Clause 31 - Negotiating bodies
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
2:45 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
This is an important clause. The Committee may be relieved to hear that it is the last clause about which there is likely to be controversy. I will not say the last clause about which there will be lots to say, because I am sure that the Committee will
want to investigate the pensions area thoroughly, but I do not think that that is controversial.
There are a number of issues arising from the clause. In speaking to these amendments, and later to the other groups, I shall try to be narrow because I am particularly anxious that we get the opportunity for a stand part debate on the clause. As you will know, Mr. O'Hara, some amendments which were tabled have not been selected, so it will not be possible to consider in debates on amendments some of the issues that members of the Committee wished to investigate. I therefore hope that we will be able to have a stand part debate as well.
The clause provides for the Secretary of State to be able to establish a negotiating body, and effectively then to give that body exclusive rights and instructions as to how it is to go about its business. Although the Minister of State may be a little coy about this, the provision is a linchpin of the Government's strategy to reduce the Fire Brigades Union's influence over the fire services, increasing the influence of other representative bodies and ensuring what we might regard as a more balanced situation. The term ''negotiating body'' looks like a slight misnomer when the body will be susceptible to direction from the Secretary of State in how it conducts its deliberations. We will explore some of those areas a little later, in succeeding debates.
The amendments address a particular concern arising from the splitting of responsibilities for England, Wales and Scotland. Amendment No. 149 is a paving amendment for No. 150, the substantive amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to establish a negotiating body only where he has reached agreement with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to the effect that the negotiating body could negotiate pay and conditions for fire and rescue or Scottish fire service employees throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
I am a long-term believer in local pay flexibility and negotiation. I remember during the strike last year talking to firefighters from my constituency who, with some cause, were complaining about the difficulty of living in Surrey, with housing costs the way they are, on £21,000 plus £256 weighting allowance. Equally, I remember having a discussion with somebody from the north-east, who honestly, if privately, admitted that £21,000 was not a bad salary considering his local economy. He was faintly embarrassed at striking for £30,000 when most of his friends and neighbours were certainly not earning significantly more than firefighters were before the dispute.
My purpose in tabling the amendment is to voice a concern felt by fire and rescue authority employers. Hitherto, there has been a UK-wide approach to the matter, which includes Scotland. Under the current negotiating arrangements, the Scottish fire authority employers are represented alongside their English and Welsh counterparts.
We need to understand how the Secretary of State would use his powers to impose a negotiating machinery if the current negotiations with the national joint council were to fail to agree a new
structure. I understand that his powers would extend only to England. Unless he were to meet the arrangements in the amendment, the negotiating machinery would relate only to England, and Scotland and Wales would have separate machinery.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—