§ 11.25 a.m.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether firemen have the right to lock up and thus prevent the use of public equipment while they are on strike.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, Fire Service appliances and equipment are the property of the fire authority concerned, who retain the right to decide on their availability for use. We have not proposed that, during the firemen's strike, Servicemen should use the appliances and equipment ordinarily used by regular firemen. As the House will be aware, we have issued, for use by the Services, emergency fire appliances from Home Office stores.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, does the noble Lord think that it makes sense to deny to the Servicemen life-saving and breathing apparatus which is available? Is it not public property? Would it not help to save the lives of those who are trapped by fire, and certainly help the Servicemen in undertaking their exceptional duties, if these pieces of equipment were made available? Would it not be sensible to open discussions with the local authorities and the Fire Brigades' Union to see whether they could not release this equipment and thus help the public?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, as the noble Lord will doubtless be aware, there have already been exchanges on this matter in this House on 6th December and the point then made by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom was that a substantial period of training was required before this breathing apparatus could be used by the Servicemen. I may say that since then I have discussed the matter with a number of senior fire officers who confirmed that view, and that is why the equipment is not being issued to the Servicemen.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that by continuing to turn a blind eye to what has been happening over recent weeks 2236 there is a risk of extending the law on picketing to lengths which could be very dangerous indeed? The property and equipment which the unions have refused to allow to be used—because that is what it amounts to—puts the rights of the picketer far beyond what is thought to have been the law in the past. It is a trespass.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, the point which I made in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, related to the question of breathing apparatus. There was no question of turning a blind eye to the situation. Following the previous exchanges in the House, I discussed this matter with senior fire officers, who confirmed that in their view it would be most unwise to issue this type of equipment to Servicemen who would be untrained in its use.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, surely this apparatus belongs to the general public: they paid for it, and are they not entitled to have it used for their protection as required? Is the noble Lord saying that somebody else can stop its use?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, the point I have made is that the breathing apparatus has not been distributed to Servicemen because it would require a prolonged period of training before it could be used. That is the view of professional chief fire officers with whom I have personally discussed the matter.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, the noble Lord seems to confine his answers to breathing apparatus. I did not understand that the Question related in terms only to breathing apparatus. Are there not other items of equipment which would be useful, for instance in the saving of lives in high-rise flats? I understand that there is certain tower equipment and other equipment which is not included in the green goddess "complex", if I may use the word that appeared in the previous Answer.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, there is indeed some equipment in fire stations which is far more satisfactory in dealing with fires in high-rise blocks 2237 than are the green goddesses which are now being used by the Servicemen. That is absolutely true, but the same argument applies there as applies to the breathing apparatus. The position is that the very large ladders which would have to be used in a case of this kind require a prolonged period of training. When I first repeated in this House the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, at the beginning of the dispute, I did not in any way suggest that the emergency arrangements which we were making would provide the same quality of fire cover that would be available if the Regular Fire Service were at work. I said that we would provide an emergency fire service of reasonable quality. I think we have succeeded in doing that, and I would say to the noble and learned Lord that this highly sophisticated equipment requires a prolonged period of training, and I do not think that it is appropriate to issue it to the Armed Services.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, then may I ask the noble Lord a question in terms, because he has placed his answers solely on the grounds of a prolonged period of training being necessary, which one can understand; but is he able to assure the House that the only reason why the Government do not make this requirement is the necessity for training over a long period, and that they are in no way influenced by other factors?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, if any equipment was available which in the view of the Government was urgently necessary in order to save lives, it would be made available. There is absolutely no question whatever about that.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that professional people are always inclined to say that they are using such complicated equipment that it would take a very long period to train alternative people? Officers in the Armed Forces have formed the opinion that the training could be done very quickly indeed, and certainly within the period of the present strike that has been going on. Will the Government reconsider this?—because we have the famous case of the Suez Canal pilots: we were 2238 told that it would take months to train them, whereas in fact it took a few hours for other people to take on their jobs. This could be done by the disciplined people of the Armed Forces. Has the noble Lord seen the article in the Sunday Express of 27th November by Gerard Kemp which says,
How the Marxists are using the firemen to try to topple the Government.Would the noble Lord bear in mind that there is a very strong Left-Wing leadership in this union, and they may be making it more difficult to release this equipment for the benefit of the public?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHWell, my Lords, this very Left-Wing leadership did in fact recommend against having a strike in the first place, so that does seem a rather exaggerated statement. At this approaching seasonal period of the year I would be particularly averse to making a crude Party point, but I was very surprised to hear the number of cheers at the reference to the Suez Canal pilots. I thought at the time it was a rather remarkable statement, and I am particularly glad that so many noble Lords opposite now appear to take the view that we took at that particular period. All I would say to the point which the noble Lord has made is that we have discussed this matter with our professional fire service advisers. That seems to me to be the right thing to do, just in the same way as we would discuss with our professional military advisers any defence questions.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, my noble friend has referred to the seasonal spirit. We have now taken 25 minutes. I think tempers are perhaps running a little high. I am in the hands of the House, but I feel that perhaps we should move on.