Firefighters and Fire Control Staff (Pay)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3393, in the name of Alex Neil, on firefighters and emergency fire control staff.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the valuable and courageous work undertaken by the fire service and believes that a new pay formula together with a commensurate level of pay for firefighters and emergency fire control staff should be introduced to ensure that these accurately reflect the highly skilled and professional role which they undertake.
On behalf of the members, I wish the Presiding Officers a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I am sure that we do that every time that we are not called to ask a supplementary question.
I make it absolutely clear that I do not speak to the motion from a party-political point of view. The issue is far too important and the industrial dispute is far too big for us to play politics with it. The wording of the motion is deliberately based on that of a motion that the Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously agreed to in September before it was suspended.
My motion has two purposes. First, it affords the Parliament the opportunity, which we have not had in the dispute, to record our respect for and recognition of firefighters not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. It also affords us the opportunity to recognise the work that they do and the need for them to be given a fair and just settlement on their pay and conditions.
The second purpose of the motion is to allow the Parliament to put some pressure on the Executive and the UK Government to adopt a more reasonable approach to dealing with the dispute and to try to settle it much more amicably than has been the case until now.
The job of a firefighter is not easy. Our firefighters are a group of professional, dedicated and worthy men and women. They see their job not just as a job or career, but as a vocation in life. Their priority—indeed, their obsession—is to save lives and to ensure that people are protected from the effects of fire and associated hazards. When the rest of us leave a burning inferno, the firefighters go into it, often without knowing what they will find.
Sometimes firefighters' experiences are too horrific for words. They often have to cope with situations involving injury and death that are impossible for the rest of us to imagine. Having to witness people being burnt alive or seeing a child die at the scene of a road accident is part of a firefighter's lot. Indeed, being present at such incidents is part of the job description. From time to time, they also have to put their own lives in danger in order to save those of others. For all those reasons, our firefighters should be treated as national heroes, not demonised as if they were the enemy within.
As Jim Wallace said in his foreword to the Scottish Executive paper "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future", which was published last year:
"The fire service is one which has an enviable reputation for delivery."
As with a small number of groups in our society, such as nurses and the armed forces, the nature of the firefighters' job makes them a special case, and they should be treated as such. In a modern society, essential workers such as firefighters should not be forced into a situation in which they think that the only way they will get a fair deal is by going on strike. Our firefighters do not want to be on strike; they want to settle the dispute round the negotiating table, which they would have done had the Government allowed them and the employers to do so. The firefighters want negotiation, not confrontation.
It is not for the Parliament to decide the exact details of a settlement to the dispute or to determine what percentage increase the firefighters should get. However, it is the right—it is the duty—of the Parliament to set the record straight about some of the stuff and nonsense that some UK ministers and others have put about with regard to the firefighters' pay claim.
The first myth that needs to be exploded is about modernisation. Far from being against modernisation, the firefighters have been demanding it. Indeed, they have submitted their own detailed proposals for the modernisation of the fire service. Furthermore, following last year's terror attacks, they have agreed to undertake new duties in relation to mass decontamination without any additional pay or benefits.
The measures that the firefighters oppose are those that fly in the face of their professional experience and which are more about cost cuts and job cuts than about modernisation. For example, they oppose the proposal to reduce the number of firefighters on night shift, not because they are militant but because 75 per cent of people who are killed in fires are killed at night. Fighting a fire in the dark is, of course, much more problematic than fighting one during daylight hours. The common sense of the firefighters' position on that issue was exemplified two weeks ago, during the fire in Edinburgh's old town. Had there been reduced night cover, who is to say how much further the fire would have spread or what damage or injury would have been done to individuals?
Who in their right mind would take the advice of Sir George Bain, the vice-chancellor of Queen's University Belfast, on night-time cover, rather than that of the professional firefighters, who have years of experience on the front line? Sir George has never fought a fire in his puff. How would he like it if the firefighters told him how to run his university?
The other modernisation proposals—some of which are equally crazy—are opposed for good professional reasons, not because of militancy and obstinacy on the part of the firefighters.
I do not have time to go through each of the issues—I am sure that other speakers will do so. However, Sir George Bain's report was neither independent nor neutral. Sir George was knighted by the UK Government. He and his committee were appointed by the Government—without consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The committee's remit was set by the Government, its conclusions were dictated by the Government and its proposals are a carbon copy of what the Government wanted.
Let us forget Bain and get back to real negotiations. Let our firefighters get the pay rise they deserve and let us modernise the fire service—in the real sense of the word modernisation—rather than butcher it as Bain would have us do. Let common sense prevail.
The debate is heavily oversubscribed. With the minister's agreement, I am prepared to extend it until 6 o'clock—although not beyond.
Motion moved,
That, under rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.00pm.—[Alex Neil.]
Motion agreed to.
I congratulate Alex Neil on lodging his motion, along with Bill Butler and Cathy Peattie, whose motions I also signed. Alex Neil made an excellent, tempered speech to open the debate. I hope that it will set the tone for all the speeches that are made this evening.
I want to say a few words about firefighters, particularly those in my constituency. It is important for me to bring my experience to this debate. Like many other members, I have stood alongside firefighters on the picket lines and I support the rights of workers to take action on issues in which they believe—workers' rights and their pay dispute. If nothing else, the dispute has taught me a few things about the technical work that is involved in putting out fires; many of us may not have been aware of that work.
In Glasgow Kelvin, I have spent a great deal of time with Yorkhill firefighters, who form part of the Strathclyde fire brigade. They have outlined to me the difficulties that are involved in fighting fires in tenement buildings and of getting large vehicles up narrow streets—issues that many constituents will not have considered. They have told me about the variety of duties and dangerous procedures that they must carry out—including dealing with chemical fires and explosions, to which Alex Neil referred—and about the intricate timings that those procedures involve. Firefighters must time one another in a scientific way when tackling fires in situations where they cannot see anything. On such occasions, they have their colleagues' lives in their hands. There is no question of our not recognising the work that firefighters do.
Many of the firefighters are on strike for the first time and do not want to be so, but they genuinely believe in their campaign and industrial dispute. However, disputes that are as high profile as this one often become ugly, and the dispute has become ugly on both sides. I urge both sides to refrain from demonising each other, because if trust is not built up on both sides we will not get an opportunity to discuss what is really meant by modernisation and what could make our fire service better.
Strathclyde firefighters seem to be out in front on the modernisation of methods. I have witnessed training in resuscitation and the application of surgical collars. I believe that all Strathclyde firefighters are trained to apply surgical collars, although that may not be the case in the rest of the country. I have not yet met a firefighter who is opposed to carrying a defibrillator. Some of the issues that have been raised are red herrings. We must analyse what is meant by modernisation in the public fire service—what would make the service better and what would be the best way of saving lives. That is why trust needs to be rebuilt on both sides. The talks are crucial for the delivery of our fire service and for our constituents.
I congratulate Alex Neil on his success in securing the debate. We recognise the undoubted courage and dedication of Scotland's firefighters. We believe that the first priority of the Executive and the UK Government must be the protection of the lives of the public. We therefore see it as imperative that the Government take a central role in negotiations.
Disputes that lead to the sort of strikes that we have seen so far can put lives in danger. That is why we would encourage all parties across the board to develop voluntary no-strike agreements if at all possible. In relation to the emergency services, strikes, which in our opinion threaten lives, cannot be justified. For that reason, the police, the armed services and prison officers are not able to take strike action.
I understand that some European countries ban firefighters from taking industrial action on the ground of public safety. In order to encourage unions and employers to adopt responsible and realistic bargaining positions, pendulum arbitration should be considered. By that method, the arbitrator decides to accept the final offer of one of the two sides, rather than simply opting for a compromise. Research suggests that that method increases the likelihood of the two sides reaching a negotiated solution.
I am sorry that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is so lonely, as he is the only Conservative to have turned up for the debate. In relation to the no-strike agreement, what does he think about the fact that the rank and file of the police have already voted for the right to strike in recognition of the need for them to be able to withdraw their labour? Does he support the rank-and-file police?
I made it very clear in a press release that I will not support the police's having the right to strike, because I believe that their task in saving lives is vital. However, I believe that the emergency services should be very well paid in exchange for a no-strike agreement.
The Fire Brigades Union described the Bain review's findings as irrelevant, but it must recognise that the inquiry's submissions present the best chance of a constructive outcome as a starting point and it must treat them seriously. The strike will be settled eventually, but substantial increases can be agreed only as part of a review of the entire pay and working practices of the fire service. An 11 per cent rise in firefighters' pay over two years, coupled with radical modernisation of their working practices, has been proposed in the Bain report.
Our first priority is the protection of the public and of lives. It is our hope that any modernisation would help to reduce the death rate from fires to a level that is more comparable with that of other European countries with a similar climate and culture to our own. The Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria all achieve much lower death rates than does the United Kingdom. If we achieved the same rate as do the Swiss or the Dutch, we would save 300 lives a year. I believe that that is a worthy aim.
In the interests of accuracy, I point out that the Bain report does not guarantee an 11 per cent wage increase for firefighters; it recommends an 11 per cent increase in the wages bill. There is only the potential to earn an additional 11 per cent, provided that very tough conditions are met.
That is a perfectly fair point. I see the 11 per cent as a starting point. I hope that the on-going discussions can be conducted in a spirit of constructive engagement and can be taken forward positively and constructively. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will not lose an hour in pursuing a responsible outcome to the dispute. For the sake of the safety of the public, I hope that the dispute can and will be resolved speedily and satisfactorily.
Given that Cathy Peattie had a motion on the subject, I will allow her four minutes.
I thank Alex Neil for introducing the debate and I congratulate him on his speech. I am pleased to see so many members here this evening for this important debate.
There is no doubt that, since the firefighters accepted a pay formula that tied their pay to manufacturing workers' wages, there has been significant change in those wages and significant loss of better-paid jobs within the manufacturing industry. As a result, firefighters' wages have fallen in comparison with those of other workers and, in particular, with the wages of other professional and technical workers.
There is also no doubt that firefighters have acquired new skills and have accepted modernisation of the service to deal with the new hazards that they face in the modern world. There are different views regarding the extent, the time scale and the affordability of a settlement, but I believe that it is important that the settlement addresses those points.
It is important that the distorting lens of the media does not disrupt the negotiations. For example, the figure of 40 per cent was actually drawn from a report by the Labour Research Department, which was the same team that produced the report on MPs' pay rises. In that context, it is worth noting that the Fire Brigades Union maintained that it is prepared to accept the 16 per cent deal that was offered by the employers in May.
Further negotiations will not simply be about pay. The FBU claim would also have brought retained firefighters and, if possible, control room staff to the same pay levels as whole-time firefighters. Staffing levels have also become an issue in the negotiations.
We should not doubt the commitment of our firefighters. In recent weeks, I have spoken to firefighters both in my constituency of Falkirk East and throughout Scotland, as well as to FBU national officials. All of them were reluctant to take industrial action. During the strike, they were all ready to abandon the picket line to go to the assistance of those in distress. Firefighters continued to free people from wrecked cars and burning buildings in constituencies up and down the country. We should value our fire service.
Firefighters are hard-working dedicated people who care about the quality of the service that they provide. We do not want to see that undermined by old-fashioned working practices that involve excessive overtime.
When Cathy Peattie mentions excessive overtime, is she referring to the Fire Brigades Union?
We should congratulate the Fire Brigades Union on having an overtime ban. One hears so often, including in my constituency, that people are working excessive overtime. Any attempt to find a solution in the dispute through increasing overtime would not help. I was referring not to the Fire Brigades Union, but to the possibility that overtime might be increased as a way of resolving the problem. I do not support that.
We should recognise the firefighters' contribution and be prepared to listen to their case. I believe that that should take place in Scotland as well as in the UK. I urge the minister to meet firefighters to explore ways in which the Executive can help to bring about a UK settlement to the issue.
We are back to three minutes for speeches, plus time for interventions.
I add my congratulations to Alex Neil on securing tonight's debate and I pay my respects to the firefighters for the work that they do on behalf of the rest of us.
The motion supports a call for a fair-pay settlement, which I have supported from the beginning. The dispute should have been settled a long time ago and would have been settled had the UK Government not interfered in the process between employer and employees.
I welcome the firefighters from Fife who are in the public gallery tonight. Their presence gives me an opportunity to record my personal thanks to the firefighters who broke their strike recently to try to rescue two elderly people from Kinghorn harbour. I know that the family also extends its thanks to the firefighters for the work that they did in vain.
We have heard a lot about modernisation, but the fire service has already modernised, as many members have mentioned. In Fife, we do not have a fire service but a Fife fire and rescue service. That name better sums up the work that the firefighters do. They are already doing that work; they do not need modernisation to continue to do it.
The Scottish Executive's consultation paper "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future" has a section entitled "The Vision", which states:
"The biggest change for the fire service in Scotland in recent years has been devolution. Under The Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence for all fire service matters in which central government has a locus ... the Scottish Executive has identified a number of key issues for the development of a distinctive Scottish Fire Service and these are set out in the sections which follow."
That statement is important given the fact that our discussion has been on the Bain report, which makes a number of recommendations, not least of which is that there should be a UK policy-making body that is led by the Deputy Prime Minister.
I repeat some of the questions that I asked the First Minister today and I would appreciate an answer from the minister who is here tonight.
Does the minister agree that the Scottish Executive will continue to develop a distinctive fire service in Scotland? Will he explain why the Bain report recommends a UK policy-making body led by the Deputy Prime Minister? Does he agree with that recommendation? Will he guarantee to the Parliament that any operational and policy decisions will be made by the Parliament and not by the UK Government?
In response to all those questions, the First Minister said only that the Scottish Executive will introduce legislation to repeal section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Under that provision, a fire authority may not close a fire station or reduce the number of fire appliances or fire-fighting posts without the consent of the secretary of state. That is what the First Minister seeks to change. When will that legislation be proposed, and what other Bain report recommendations will become the policy of the Scottish Executive? Will the Scottish Executive still attempt to develop a distinctive fire service in Scotland?
George Bain should have nothing to do with the settling of the fire services dispute. George Bain is nothing more than an obedient servant of a Government that is determined to introduce cuts across the fire service and is using him as the delivery mechanism.
I have in my hand the Lothian and Borders fire brigade's report of incidents in 2001. It makes interesting reading. It tells me that, in that year, six rescues took place during the day shift in Lothian and the Borders, whereas the number of rescues that took place during the night shift across the area was 62. In other words, 62 lives were saved during the night shift. That is why Mr Bain's report is irrelevant and a danger to the public of Scotland and the UK.
I want the minister to answer my questions about the affordability of the legitimate and justified wage claim of firefighters and their control staff. As Cathy Peattie said, that claim is based on an independent research document; the firefighters did not come up with the figure. The document was drawn up using the same independent research that came up with MPs' 21 per cent pay rise, which MPs did not even bother voting for—they did not have to withdraw their labour, although no one would have bloody noticed if they had.
Can we afford the firefighters' wage claim? Are Scottish ministers prepared to fight the Westminster Government to come up with the readies? That is the question that the minister has to answer. Platitudes do not pay bills. We can congratulate firefighters and pat them on the back until the cows come home, but will we fight for the money to pay them?
We are told that the claim would cost £400 million to £430 million. It appears that we can afford to pay compensation of £450 million to Railtrack's shareholders and it appears that we can afford to give £650 million to British Energy to bail out the privatised nuclear industry. It also appears that we can afford to set aside £1 billion for those who want to start fires in Iraq, yet we cannot afford £430 million for those who want to put out fires in the UK.
The crux of the matter is whether the minister is prepared to argue that Westminster should put an extra 10p on the tax of people who earn between £50,000 and £100,000 a year and an extra 20p on the tax of people who earn more than £100,000 a year. That would not give us £430 million to pay the firefighters; it would give us £8.7 billion more in revenue every year. That is more than enough to pay the firefighters, nurses, ancillary workers and the other low-paid public sector workers. Is the minister prepared to argue with the Westminster Government that, instead of pampering and protecting the rich, it should start to pay public sector workers and firefighters a decent wage?
I call Bill Butler, whom I will allow four minutes because of his motion on the subject, to be followed by Linda Fabiani.
I begin by congratulating Alex Neil on securing this members' business debate on a serious issue. As a Labour member, I had no problem in appending my signature to Mr Neil's motion. In my view, the content of his motion is reasonable and should attract the support not only of MSPs, but of all fair-minded members of the public. The motion rightly shies away from being prescriptive and demanding a particular figure—that is properly the business of the negotiating team. Instead, the motion gives a voice to the FBU's wholly understandable objective of achieving a pay formula and a level of pay that mirror the professional and skilled job that its members carry out on our behalf.
Alex Neil's motion is as reasoned as my motion on the subject, which, for some inexplicable reason, has not yet been selected for debate. My motion S1M-3639 called on
"Her Majesty's Government to … provide the conditions that would enable a settlement to be concluded … one which would recognise the aspirations of firefighters for professional status and pay."
Most, if not all, members wish to do all in their power to aid the parties involved to achieve a positive resolution. That is what my motion is about.
It is my firm conviction that no one wishes to see the dispute continue. I know from visiting firefighters on the picket line at Knightswood fire station in my constituency that the workers involved do not want to be on strike. They want to do what they do best and what they are trained to do—to keep people and property safe and to act in highly dangerous circumstances to preserve the lives of their fellow citizens.
Every firefighter to whom I have spoken is anxious, because they fully recognise the risk that industrial action poses to the health and safety of the general public. Because they realise that, they want a sensible agreement that is acceptable to all sides and they want it to be brokered speedily. Firefighters are decent, committed people. They deserve such a settlement.
As talks continue at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, it is incumbent on us all to proceed sensibly, to talk constructively and to choose carefully the language that we employ. When we have all had our say today, one reality will remain: only those who are party to the talks at ACAS can reach a settlement. We should do whatever we can in what we say or do to make that more rather than less likely.
Unhelpful and untruthful rumours have been propagated by sections of the media. Claims that firefighters' hours are minimal, when in fact each shift totals 48 hours, or that firefighters get overtime and weekend allowances, when in fact no overtime or unsociable hours and weekend allowances are received, are propaganda that must be countered. The Parliament is a good place in which to do that. Like me, most people believe and support not the mischief-making headlines, but the rational case that can be made for a settlement—a settlement with honour and with no unnecessary and unacceptable strings attached.
If, in the new year, the firefighters find themselves on the picket line again, I will support them and visit them at my local fire station, as I have done previously. After all, many if not all of those who work out of Knightswood fire station are my constituents. I know that everyone, including the firefighters and the public, is agreed on one thing: their new year resolution is that negotiations should be successful and that, in 2003, firefighters should do what they do best—saving lives and protecting people's property.
On one hand, I am pleased to speak in the debate, because it was following a meeting with the FBU in Hamilton that Alex Neil and I jointly agreed the motion. On the other hand, I am sad to be speaking, because that meeting seems so long ago and we seem to be no further forward. The Government does not even seem to have recognised that the professionalism of the firefighters should be matched with a professional wage.
I will talk about pension provision for firefighters—an issue that the SNP raised way back in February. Firefighters do not carry a pension fund. Serving firefighters pay 11 per cent of their salary back into brigades' general funds, and pensions for retired firefighters are paid from those funds. In years past, the pension contributions were more than enough to cover pension costs and funds were diverted to prop up front-line services.
This year, that scam hit the buffers. Too many retired firefighters had to be paid from too little money. Brigades face the prospect of closing front-line services. My colleague Fiona Hyslop has pushed that issue for some time and lately succeeded in obtaining some answers in the chamber from the Deputy Minister for Justice. We should not have to push for answers to those questions, as that suggests a lack of respect for public service workers.
The same disrespect and disregard of the potential consequences of their actions allow ministers to suggest that we can cut night-shift cover in the fire service and cut the number of firefighters. We can relate that to the pensions shortfall this year. If the Government plan of retiring 20 per cent of firefighters were applied, we would return to the choice between closing front-line services and refusing to pay retired firefighters' pensions.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
In the meantime, serving firefighters seek a professional wage for a job that, since the 1970s deal, has become a profession. Why is the Government so determined to refuse even to discuss paying the salary for which firefighters ask? I have spoken to workers in the Scottish Ambulance Service who express similar concerns to those of fire brigade workers. Those staff see their jobs changing without proper consultation and without any consideration of the consequences.
The UK Government is failing public service workers. I would like Scotland's Government to accept the responsibility for fighting that failure on behalf of those whom it is elected to serve. Public services should be operated on the basis of putting people before profit. I would like the Government in Scotland to spearhead that approach in the UK.
If Dennis Canavan, Christine Grahame and Margo MacDonald keep their speeches to two minutes, I will just get everybody in.
I, too, congratulate Alex Neil on securing the debate. As Patricia Marwick said, the Scotland Act 1998 gives the Scottish Parliament legislative competence for all fire service matters in which central Government has a locus. It is appropriate that the Parliament should be given the opportunity to debate the issue.
Any young recruit to the fire service can expect an annual salary of £17,727 after his or her initial six months' training. That is an hourly rate of just over £8. More disturbing is the fact that, after 15 years of service, the same firefighter can expect his or her salary to have risen by only £4,764, which is an hourly increase of just £2.18. Firefighters' pay is determined in accordance with a pay link that was established 25 years ago. Although a firefighter's job has since then changed dramatically in respect of the required skill level, training and the incidents that new recruits attend, wages continue to fall in real terms. Firefighters' pay continues to be linked to that of manual workers.
I will make a point that others have made, but I will put it slightly differently. After commissioning two independent research studies into the pay formula for firefighters and fire control operators, the FBU was told that the substantial research that those studies provided as evidence for its pay claim was inadmissible because it was not objective. If the Labour Research Department's findings were deemed to be biased because the FBU commissioned them, surely we should ask whether the findings of the Review Body on Senior Salaries—which recommended MSPs' salary increase last year—are any more objective; they were requested by senior representatives of the Parliament.
It continues to disappoint me that one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government, which our Deputy First Minister described as having an "enviable reputation for delivery", has been forced to take industrial action to secure a valid and long overdue pay adjustment. In the same document, the Deputy First Minister talked about not leaving
"this policy paper … on a shelf".
Will the Deputy Minister for Justice tell members in his summing up what the status of that policy paper is at the moment?
During my recent visit to Coatbridge fire station, I was struck by the anxiety and regret that firefighters and staff clearly felt as a result of having to engage in a second period of industrial action. No firefighter wants to have to strike; other members made that point. We live in a modern society in which we are increasingly reliant on the emergency services' capacity to provide comprehensive and highly effective services. Surely it is crucial that we take the action that is necessary to correct a situation that has seen the fire service and its employees suffer from years of underfunding.
The reality of daily working life for firefighters dictates that they might at any moment be called upon to risk their lives on behalf of others. Surely that exceptional dedication to public service deserves levels of pay that are at least commensurate with that dedication. I fully associate myself with the motion.
Given that I was a young Labour MP at the time of the last firefighters' strike back in the 1970s, I have a sense of déjà vu about this debate.
I was not the only Labour MP to support workers who had to resort to strike action to get a fair deal. I remember John Prescott boasting about the leading part that he played in the seamen's strike of the 1960s, when he worked as a cabin boy or a steward on a luxury liner. Probably the hardest part of his work was to manage to raise a smile as he served gin and tonics to bloated first-class passengers. Today, two Jags and three jowls later, the same Prescott is attacking firefighters for having the audacity to strike, but we are talking about men and women who risk their lives to save others and who are paid a pittance compared with the salary of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The FBU showed remarkable restraint and flexibility by calling off the last phase of the strike and trying to seek a solution through negotiation. I can understand the FBU's dissatisfaction with the Bain report, which has been described as being 11 per cent, but with strings attached. I say that the conditions are not so much strings as chains and padlocks.
New Labour and Sir George Bain keep ranting on about modernisation, but it is a misnomer to use that word if so-called modernisation means fewer firefighters, which means lower safety standards, which in turn means putting more lives at risk. The FBU has rightly pointed out that more fatal fire incidents take place at night than during the day. What is the sense in reducing the number of firefighters on night shift?
I urge the Scottish Executive to indicate to the employers that additional resources will be made available to ensure a fairer deal for the firefighters. That would enable them to continue their valuable work of saving lives and property.
Stuart Graham, Robert Scott, Gordon Matthews, John Gibson, Colin Easton and Jacqui Renton—that is a roll call of the Gala firefighters picket line. Doreen Tait, Dave Hardy, Dick Polson, James Thomson and Roy Barrie—that is a roll call of the Hawick picket line.
As Bill Butler said, those decent and committed people are standing on picket lines on cold December days to campaign for a decent wage for a professional life-saving job; they are not to be demonised, as much of the press has done. Other members have addressed that point.
Firefighters have modernised year on year. A firefighting appliance now carries radiation equipment, modern hydraulic equipment, modern pneumatic lifting equipment, oxy-acetylene cutting equipment, an emergency speedboat and line rescue equipment.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, if time will allow it.
The member can have two minutes and no more.
I am sorry, Helen.
I was present at an incident at Hawick in which a woman had thrown herself from a bridge. Firefighters lifted her from a freezing river using some of the modern equipment to which I referred. Firefighters have modernised. Firefighters also undertake fire prevention work in schools and in nurseries, telling children about the problems and dangers of fire. Talk of modernisation is a red herring.
It is very wrong to treat those valuable men and women as outcasts and it is wrong to demonise them. Their strike has been dignified, although it should never have happened in the first place. As Dennis Canavan rightly said, it has been 30 years since firefighters were driven to take strike action. It would be a disaster to cut night services in rural areas because of the size of the areas that must be covered. If that was to happen, firefighters could not get to the scenes of fires on time.
Of course we should support the firefighters and of course they should have a decent living wage, but that has to be dealt with through negotiating, not by driving them back on to the picket line.
I am glad that Alex Neil introduced the debate by referring to the inadequacies of the Bain report. If anyone doubts those inadequacies, they should think back to the fire in the Cowgate. We have proof in this city. The Bain report lost credibility on that Saturday night. Had the manning levels suggested by Bain been in place, the Cowgate and much beyond would have burned to the ground. Bain's recommendations also rely heavily on the availability of firefighters on their rest days but, in practice, many firefighters would be ruled out on a Saturday evening because they do the sort of things that other folk do on a Saturday night. The basic argument advanced by Bain would not have worked for the Cowgate.
I am not an expert, but I have spoken to those who are—the firefighters—and they tell me that the general point is that the Bain report is London-centric. Not many of them are nationalists; they are just firefighters. They know that nobody is in the City of London at night, so it is true that the night rescues that were referred to do not apply there, but they do apply in Scottish cities. We cannot go down the road of having the manning levels, particularly at night, suggested by Bain.
In the time available, I also want to lay to rest a couple of myths. We hear about four and four—firefighters working four days on and four days off. The four days off are not four days, but three days, because the first is spent sleeping after two long night shifts. Firefighters work a 42-hour week, which is a lot longer than do most public servants. The other myth is that Bain has recommended a generous settlement. He has not. As Alex Neil said, Bain said that there should be an increase in the total wages bill. If retained firefighters are brought up to the same level of payment as the regular firefighters, as they should be, there will not be enough left for firefighters of anything over 10 years' standing.
The Bain report is seriously flawed. With all due respect, minister, we should not give it any credibility.
The debate has stimulated a lot of interest from members. It is unusual to see so many members not just staying behind, but participating. It is clear from the passionate contributions that have been made that people feel strongly about the service provided by firefighters.
I want to echo many of the remarks that have been made during the debate and to put on record the appreciation of both the Scottish Executive and the people of Scotland for the work of the fire service and all emergency service workers. They are rightly held in high regard for their professionalism and dedication in often difficult and hazardous circumstances, which have most recently been demonstrated during the devastating fire in Edinburgh's Cowgate.
In answer to questions a fortnight ago, I put on record my recognition of the valuable work firefighters do as public servants and as trade unionists. That has been generally recognised in tonight's debate. Cathy Peattie asked whether I will meet the FBU. I met FBU representatives in a private meeting last Friday. It was a constructive meeting at which I took the opportunity as a new minister to introduce myself and to hear from the representatives at first hand some of the issues that concern their members. That discussion was on the basis of a shared commitment to promoting a calm and constructive environment in which the national talks and negotiations can move forward. The members of the FBU made it clear to me that they want the settlement to be made at the UK level. We will play our part in helping to reach a settlement, but the negotiations should be between the FBU and the employers. We will look to our responsibility for whatever comes from those negotiations, which I will return to later.
It will be impossible for me to answer all the precise questions that members have asked during the debate, but I will try to touch on some of them.
On 29 April, the Deputy First Minister launched a policy paper entitled "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future", which members have already mentioned. The paper was debated in the chamber on 15 May and was generally welcomed. On Monday, the independent review of the fire service—the Bain report—was published. I know that members have very strong views on the report; however, it has proposed a number of reforms that are in many respects not dissimilar to the recommendations in our policy paper. Like our paper, the report is aimed at producing a modern, efficient, effective fire service.
Our policy paper did not deal with pay, which is handled on a UK basis and is a matter for negotiation between the employers and trade unions in the National Joint Council. The Bain report, however, has a lot to say about pay, much of which has been highlighted tonight. The report concluded that there is no basis for a pay settlement of more than 4 per cent this year and that firefighters' pay compares well with other, similar, jobs in the public and private sectors—indeed that pensions and other aspects such as job security make firefighters even better placed. Bain suggested a further 7 per cent increase in the pay bill from 7 November 2003, subject to agreement on a programme of modernisation.
Margo MacDonald raised a very important point about proposals for the total bill and the impact of bringing retained firefighters' pay up to a level commensurate with that of firefighters. Does the minister share those concerns? Will he ensure that, in representing the Parliament's interests, he raises those concerns with the UK Government?
The FBU is raising those matters directly with the employers. We are not directly involved in those negotiations. I will also talk a little later about any financial consequences of the eventual settlement.
The Bain report estimated that the increases would exceed by a small amount the resources that are available to the fire authorities through the spending settlement and modernisation over the next two years. As I pointed out, many of the report's recommendations closely chime with the issues that we covered in our policy paper. Our paper also extensively covers issues that Sir George Bain's report addresses such as risk-based fire cover, the duties of fire authorities, the importance of collaborative work and the need for a much greater emphasis on prevention. We intend to compare the Bain report with our policy paper in our considerations of how to modernise the fire service in Scotland.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry—I am running out of time.
It is in the context of such changes that we and the UK Government have indicated our willingness to provide transitional funding to support an agreement that leads to changes in return for significant pay increases. Like the UK Government, we have said clearly that we will consider providing any additional funding from our own resources as a result of an agreement that is based on such terms. John Prescott has already indicated that any additional money will be met from his department's budget, not from central contingency funds, and the Scottish Executive will have to meet any contribution to transitional funds from its funding.
I do not have the time to go into the pay formula in any detail and whether any advantages and disadvantages should be considered when determining future pay. I assume that those issues will be reflected in negotiations.
Like all members in the chamber, I recognise that firefighters deserve a pay increase. However, as Tommy Sheridan indicated, they are not the only public sector workers who are looking for such increases through negotiation. Many public sector workers do a fantastic job. I should also put on record my appreciation for the work of the armed forces during the recent strikes.
I do not accept the claim that modernisation is a euphemism for reducing the number of staff and stations. Risk-based fire cover is not about cutting fire stations or firefighters, but about targeting services at identified risks to people as well as to property instead of having rigid targets for a set number of appliances. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, yet again we hear ill-tempered and unmannered contributions from members. I listened with respect to other members and I have taken notes. If you want me to use my time doing this, Presiding Officer—
Order. Everyone should recognise that the minister is under a great time constraint. Exceptionally, I will give him another minute to wind up his remarks and round off the debate.
Tricia Marwick asked about the legislative changes. We will look to do that as quickly as possible—at the first available opportunity, as the First Minister has said. We are considering what options are open to us.
Cathy Peattie and one or two other members mentioned overtime. One of the new factors in the debate is the working time directive introduced by Maastricht. I think that there is no possibility for unrestricted and unacceptable overtime working. We do not propose and have not considered, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton suggested, a ban on strikes.
We share some of the views expressed by Alex Neil, Pauline McNeill and others about the need to avoid demonisation on both sides. We do not want the dispute to continue on the basis of recrimination. We want a settlement based on negotiations and we want some common sense to be brought to the debate.
This has been a useful debate. There are hard decisions to be made. In the circumstances, it is best left to the firefighters and their employers to get round the table to negotiate. We in the Parliament and the Executive will do what we can to make the settlement effective. I hope we can proceed without any further industrial action.
I close this meeting of Parliament. A happy Christmas and a good new year to all of you.
Meeting closed at 18:02.