among some drivers?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks; I agree with them. Discussions have taken place between London Underground and my right hon. Friends the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and the Minister for Transport. I have had some exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and across the Government about the matter. The action by London Underground staff is unacceptable and unjustified.

§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the excellent work done by the retained firemen in my 150 constituency in Terrington St. Clement, Massingham and Sandringham? They do a superb job. Does he agree that there is an argument that they should have access to some of the modern equipment in the main stations in the vicinity? Will he consider that point?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not know the exact circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The retained firefighters are mainly in rural areas such as he represents. I give credit to the people who assist the fire brigades. They have agreed not to go out on strike, and they want to meet the need for fire services. Something like 60 per cent. of areas have some retained firefighters. The retained firefighters are divided; some are members of the FBU, some are not. They have made a conscious decision through their organisation to keep on talking rather than go on strike. That is certainly helping in the area that I represent, and I offer my thanks to them.

§ Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
The people who should be condemned today are the hoax callers, not the firefighters, who feel that they have no alternative but to take this strike action. I spoke to firefighters in my constituency and urged them to wait for Bain. I was surprised at the support that I received, but now they feel deeply angered because Bain has dismissed without explanation their fundamental case that there should be recognition of the increased sophistication and complexity of their role since their pay formula was agreed 25 years ago. Does my right hon. Friend understand that there can be no basis for negotiations unless that omission is recognised? I agree that there is need for reform, but we must understand that the impressive nature of our fire service is due to the interdependence and camaraderie of our firefighters. That must be defended at all costs.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend says about solidarity among firefighters at the fire station. I think we are all aware of it. I am a great admirer of firefighters: I think they are exceptional, and last night, notwithstanding the dispute, some wanted to go out and help. However, I am facing a dispute between employers and employees, and little information is available to allow a judgment on the competing claims.
I set up the Bain inquiry. It would have been helpful if the fire workers had given the inquiry their evidence on all these complex issues. Instead, they attacked the inquiry and members of it, and said that they would not accept what it said. It was not merely a case of their not presenting the complex arguments. Then, when the inquiry's report was delivered, they refused to discuss it. I cannot accept that there is no forum for them to make their case. Other fire workers said, "Let us wait for the Bain report," but it was not discussed because their colleagues were not prepared to accept it.
These fire workers wanted a 40 per cent. increase in their basic pay. As I have made clear time and again, that is not possible. The fire workers have not deviated: they have said that it must be 40 per cent. or nothing. When I said that in the event of a dispute lives would be endangered, they said, "It is not our responsibility. The Government and local authorities are responsible for safety." That is a very dangerous argument, and the fire workers should think carefully before going too far along that road.
151 The fire workers have been given one opportunity, and we are now giving them another. If they have modernisation proposals that they could not give to Bain and did not want to discuss, let them put those proposals to the employers, and start talking. We know that if they talk rather than walk, more people will live.

§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
The Deputy Prime Minister's remarks about the sanctity of life will be received with some interest by members of my old regiment, the Light Dragoons, who are now deployed in Cleveland. They have been training for months in preparation for the strike, and we now discover that between 100 and 400 vehicles are available for them and the rest of the Army to train on—at a time when they might have done better to train in preparation for enforcing the United Nations Security Council resolution.
It is contemptible of the Deputy Prime Minister, and particularly contemptible of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), to hide behind loyal comments from senior members of the armed services, and for the Deputy Prime Minister to use them as justification for not being prepared to cross a picket line and make those vehicles available to members of the armed forces. It is disgraceful that he should argue that the Army should have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to produce 800 new fire engines on an MOD estate just because he and his Ministers were not prepared to cross a picket line. He should not seek to hide behind the armed forces in this outrageous way.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I would have expected the hon. Gentleman, given his military experience, to understand what I said. I said that I would take the advice of the military commanders, who say that our responsibility is maximum safety for the soldiers in this difficult situation. They have concluded that it is better for training to take place on the green goddesses than for extra fire engines to be used.
Incidentally, 400 vehicles are not available. Some are being taken apart— [Interruption.] As I have said, we have agreed with the military that they will train some of their people to use these vehicles. Some have already been distributed, while others are available to those in emergency command to distribute as they see fit. We are reviewing the situation constantly and want to improve on it, but when a military commander tells me that he is concerned about his members I think very carefully before ignoring such advice. I suspect that when the hon. Gentleman was in the Army he would not have ignored it either.

§ Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North)
I have enormous respect for the specialist work that firefighters do throughout the country.
It is clear that at some stage a negotiated settlement will be necessary, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done so far. I also thank John Monks of the TUC for his attempts to bring people together in the dispute. Now that we face such a serious situation, nothing is more important than getting people back 152 around the table. Let us look at what can be achieved. Let us concentrate on where Bain gives grounds for agreement, rather than on the disagreements. I understand that that there is agreement in respect of community fire safety, the fire cover review and personal development plans. Will my right hon. Friend take account of this appeal to the FBU and to him to bring all the parties together to prevent further strike action?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. The essential point is that the issue will be determined by continuing negotiations. I think that we are all aware of that. I have always felt that we have tried to keep open all avenues for negotiation, as that is the way forward. Indeed, getting a cancellation of 10 of the first 12 strike days was a contribution in that regard that a lot of people, including the FBU, worked to achieve. I am grateful to them. She was right to point out that the FBU agrees with a number of aspects of modernisation, even though it has not put that to the Bain committee. I can only reiterate what I have said: immediately after the dispute—I agree that it is unlikely to call it off now—the union should go straight into negotiation. I shall make it clear to the employers and the general secretary of the FBU, as I have been doing from time to time, that the way in which people reach a settlement is by talking.

§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
May I thank both my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the Deputy Prime Minister for the sentiments that they expressed about Mr. Bob Miller, my constituent who died a little while ago in a fire in the city of Leicester? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the strike, which I happen to think is misguided, I have in my constituency another family without a father and a wife without a husband. We should all bear that in mind when we get overexcited about some of the issues under discussion.
I should like to make a practical suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he discuss with the Lord Chancellor whether it would be appropriate for the Lord Chief Justice to issue sentencing guidance on cases involving hoax callers so that those who are caught making a hoax call, and those who contemplate making one, realise that they will be given an exemplary custodial sentence, irrespective of whether the defendant is under or over 18?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
The whole House will recall the loss suffered by the family of Bob Miller and tributes have been paid by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. That loss emphasises the dangers of the situation and reaffirms my dedication to avoiding any dispute if that is at all possible. That is a matter of balanced judgment and I have given mine to the House today.
With regard to the Lord Chancellor and discussions about the matters to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, there is no doubt that we want to ensure that exemplary sentencing takes place. We have already had some discussions with the Attorney-General. The Lord Chancellor is actively aware of that, and those at this morning's Cobra meeting talked about re-emphasising that aspect and using exemplary 153 sentencing against people caught in that situation. I shall take on board what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.

§ Mr. Michael Weir (Angus)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the problem with the Bain inquiry appears to be that the union has had no confidence in it from an early stage, due to statements allegedly made by members of the commission? Does he accept that, if the FBU has proposals for modernisation, it makes sense even at this late stage to see whether a commission can be re-formed in which all parties have some confidence? That may be the way forward in this dispute.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I have to refute the suggestion that members of the Bain committee made comments that were anti in any way. In fact, the opposite was the case. It was recorded in the press that members of the FBU, including the general secretary, approached one of the independent members appointed by the TUC and made some remarks, had some exchanges and then publicly launched an attack on the committee. That was a deplorable action and I have made that clear to the FBU.
I do not think that there are any other examples of comments made by the committee members against any of the parties to the dispute. Indeed, they have done a wonderful job in a very short time to give us advice on how we can make a judgment about modernisation in relation to efficiency and pay. I congratulate them on that work. The employers accept it and the Government accept the framework for negotiations and discussions set out by Bain, but the suggestion that another body should be set up because one party opposes it—it has done so bitterly throughout the process—would be a vote of no confidence in George Bain, which he does not warrant. We have the menu and he has produced what he thinks we can consider in relation to improving efficiency. If the FBU has a suggestion that it could not give to the committee, it should come and give it to the employers and start discussing it.

§ Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North)
I am sorry that the FBU has decided to go ahead with the strike. I believe that there will be a negotiated settlement and that the only way in which to negotiate it is to get round the table. Not many days ago, Andy Gilchrist told my right hon. Friend to put down the megaphone and pick up the telephone. It is now Andy Gilchrist's turn to put down the megaphone and get back round the table.
It is disgraceful that FBU leaders will not reach an agreement with my right hon. Friend about cover for major incidents. I cannot believe that ordinary firefighters in my constituency and throughout the country will sit back and do nothing in a major emergency. If the FBU leaders will not sit round the table and reach an agreement, will my right hon. Friend make a direct appeal to ordinary firefighters?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. I read in the papers that Andy Gilchrist had suggested that I picked up the telephone and put down the megaphone. That sounds a little strange from Mr. Gilchrist, but I shall not go into 154 that. The purpose of one call was to discuss his suggestion that there was not enough safety cover to deal with serious incidents. He was worried that all his members would come running and that there would be no control system. We met the FBU on 21 October and said that we would set up the control organisation. We have done that, and we now have to ask, "Where are your members?"
As we now know, Andy Gilchrist cannot give an undertaking that members will be available. He confirmed that in a conversation this morning. I stress that the organisation is there. As Andy Gilchrist continues to remind us, his members are humanitarians. If, therefore, they come to help—and I am sure that they will—the organisation is in place. That is not satisfactory for planning emergency provisions, but we have to operate within those limited circumstances. I have appealed to other fire workers, and I have clearly stated, "Talk, not walk". I hope that they will hold more debates about the matter after the 48-hour strike and before they commit themselves to a dispute of a further eight days.

§ Patrick Mercer (Newark)
I listened with interest to the Deputy Prime Minister. The armed forces are working not only with green goddesses but with advanced equipment such as breathing apparatus and rescue tenders. However, does he agree that the armed forces knew at the end of July that this situation would occur? Is it not therefore a disgrace that advance training did not start then so as better to preserve the sanctity of life?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
The military people advised me that training did begin then. It was a tremendous operation to give 18,000 people some sort of training. We take advice and tell the armed forces when a dispute is likely to occur. We acted on the assumption that there would be a dispute, while doing everything possible to try to avoid it. The armed forces were aware of the proposed dispute and they undertook the training.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman commented on what I perhaps failed to mention. People refer to 850 green goddesses, but there are as many as 400 other specialist vehicles with specialist teams. They act as back-ups to the green goddesses and have special cutting equipment and breathing apparatus.
I stress that we took the advice of the military on training, and I believe that we were right to do that.

§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)
I recognise that a 40 per cent. claim was never realistic, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the firefighters have very strong feelings and that they have not taken action lightly? They believe that they are underpaid and undervalued, and we should bear that in mind. Leaving aside the Tories' anti-union rhetoric, which one would expect and which almost resembles a Daily Mail editorial, to what extent does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a possibility of reaching a realistic pay settlement that is higher than that offered by the employers but far short of 40 per cent.?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I do not doubt the firefighters' 155 strength of feeling. It can be seen on television and when one meets them. They feel wronged, but if they feel that they have been paid so poorly why did they agree to the pay formula in 1978? Their general secretary said about that formula: Our wages remain ahead of other essential public sector workers precisely because we have maintained the formula. If it was so bad over all those years, why did the general secretary say that in July 2000? I am not saying that he may not have a case, but it cannot be said that they have been subjected to decades of poor pay, as he seems to suggest, otherwise they would have sought to change it.
We cannot always assume that the firefighters' income is their basic pay, and that may be an influencing factor. The shift system means that they have days off when they can pursue further employment. I do not condemn that in any way, but when considering a fire worker's pay I might have to ask about his total pay. I do not have the necessary evidence, so I asked George Bain to look at the circumstances. He compared firefighters' wages with those of other public sector workers, and he took into account the fact that they have the best pension in the public sector, with retirement at the age of 53 or 55 on two thirds of pay—it sounds like MPs' pensions, but I leave that aside-and payments for medical prescriptions and eye and dental treatment. Presumably, those are all considerations when assessing the rewards of the job. If they did not have an overtime ban they could have been using some of that payment to supplement their pay. They chose not to do so, but they cannot now blame us and say that the formula that they agreed and the payments that they have been receiving have been so wrong for so long.
I accepted that the firefighters had an argument, so I set up the Bain inquiry, which will be reporting in mid-December and will give us more information. However, the one thing that I have found in this strike is the lack of any adequate information about pay and conditions and the efficiency and effectiveness of working practices. That is what George Bain will provide, and it is right that he should so. It is called modernisation. If the firefighters wish, they can get a lot more money for that, but they must negotiate.

§ Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give the House an assurance that if military commanders request the use of specialist equipment that happens to be stored inside fire stations, the Government will not stand in their way?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
It is important that military personnel should have access to specialist equipment. They are doing the job and facing the risk. That is why we have an extra 400 vehicles providing specialist equipment. In addition, some of the equipment on the red fire engines will be made available if they so wish. For example, red fire engines have ladders that extend to two floors, whereas those on the green goddesses extend to only one. Those facilities are available, and they can make a judgment about them. We will try to give them the best possible equipment, but the constraint is not so much the vehicles as manning them with specialists, as we have been discussing.

§ Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North)
My right hon. Friend will know that there have been rumours that the 156 Government intervened earlier in the dispute to stop a 16 per cent. increase. Will he take this opportunity categorically to inform the House whether that happened? Does he agree that last year, after 11 September, the firefighters were universally regarded by the public, certainly in Britain, as among the greatest workers, and that they still are regarded as great heroes by the public—but that they think they are lions led by donkeys?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
No, I certainly would not agree with the last comment. I believe in negotiation, and perhaps that is better done by lions. I have no doubt that people regard fire workers with great awe and admiration. Sometimes I read that train drivers or building industry workers are at more risk, and it is true that more of them have died, but the difference between them and the fire workers is that fire workers walk into danger and do not run away from it. That is the special nature of their contribution and that is why we admire them. They act for the community—I need push that point no further. The public have a growing concern about the strike, but none should doubt our admiration for the fire workers.
With regard to what has been said about the 16 per cent. offer, I should make it absolutely clear that that is a load of rubbish put out by the FBU. It knows it and I have talked to it and we have agreed on that, but there is an element of propaganda in these situations.
Let me put it on the record that I did ask the local authorities about this matter when I first read of it. Indeed, on 8 August, when I first met the FBU general secretary, he asked me whether I had intervened to stop an agreement on 16 per cent. I told him, "Absolutely not." Of course, I then went to the employers and said, "Did you make any offer in any way of 16 per cent. to the fire people?" They said, "No, but in the earlier discussions we had looked at getting 16 per cent." That is all about hey diddle diddle in the middle—£25,000 instead of £30,000—so we can see how they probably arrived at that figure in the current state of negotiations in Britain. They said that it would cost so much; the full claim would cost £450 million. Even if that were halved, there is not the money for such funding in the local authority settlement.
I made it clear to Andy Gilchrist on 8 August, "If you're asking for 40 per cent., if you're asking me if the Government are involved, and if you continue asking for 40 per cent., by definition the Government are involved because local authorities have to ask me whether they can have the extra money." For that reason, we have made it clear that we will not provide that extra money, which offends against the policy and agreements in the local authority settlements. However, there are no strings to negotiating within that framework, which has produced the figure of 4 per cent.
The fire people were never, ever offered 16 per cent. Some employers suggested round the side, "Look, we were going to try to give you 16 per cent., but the Government stopped us." There must be a definition: there was no intervention whatever from me, but it may be that people felt it was easier to say that the 157 Government would not provide the money. It was never offered, though. I never intervened and I was never actively involved in such an offer.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the effect of section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992? It says: A person…who wilfully…breaks a contract of service…knowing or believing that the probable consequences…will be…to endanger…life or cause serious bodily injury or…expose valuable property…to…serious injury is committing a criminal offence. May I also remind him that the Attorney-General has a right to seek an injunction? May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman is doing to enforce the criminal law, and thus give substance to his assurance that he is trying to save lives?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
Lawyers always seem to talk in a very pompous way when they get on to the law—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well known for it in the House. I will take the advice of the Attorney-General on these matters, as he has been looking at them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to point out exactly what the law is—often, lawyers parrot the law and assume that it will solve everything if I go outside and say, "The law says this and everything is okay." Parliament is here because we know the difficulties; people do not necessarily accept those propositions. I prefer the negotiated way.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the sanctity of life. If I avoid disputes instead of— [Interruption.] Just keep your ears open and listen instead of shouting out.

§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)
How about an answer?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I am giving the answer. The Opposition are entitled to ask the question and I am entitled to give the answer.
I have made the choice to try, through negotiations, to prevent disputes rather than inflame them, but I do not ignore the fact that the Law Officers—in this case the Attorney-General, as I said in my statement—are considering all those options. He was first asked to do so when I was trying to get the union to cancel the strike. That is a classic case. Which would the right hon. and learned Gentleman have preferred—using the law or cancelling the strike?

§ Mr. Swayne
So what is the answer to the question?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Mr. Swayne, you must be quiet. You must restrain yourself.

§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)
As the vast majority of industrial disputes are settled around a table by negotiation, sometimes after many painful weeks for both sides, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will 158 keep open the option for the FBU to participate in the Bain inquiry, if it chooses to do so, to represent the wishes of rank and file firefighters?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I understand my right hon. Friend's point, particularly considering his background and experience in these matters, which involve the conflict of the law, industrial rights and all the rights that we are talking about. I would like to avoid such conflict and I will do everything I can to do so, but I will not ask the FBU to do that.
I made it clear that the FBU should give evidence to Bain, but the union has demonised the inquiry, as it does not think that Bain can do the job. I do not ask the FBU to join the inquiry now—take the proposals to the employers and negotiate with them. They are the ones who implement firefighters' conditions and they are the ones who are responsible for finding agreement.
The FBU should negotiate with the employers. I appeal yet again to the union and say, "If you don't want to go through Bain, show us your alternative by going to the employers with your modernisation proposals." Andy Gilchrist has been saying such things constantly on television. Start talking; less of the walking.

§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarming gaps in fire cover in some parts of the country? I do not expect him to know the details of the geography of my constituency, but the town of Frome and the villages around it are being served by a green goddess based in Yeovil, which is an hour's drive away, if a vehicle is available. I am told that nearer green goddesses stationed in Bath or Trowbridge cannot attend fires in Somerset because they cannot cross brigade borders. Is that correct? If so, can he do something about it?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises the inadequacies of a system that does not provide a full fire service, and the whole House is aware of that. We constantly review that system as incidents develop and we will keep in mind the point that he has made.
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about retained fire workers—

§ Mr. Heath
Green goddesses.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sorry. On green goddesses crossing lines, we will take the hon. Gentleman's point into account. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to see exactly what the position is. I take the point that he makes and shall see whether I can get him better information.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There are still hon. Members wishing to question the Deputy Prime Minister. I am mindful of the Modernisation Committee's recommendation that one hour should be allocated for a statement, but in view of the serious nature of this statement I intend to allow questions to continue. However, I need the co-operation of hon. Members. They must put one question to the Deputy Prime 159 Minister. They must not enter into a speech. Even so, hon. Members may be disappointed as I may not be able to call everyone.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)
At the close of my right hon. Friend's statement, he said to the Fire Brigades Union, "Talk, don't walk". In his statement on 22 October, he said that negotiations should take place with the employers. Today, he has said that they should take place with Bain and the employers. However, the most successful negotiations were those on 24 and 25 October, in which he was involved. Is that option still open?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I take your point, Mr. Speaker, about modernisation. I cannot be critical; I voted against a number of the proposals.
On negotiations, I am saying that the union can go to the employer. I was not actively involved in the negotiations in the sense of deciding what should be offered or rejected. I simply pressed both parties to go back to the table. The one contribution I made was because of the difficulty of making an assessment about efficiencies. I needed an independent body because both sides were giving conflicting evidence. Hence I set up the Bain inquiry. It was not due to report until December, but I got it to agree to be ready by 11 November. I was not involved in those negotiations in any way.
Negotiations did take place. There was an improvement in some of the conditions that were offered, but the employers said when the report came out that they would have to recognise the Bain proposals. That is their right. They just said, "Let us negotiate on that." Now, if they have the fire brigades' modernisation proposals, perhaps they can get back to the table and do as I said. There should be talk, not walk.

§ Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)
As firefighting is both an emergency and an essential service, once this dispute is over will the Deputy Prime Minister consider, either through legislation or by voluntary but binding agreements, putting firefighters on a par with the police, the armed forces and other key workers and seek an end to strikes in that sector?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
It is true that, particularly in those sectors, people do not want strikes. They are different. They threaten life; there is no doubt about it. That is why those sectors arrive at those conditions. However, the agreement on pay has meant that we have had 25 years without a strike and that should not be ignored.

§ Mr. Burns
Local strikes.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, there have been a few local ones, but in the main if one can use negotiation instead of the law, that is useful. However, as I have said, we will review all—I mean all—circumstances arising out of the dispute.

§ Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green)
I agree with my right hon. Friend and share his hope that there will be a sane and negotiated settlement. A great 160 many of my constituents hear all these pay claims and would love to have a contract that allowed them to be paid for the hours that they sleep while they are at work. Should we not address that?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
When many of our constituents read about what is being offered, they find it difficult to understand why it is being rejected. Indeed, most of the television representation is from London fire stations and London firefighters, who now get £28,000, £29,000 and almost £30,000, so it is difficult to understand why they are rejecting the offer. All we can do is to make the case that we think that it is a fair offer, that they should seriously consider negotiating, and that they should take into account the pay increases that we are agreeing to give to the nurses, which has to be a comparison. After all, they treat the firefighters when they are injured in their dangerous occupation.

§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)
Has the Deputy Prime Minister assessed whether firefighters are vulnerable to action under human rights legislation in the event of loss of life or damage to property? In the event of an eight-day strike, is he considering calling a state of emergency?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
All these matters of liability, involving not only people who may have suffered damage, but those who are playing a part in the dispute, are constantly under review. When it comes to human rights in one form or another, there must be a balance. It is claimed that the right to go on strike is also a human right that should not be denied. I am doing my best to find the proper balance.

§ Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, for the first time in more than 20 years, public sector pay is increasing faster than private sector pay? In those circumstances, if all public sector workers were to address their problems in the same way as the FBU has done, the only losers would be the public sector, although the Conservatives would continue to smile about it.

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sure that that is a serious threat. On public sector pay, we can claim that there are now 200,000 more workers in the public sector and that their pay is increasing faster than those in the private sector, although to be fair about that, it may have occurred over a longer period, rather than in the past year or two. However, I do not think that any previous Government could have claimed that since they came to power, public sector workers had had wage increases far in excess of inflation in order to help them catch up with the private sector. I am bound to say that that does not seem to register in any of the pay claims. There comes a time when the Government have to do what they consider fair, and that is where we are at the moment.

§ Mr. John Baron (Billericay)
Given that the Army will be overstretched, early detection of fire will be even more critical. Will the Deputy Prime Minister discuss with Government Departments the possibility of committing extra resources to social services in order to 161 ensure that smoke detectors are installed in the homes of the elderly and vulnerable, particularly those who live alone?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
The Government have been following that policy for some time, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I shall revisit it and see whether we can do more. Tragically, one of the deaths recorded last night was that of someone in those circumstances who informed us of the threat to his life by telling the authorities that there was a fire. We have to recognise that the fact that the vehicle took quite a long time to get there undoubtedly contributed to his death. That is all the more reason why the firefighters should be talking not walking.

§ John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland)
Can I tell my right hon. Friend how disgusted and ashamed I am as a Strathclyde Member of yesterday's 300 hoax callers? As people are saying in Glasgow, they are nothing but scum and should be treated as such. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Army firefighters crossing picket lines will only intensify the situation and we will fall into the trap of some trade unionists and Conservatives who wish to make the dispute worse?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
What my hon. Friend said about the 300 hoaxers expresses how we all feel, although I could not possibly say that. To be fair, only Strathclyde has made a judgment about that; I am sure that every part of the country is afflicted by hoax callers. We have made it clear that we condemn them and we need to stiffen up the approach of the courts in dealing with these people when they are caught.

§ Mr. George Osborne (Tatton)
Not a single green goddess is stationed in my constituency today, putting the lives of my constituents at risk. The Deputy Prime Minister said today that if the Government faced an eight-day strike, they might have to review many of the issues that, until now, have been kept off the table. Does that include giving the Army access to the modern firefighting equipment that lies idle in my constituency today?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to what I said. I have made it clear that the constraint on the use of the vehicles is not simply a question of access. It is the judgment of the armed services that we could not train enough people to man all 3,000 vehicles, even if we could acquire them. We have tried to get a proper balance, and the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that any system of fire cover does not prevent lives from being lost. Some 10 or 11 lives are lost on average a week. In those circumstances, we must do our best to try to avoid any further deaths. However, the Army officers and command structure have given us their advice and we are doing our best to provide them with the best equipment. They agree with the balance that we have at the moment.

§ Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire)
I spent two hours with a dozen south Derbyshire firefighters on 162 Monday evening. Is there not one message that we can give to them as trade unionists—that no sensible trade union enters a dispute without a clear exit strategy, something that appears to be sadly lacking in the FBU at the moment?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I must admit that, as an ex-trade union official and negotiator, I know that one tries to keep a back door open. I thought perhaps that the FBU had one, but as we went on, we heard that the claim was 40 per cent. or nothing, do or die. It is clear that we cannot and will not pay that and that the money will not be available. It is a matter of judgment as to what can be arrived at in negotiations. The union has been made an offer, but it has kept on demanding 40 per cent. I hear from the television that the union might come down further. It may be referring to the preferred option that I supposedly intervened to give, but I never intervened. If the union is in the mood to negotiate on modernisation—the union has said that in the last 24 hours, and we have not heard that before—it must get back to the table with the employers and discuss it. Don't walk, talk; that is still our position.

§ Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)
The last time the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement on the fire dispute, he said clearly that the reason why military personnel could not have access to fire appliances was an operational one because they were needed for day-to-day use. Today, he has explained on several occasions that the Government are not seeking that access on military advice. When was that military advice given—months ago, when the dispute was flagged up, or since he last made a statement to the House?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
We made clear the position on appliances months ago and also on what advice the armed services gave us. There are two connected points in the hon. Lady's question. The first is the availability of the vehicles and whether there is any further constraint, and the other is whether we barge in and take over the vehicles. That seems to lie behind some of the questions—a sense of, "Let's go in and grab them." However, even if we did, we would not have the people to man them. We have to make a balanced judgment. If the union had called off its strike, our people would not have been threatened. I agree that there is now a dispute and I am asking the union to come back to the table. At the end of the day, our policy has saved lives. The sanctity of life is the issue, not the sanctity of the picket line, although that seems to be behind most of the inquiries.

§ Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West)
I agree entirely that the FBU's claim is unreasonable, and that view is now shared by the majority of my constituents, although there is widespread admiration for the work of firefighters. Should not the FBU return to the negotiating table at the earliest opportunity, in the interests of public safety and common sense, to resolve this matter with more modest and realistic expectations of what it can achieve?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree, and, I hope that that has been the core of my message today—that the union should get back to the negotiating table. That is 163 what has pushed me through the last few weeks. I see hopeful signs during the dispute, as some have talked about a claim of less than 40 per cent. and about fire brigade modernisation. That provides us with an opportunity to go back to the table. The employers and the union should each find out exactly what the other is saying. They should not talk about confusion and make accusations about each other. They must go in, clear it up, negotiate and talk, not walk.

§ Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the high concentration of oil refineries, power stations, chemical plants and other dangerous installations in my constituency. I hope that he will appreciate the concerns of residents living in their shadow. What more can be done to persuade Humberside fire brigade to react if there is an incident at one of them?

§ The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a fair point about an area with which we are both familiar, because our constituencies adjoin the Humber, where many of the chemical and petrol complexes are sited. I have no doubt whatever that if a major incident occurred, many fire workers would turn out. The Flixborough incident many years ago is a good example. I have no doubt that many of them would say, "Let's get out there and do it." They did it last night. I cannot accept, however, that I should have to ring up some local committee to find out whether they are going to turn out. I could not come to the House with such a proposal. I say again to the Fire Brigades Union that it has an obligation to allow those who want to attend an incident to do so. There should be an agreement about that. I understand that an agreement was reached in Northern Ireland about how stations might be manned in certain circumstances, but the national body's intervention put an end to that 24 hours later. That is not acceptable.
Our responsibility—that of not only the Government but the whole House—is to maximise safety. We have the responsibility to defend our citizens, and I want to make it clear to the Fire Brigades Union, the House and everyone else that whatever we have to do to meet that requirement, I will do it and I will be accountable to the House for it.