Fire Brigades Union (Dispute)
The next item of business is a statement by Jim Wallace on the fire brigade dispute. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement. There should therefore be no interventions.
The first national fire strike in 25 years is now under way. I very much regret that, not least because the action that is being taken by the Fire Brigades Union—the FBU—is, I believe, entirely avoidable. Let there be no doubt that a strike by firefighters will put public safety at risk.
In the face of the threat of industrial action by the FBU if its 40 per cent claim was not met, the Executive had to take prudent action to protect the public. Consequently, we have invoked plans that we have in place to deal with this sort of emergency.
There has been comprehensive contingency planning with the Ministry of Defence. That involves the use of the armed services' personnel and equipment. It is supported by the police, ambulance and fire services. That has been taking place at national, regional and local levels. The Scottish Executive justice department, under the auspices of the Scottish emergencies co-ordination committee—the SECC—has held regular meetings with the military, with the fire, police and ambulance services and with local authorities to review and monitor the contingency plans. We are prepared.
I attended last night's SECC meeting, at which I was reassured that our plans are in place. During the next 48 hours of strikes, the Scottish Executive emergencies room will be open, staffed by Executive officials. Representatives from the police, the military and Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate will be present. Through this facility, we will have a direct link to the joint command and control centre in Stirling. Tomorrow I will meet my ministerial colleagues in the Executive to review the situation. I will also again meet the civil contingencies committee, to keep abreast of developments across the United Kingdom.
Although we have never claimed that the contingency arrangements can replicate fully the cover provided by the regular fire service, Ministry of Defence personnel have been preparing and training for their role during the strike. They are providing emergency cover and their priority will be to save life. In Scotland, we have about 1,800 military personnel who are operating out of 48 temporary fire stations across the country. There are about 110 green goddesses, 36 breathing apparatus rescue teams and eight regional equipment support teams. Those teams will include personnel who are trained and experienced in the use of breathing apparatus and other specialist equipment. All military personnel will have undertaken training tailored to their skills and roles. During previous disputes, military personnel have proved that they are able to provide emergency cover. We are very grateful to all those from the three armed forces, who we know will respond professionally.
The public can help the situation by taking extra care and being especially vigilant. Sadly, some 80 per cent of fire deaths occur in the home. For that reason, we are running a public safety information campaign in all the main newspapers and through local radio. The campaign reiterates the message that, in the event of fire, people should get out, stay out and dial 999. The 999 system will continue to operate, with calls being diverted on a temporary basis to alternative operations centres.
The public can do everything they can to prevent a fire by ensuring that they have a working smoke alarm; by thinking about their fire escape plan now; by taking special care when cooking, especially with chip pans and hot oil; by taking care with all smoking materials and candles; and by watching out for the vulnerable in our communities.
I turn now to why we are faced with the need to activate our contingency plans. No one doubts the dedication and bravery of our firefighters. All our emergency services are properly held in high regard for their professionalism and dedication. For 25 years, firefighters' pay has been determined by a formula that links the pay of a fully qualified firefighter to the earnings of the top 25 per cent of adult male manual workers. The formula has served the fire service well and has provided a 20 per cent increase in firefighters' pay since 1997. As recently as July 2000, Mr Andy Gilchrist, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, was quoted in the union's "FireFighter" magazine as saying:
"Our wages remain ahead of other essential public sector workers precisely because we have maintained the formula."
Firefighters have been well protected by the formula and the service continues to attract and retain staff without difficulty.
However, the FBU has sought a 39 per cent pay rise in the annual salary of a qualified firefighter. Its claim also includes a 50 per cent pay increase for control room staff and a pro rata increase in the hourly rate for retained or part-time firefighters. Such a claim would cost local authority employers in Scotland about £45 million per annum. It has been made even though only yesterday the Office for National Statistics announced a headline inflation figure of 2.1 per cent.
I want to say something about the negotiating process. First, the Scottish Executive has no direct locus in fire service pay and conditions of service issues. Those are matters for local authority employers and they are negotiated on a United Kingdom basis through the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire Brigades—the NJC. The NJC met throughout the summer.
On 2 September, the employers offered the Fire Brigades Union a 4 per cent pay rise and, for the future, a new pay formula that would link fire service pay to average settlements in the economy. However, in view of the FBU's stance on its 40 per cent claim, the employers extended to the union an offer to join them in seeking from the Government an independent review of the fire service that would consider both modernisation and pay. That offer was rejected.
When it was clear that negotiations had effectively broken down, the Government announced an independent review of the fire service. There is a long tradition of the Government's using independent reviews to resolve difficult industrial relations issues, usually after a long and bitter dispute. Here was an opportunity to use an independent review to prevent one. The review that Professor Sir George Bain is conducting provides an excellent opportunity to consider a range of issues that the fire service faces, including pay.
Yes the review is about modernisation, but that does not necessarily mean an attack on firefighters' terms and conditions. Rather it is a recognition that investment has to be matched with reform. For example, it means ensuring that the service is equipped to deal with the consequences of any mass terrorist attack; it means that fire cover needs to reflect risk; and it means working towards a fire service that reflects the diversity of the community it serves. There is no reason why that cannot go hand in hand with a fair deal for firefighters. However, in return we need to change some of the out-of-date working practices.
The review provides the means of avoiding unnecessary and deeply damaging industrial action. All parties have been given an opportunity to submit evidence and to participate in the review. Indeed Sir George Bain has made it clear that he wants to sit down and listen to both sides—both the fire service and its employers. I hope that the FBU will reconsider its position.
Many people will not be able to understand why strike action could not have been suspended until the full outcome of the review was known, considered and discussed in detail by the NJC. More important, they will be wondering why, when the FBU is so confident of its case, it has steadfastly refused to participate in the review.
The Bain review has already produced a position paper as the basis for starting off the negotiating process. The position paper already covers a lot of ground, but in relation to pay it states that there is no sound economic basis for a pay claim above 4 per cent; that firefighters' pay compares well with that of similar jobs in the public and private sectors; and it goes on to point out that when holidays, pension arrangements and job security are taken into account, firefighters are even better placed.
That is borne out by the recruitment and retention figures, which show large numbers of applicants for each fire service vacancy, even during a period of steady economic growth. Sir George Bain's report points out that the case for a significant pay increase rests on a commitment to significant change delivering fundamental reform of the current fire service. In return for implementation of the reform package, the pay bill would increase by around 4 per cent from this November and a further 7 per cent in November 2003.
Sir George Bain's position paper also criticises all the principal stakeholders—the Government, the local authority employers, senior management of the fire service and the fire service unions for not making much more progress over the past 25 years. We accept that criticism. However, the independent review gives all sides an opportunity to address all the issues that have been identified and to deliver a modern, effective service for everyone.
It is encouraging that the early indications from the independent review echo much of what we said in our own consultation policy paper, "The Scottish Fire Service of the Future". That paper was debated in Parliament in May of this year and was welcomed by all sides. It set out our vision for the fire service in Scotland and reflected our aim to provide public services that are responsive to peoples' needs, are efficient and deliver high quality.
I am desperately disappointed that I have to make this statement this evening. I can only urge the FBU to call off its industrial action and commit to engaging with the independent review. It is vital that all sides continue constructive dialogue to reach a settlement that is fair to firefighters and to the public they serve.
Thank you, Mr Wallace: that took less than 10 minutes. In accordance with Murray Tosh's ruling last week, I shall allow the opener in the SNP's case up to two minutes and in the Tories' case up to a minute and a half, provided that what they say is peppered with questions. Thereafter, there will be quicker questions and answers.
I add my regrets to those that the Deputy First Minister expressed that we are now in the midst of a firefighters' strike for the time in 25 years. I also regret the fact that the Deputy First Minister used the majority of his statement to attack the firefighters rather than to address his responsibility to say how the people of Scotland can be protected.
The SNP believes that public safety is paramount and both the Government and the firefighters should show good will by settling the dispute before the public and businesses in Scotland are harmed. In the light of that, the SNP calls for a return to a moratorium by the FBU on strike action. However, the Government must enter genuine negotiations to settle the dispute.
Ask a question, please.
I am coming to it. Let us be clear: the breakdown of the original negotiations was caused by Government interference in the normal negotiation process between employers and firefighters.
I ask the Deputy First Minister what pressure the Scottish Executive will bring to bear on UK ministerial colleagues to resolve the dispute before lives are lost in Scotland?
Anyone who listened carefully to my statement will realise that I did not attack firefighters. Far from it: I paid tribute to them and said that no one doubts their dedication and bravery. It is quite proper that all emergency services are held in high regard for their professionalism and dedication. I am proud to put that on the record again.
I am not entirely sure what course of action Tricia Marwick was suggesting. When she got round to her question, she asked about putting pressure on the UK Government. I assure the Parliament that we are in regular contact with the office of the Deputy Prime Minister on all the issues surrounding the firefighters' strike. We echo the calls that the UK Government has made for the union to return to the negotiating table. The position paper that Sir George Bain has produced provides a good basis for negotiation. Discussions at the negotiating table represent the only means of making the kind of progress that I think Tricia Marwick said she wants to see.
Does the Deputy First Minister accept that, in dealing with the issue, the protection of life should be of paramount importance? Will he explain to the Parliament why the service personnel who will be engaged in firefighting have been given only two days' training? Will he make arrangements to ensure that those personnel will have access to cutting equipment and breathing apparatus in fire service stations? Can he assure us that every effort will be made to ensure that those personnel have the basic training?
Is the minister aware that the Army has only 32 pieces of cutting equipment, compared with the 240 pieces of such equipment that the fire brigades use? Such equipment is vital for responding to severe road accidents. If the dispute becomes prolonged, will the minister consider providing service personnel with additional training on fire appliances, which we called for some time ago? Finally, is he aware that a firefighter recently told me that his dissatisfaction with the handling of the matter was causing him to resign from the Labour party?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked me to assure him that the saving of life is a priority. It is the priority. On training, I can inform the Parliament that personnel have been trained and equipped to provide basic fire and rescue cover. The level of training is dependent on the skill that individual service people hold and the role that they are likely to perform. Some fire and rescue teams are trained and have experience in the use of breathing apparatus and other specialist equipment. Additional personnel have also been trained in those techniques. Other support training includes driver training, first aid training and specialist equipment maintenance training.
On access to local authorities' equipment in fire stations, it would not always be possible to use fire service vehicles for training. If Lord James Douglas-Hamilton reflects on the situation, he will realise that, at this time, asking the military to cross picket lines to obtain equipment could exacerbate the situation. As the Prime Minister indicated last month, that issue is being kept closely under review.
Can we have much tighter questions and answers now, please?
Obviously, there are concerns about response times in rural constituencies such as mine. Response times in such areas are already slower than response times in urban areas. What action is being taken to ensure that the Army will be able to make responses in places such as Leadhills in my constituency?
Decisions about where to deploy the green goddesses and supporting vehicles were taken with maximum capability in mind. No one has made any secret of the fact that the cover that is being provided is not as good as, and does not represent a full substitute for, the cover that was in place until 6 o'clock this evening.
For rural areas, the possibility of cover from non-striking retained firefighters and from volunteer firefighters has also been taken into account. Clearly, if the situation changes, the deployment strategy will be reconsidered by the military and by the relevant fire-master.
What specific training has been given to the military personnel who would be required to attend an emergency situation at, for example, the Hunterston nuclear power station? Is the minister confident that any such training will be sufficient to deal with a potential nuclear emergency?
I have explained some of the training that has been given. Kay Ullrich will recognise that nuclear power stations already have robust multi-agency contingency plans, which are tested regularly. Obviously, the owners of nuclear stations have been obliged to review, where appropriate, how their site safety case will be affected by the dispute.
If there were an incident at a nuclear establishment during the period of the strike, the on-site emergency teams would be supported by the temporary military firefighting resources. If there were a major incident, the military would provide whatever support it could. That support, I accept, would be more limited than that which is currently provided by the fire service. As Kay Ullrich may be aware, discussions have been taking place nationally with the Fire Brigades Union to establish emergency arrangements and to see what scope there is in the event of a major catastrophe of the kind to which Kay Ullrich referred.
On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I express our disappointment that the Fire Brigades Union has gone ahead with the strike instead of engaging positively in the review process chaired by Sir George Bain. A great proportion of the fire brigades' work load is dealing with road accidents and extricating victims who find themselves trapped in their cars. I understand that the Army is not well equipped to do such work. Will the minister give an assurance about how the emergency services will be able to deal with road accidents during the strike?
For road accidents, instead of the green goddesses, the rescue equipment support teams or the breathing apparatus rescue teams would be deployed. Those are self-contained teams that include three trained personnel together with a driver and that offer breathing apparatus as well as chemical protection in case of a chemical spill. Those rescue teams have been trained and, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton indicated in his question, cutting equipment has been made available to them.
Will the minister condemn the provocative actions and language of some of his Westminster counterparts who, in accusing the FBU of bully-boy tactics, have tried to blame the union in advance of the strike for any loss of life that might occur during it? Bearing in mind the essential service that firefighters provide and the fact that their present pay is less than the UK national average, will the Executive use its influence to try to reopen meaningful negotiations to ensure a fairer deal for the firefighters, so that they can return to work with justice and dignity?
I have certainly tried to avoid saying anything that might be thought to be provocative in the sense that Dennis Canavan mentioned, as that would not be helpful in encouraging members of the Fire Brigades Union to return to the negotiating table. I encourage employers and the Fire Brigades Union to negotiate. I believe that the position paper that Sir George Bain gave to the respective parties at the beginning of this week provides the basis for such negotiation.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that strike action must be regarded both as a failure and as a reflection on both sides of any dispute? Does he accept that the firefighters' job has changed over the years and that they require a pay formula that recognises the current situation? Does he agree that the dispute can be resolved only around the table and that firemen would be well advised to retain the public support that they have by possibly providing emergency cover in serious situations?
Duncan McNeil is absolutely right to reflect on the differences in the nature of the firefighters' job today compared with when the Fire Services Act 1947 was passed. Our white paper, "The Scottish Fire Service of the Future", reflects many of those changes. As I have said, discussions have been taking place between the secretary of the union and the Deputy Prime Minister on responding to major emergencies, to see whether there is any scope. I re-echo what I have said more than once this evening. There ought to be a return to the negotiating table, because it is only at the negotiating table that we will make progress.
Will the Deputy First Minister detail what he has done during the four weeks since the initial strike ballot to update armed forces personnel and give them access to more equipment and training, so that tonight they can be bettering public safety? I ask him and other members to reflect on the fact that young Scottish men and women are tonight manning 50-year-old fire engines and that they do so ill equipped, considerably lower paid than firemen and without the right to strike.
I assure Ben Wallace that considerable efforts have been made to obtain equipment. When the union ballot was announced, concerns were expressed about the amount of cutting equipment that was available, not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, and considerable efforts were made to increase the number of pieces of cutting equipment that could be made available. Those efforts were undertaken with some considerable success. I accept that the green goddesses are old, but their pumping efficiency is acknowledged to be effective. I certainly do not wish to detract from the efforts that the military have made or the training that they have done. I acknowledge, as I always have, that that is not a substitute for the kind of fire service cover that we have from the ordinary fire service. Nevertheless, the contingency arrangements that have been put in place have been the product of detailed consideration and planning.
I will ask the minister specifically about schools. Have the floor plans of every school in Scotland been made available to the temporary personnel, as they are to fire services? What special training has been given to the people whom Ben Wallace mentioned, who will be dealing with young people in emergency situations? That training takes place for regular firefighters, some of whom I have met in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire and whom I think have been driven to strike action by the Government's intransigent attitude.
At a much earlier stage, the education and health departments issued circulars and made contact with health boards and education authorities to encourage them to examine the fire precautions for each of the establishments for which they have responsibility. That was done some weeks ago, when there was a possibility of a dispute being imminent.
As I said in my statement, we must take particular care of those who are more vulnerable in our community, and that includes the young. The basic messages are the same for the young and for people of any age. The simple message is, "If you are caught up in a fire, get out, stay out and dial 999." That applies regardless of whether there is a strike, but this is the moment to emphasise again basic safety messages, which apply to young and old alike.
What discussion has taken place on the response in the event of a major incident in the petrochemical industry in Falkirk East?
Discussions took place earlier today between the secretary of the union and the Deputy Prime Minister to identify whether there are major incidents for which the firefighters would return. I understand that the word "catastrophic" has been used in connection with such incidents, but I have to accept that the threshold that would bring about a return to work is not entirely clear. There are obvious concerns about the petrochemical industry and I have no doubt that those concerns will have been worked into the plans and contingency arrangements that the military have considered.
Does the minister accept that the firefighters' wage claim is based on independent research of what firefighters need to bring them into line with other professions? How does he answer the firefighters who suggest that he and others in the chamber were awarded a 13 per cent wage rise this year and are currently paid four times what a firefighter is paid? Does he agree that the best thing that the Scottish Parliament could do would be to call on Westminster to increase taxation on the wealthy in this country—an extra 10p in the pound for earnings over £50,000 and an extra 20p in the pound for earnings over £100,000—so that we can pay the firefighters what they deserve? They are certainly worth every single penny of their claim, which could not be said about people in the chamber.
I am sure that Mr Sheridan heard me when I quoted what Andy Gilchrist said in July 2000, when he applauded the fact that the formula that was negotiated in 1977 had ensured that the firefighters' wages were among the better in the public service. I have not heard Tommy Sheridan ask the Fire Brigades Union to get back to the negotiating table, but it is only at that negotiating table that we will get a settlement.
Meeting closed at 19:31.