Clause 31 - Negotiating bodies
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
3:15 pm
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
The hon. Member for Teignbridge will not be surprised when I tell him that I believe that amendment No. 182 is unnecessary. However, it has been helpful to have this short debate. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge anticipated, it is helpful to have an opportunity to spell out the Government's intentions in this respect.
Subsection (2)(b) will ensure that employee representatives will be included on the negotiating body. Following consultation, regulations will be drawn up setting out how places on the negotiating body will be allocated. Although the general principle of proportionality is reasonable, there may well be exceptions. In the first place, a strict adoption of the principle of proportionality might result in pressure for a very large negotiating body. Alternatively, if it were kept to a more manageable size, which was one of the strong recommendations of the Bain review, with which we concur, that might mean excluding some of
the minority interests. Neither outcome, in our view, would be desirable.
I will quote from the Bain review and the White Paper to make our objectives absolutely clear. Paragraph 10.26 of the Bain review talks about the new NJC, which is envisaged as replacing current arrangements, and states that on the union side it should represent
''the Fire Brigades' Union, the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Officers Association, the Association of Principal Fire Officers and Unison.''
In our White Paper, which responded to that, we said:
''We also agree with the Independent Review that a new negotiating body should involve representatives of the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Officers Association, and the Association of Principal Fire Officers.''
That is why we intend to specify who should be involved. We envisage three separate negotiating bodies, covering different groups within the present grading structures: first, chief fire officers and assistant chief fire officers; secondly, middle management; and thirdly, firefighters and control room staff. The composition and chair of each body would be determined by the Deputy Prime Minister. The arrangements for non-uniformed staff, who are predominantly represented by Unison, would continue as at present: matters would continue to be handled predominantly through the local government negotiating arrangements.
I hope that that clarifies our intentions and how they fit in with our overall objective. It is compatible with the purpose of the amendment, it but might not be feasible if the amendment were accepted and we were strictly bound to follow its terms.
I fully understand the thinking behind amendment No. 183, but, again, it is unnecessary. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 requires that employers permit officials of recognised trade unions time off during working hours to carry out union activities, including collective bargaining. The purpose of the amendment is already covered in statute and it is unnecessary to duplicate that.
With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will feel able to withdraw his amendment.