Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Spokesman on: Fire Dispute.
Fire Dispute
In answer to questions about overnight developments, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that if people thought that the Government and country could be held to ransom through strike action and could be bounced with uncosted, half-baked proposals in the middle of the night with little or no mention of modernisation worth talking about - proposals which, by a cursory Treasury estimate this morning, would cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds - then they were not living in the real world.
The draft agreement, as presented to the Government in the small hours of this morning, had gone backwards considerably on what had been issued yesterday evening. Several elements had been removed. For example, Bain had essentially been discounted and there was a promise of pay to come on stream after the end of negotiations about changes to working practices, rather than at the time of their completion as had been suggested originally. Consequently, there was no guarantee they would happen, and certainly no guarantee around savings which meant that they were totally uncosted.
The draft agreement had also diluted and virtually removed any ingredient of independent audit from yesterday’s proposals. How the employers had thought that they could agree to it was, quite frankly, completely beyond us. They had essentially written a post-dated cheque, which they must have known, would bounce, given everything we had said both to them and publicly. If they would not face up to their responsibilities to the taxpayer, to the wider economy and to other public servants, then the Government most certainly would. We had been absolutely clear from the outset that there could be no extra money without modernisation. Just because the FBU had submitted a pay claim for 40% and had then said they would go on strike if they didn’t get it, did not mean that the Government would roll over and accede to it. Since the issue had not been resolved satisfactorily, the Government had set up an independent review. It was obvious that a pay claim of the sort being demanded by the FBU would mean that the working practices of the fire service would come under scrutiny, as indeed they had by the Audit Commission some years ago. That was precisely what had happened and it was clear that a large number were indefensible. It was therefore not unreasonable to say that, in the context of pay discussions of this nature, there should be a focus on the modernisation of working practices.
For all the nonsense that the FBU had been spouting this morning, it was clear that they had always intended to have a strike because they were not serious about modernisation and never had been. To them, modernisation appeared to mean new fire engines and equipment and it would seem that they had no real intention of changing their working practices. They had refused even to engage with Bain. It was true that they had started spouting on about modernisation over the last couple of days. However it was our view, they had always been intending to have the drama of all-night talks and then come out and conveniently blame the Government in the morning. It was also convenient for the employers to do the same thing as they seemed to want to default to whatever soft option or life raft was going around at the time. Well, frankly, as we had said before, the Government governed for the whole country. It would not put at risk the hard-won economic stability, which we enjoyed. It would certainly not accede to a pay demand, which would add hundreds of millions of pounds to the public purse without reform and change so that the extra money would become self-financing. If we were to do this and if a nurse, a teacher or a soldier asked us why we had given hundreds of millions of pounds to the fire-fighters whose working practices were completely outdated and there was no commitment on their part to change them, and where there were forty applicants for every vacancy, we would not be able to provide them with a logical answer because there wasn’t one. That was why, until such time as there was a proper negotiation about real modernisation, there was not going to be a resolution on the issue.
Put to him that he just presented a very strong case for the Government to get involved in the negotiations, the PMOS said that we were not the negotiators. Put to him that we appeared to be negotiating from a distance, the PMOS said that it was important for people to understand the situation. An eight-day fire strike had started today. As a result, lives were being put at risk. The responsibility for the fact that the strike was going ahead rested with the FBU. It was about time people starting asking the Union what it was about changes to their working practices that they were so against. Why was it that full-time and part-time fire fighters could not work together on the same shift and fire tender? Why was it that their members could not be trained as paramedics? Why couldn’t they use defibrillators? Why was it that, in an industry where there were forty applicants for every vacancy, they were resisting any change to shift patterns where they worked two days on, two nights on and then four days off? It was about time that the spotlight was put on what we meant by modernisation. We were not talking about new fire engines or new uniforms. We were talking about efficiency savings and productivity gains, which could release extra money.
We were not negotiating simply spelling out practical realities. We would not just write blank cheques.
Asked how the Government expected the negotiations between the FBU and employers to begin again when it appeared they had broken down so dramatically, the PMOS said that we would have to wait and see what happened. He was not mapping out a new route at this stage. It was up to the FBU to negotiate with the employers. Until the Union got serious about modernisation, then it would be difficult to see how this situation might be resolved. He repeated in focussing on the issue of modernisation, we were talking about freeing up additional money through changes in the fire service’s working practices which had had been set in formaldehyde for twenty five years and which had been immune to change at a time when virtually every other part of the public sector had undergone or was undergoing radical reform. The FBU wanted to say that Bain was discredited. It might be discredited on their terms because they hadn’t wanted to engage in it since it raised some difficult questions for them. Well, it was now time for the spotlight to be put on them and for them to be asked the question why they were putting lives at risk with a totally unjustified and unnecessary strike which, essentially, was now about defending outdated working practices and not allowing them to come onto the table in a meaningful way as part of the negotiation process.
Asked why the Deputy Prime Minister had not used the same ‘fighting talk’ which he, the PMOS, was using this morning, the PMOS said that Mr Prescott was handling the dispute extremely well. He had been doing all he could to encourage dialogue. In the end, it hadn’t been possible to resolve the situation and we were now in the middle of another strike. It was the easiest thing in the world for people to say that the Government was to blame and to say that it was all the Government’s fault. Indeed, it seemed it was always the Government’s fault. Clearly, for some people the Government should always find more money and the Government should always open the reserve. And of course it was always that the taxpayer who should cough up. Well, life wasn’t so simple. The Government had a duty to exhort and encourage in order to try to get people to come to the negotiating table. It had been carrying out that job with some success. Equally he would argue that the Government had been saying the same thing all week.
Asked whether the Attorney General might invoke his powers to intervene in the dispute by using the 1992 legislation, the PMOS said that this was a judgement, which could only be taken by the Attorney General. He would obviously talk to Ministers. He had to decide whether a strike was in the public interest. His judgement in terms of the previous 48-hour strike was obvious.
Asked for a response to the criticism that the Government had failed in its duty by not staying up all night to deal with the dispute, the PMOS said that the suggestion was completely ludicrous. We had had absolutely no intention of playing along with the charade of all-night talks when it was clear that there had been no real change in the situation and given there had been a complete reversal of some of the proposals which had been on the table earlier. Just because there was an artificial deadline of a strike called by a union did not mean that we would be bounced and roll over. That was simply not in the real world. People only had to look at the ludicrous nature of the FBU’s statement this morning. There was only a deadline because the FBU had called a strike. If there had been an agreement to talk about then of course we would have continued talking.
Questioned repeatedly as to whether any extra money would be provided in return for the modernisation of working practices or as a result of it, the PMOS said that in talking about finding hundreds of millions of pounds in order to fund a pay deal of the type being sought by the FBU was simply not going to happen. Money had to be linked to modernisation as he had said repeatedly.
Asked whether his words today indicated a shift in the Government’s position on the fire dispute, the PMOS pointed out that we had said from the outset that any extra pay had to be linked to modernisation. Put to him that the Government’s tone appeared to have changed today, the PMOS said that our message throughout the course of this week could not have been clearer. We had underlined that the public spending envelope was sealed and that there would be no more money from the Treasury. He drew journalists’ attention to his briefing on Monday in which he had gone through the proposals put forward by Professor Bain. The fact that people wanted to discount them because they were an inconvenience and they didn’t like the spotlight being shone on them would not make the proposals disappear. They had to understand that there had to be change if we were going to get anywhere near some of the figures, which people had been talking about over the last day or so. He repeated that change did not mean new fire engines. It meant new shift patterns, which had not been altered since the Silver Jubilee. It also meant joint control rooms. What exactly was wrong with having ambulance staff and fire fighters working together? Surely it would improve public safety. Did the fire service simply have a problem with demarcation? Maybe these questions should be put to the FBU.
Questioned about the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister and Downing Street in the developments overnight, the PMOS said that the whole processology question was a complete nonsense. Of course we had been kept informed of developments. But it was crystal clear that there was only to be one outcome. If the FBU really thought that their deadline of 8.59am today to accede to any request was an effective way of negotiating and putting a gun to the Government’s head, then that was just not the real world. Until they realised that, then we were obviously not going to make much progress.
Asked if the Government had lost faith in the employers, the PMOS said it was clear that they had some work to do to get the negotiations back into shape. Put to him that it was the Government which had to approve any deal, the PMOS said that it was not so much a question of approving any deal than understanding exactly how it would be funded. If the employers said that there was a draft agreement but that the only way it could be approved was if the Government agreed to provide hundreds of millions of extra pounds over three years, then of course we have a role to play in the light of our role as custodians of the public purse. We had a duty to taxpayers. We governed for the country as a whole, not just the fire fighters. We governed for soldiers, nurses, doctors, businessmen and hard working families - and would continue to do so. We would not put at risk our hard-won economic stability, low inflation; low interest rates and low employment which people were currently enjoying.
Asked to explain what the Government was doing differently to handle today’s industrial action by the fire-fighters given we had said during last week’s 48-hour strike that an eight-day strike would be a whole new ballgame, the PMOS pointed out that during the last two-day strike, there had only been 2,000 callouts compared with a norm of 5,500 calls. The military had said that they had coped well within their planned capabilities and it was clear that their contingency planning had worked extremely well. Their operations had now been augmented at the margins by some red fire engines, which we acknowledged did not have the full equipment on board. As we had underlined throughout, the Government would do whatever was necessary to protect public safety. We now appeared to have an agreement with the FBU on safety, which we acknowledged was a step forward. They would assist in the event of a gold-standard incident which, as the Prime Minister had told the House on Wednesday, the Government would act as arbiter. We would continue to keep everything under review. In the meantime, it was important for people to recognise that the blockage in this dispute was the FBU’s inability to come to terms with any change. Until it was able to do so, we were not going to see much progress being made. Asked why the Government hadn’t done anything more in planning for this eight-day strike, the PMOS said he would reject the premise of the question absolutely. He pointed out that we had reviewed the operational effectiveness of the contingency planning we had put in place and had found that it had worked extremely well. The military had said that they had coped well within their capabilities. We were augmenting the Green Goddesses with some additional red engines. The Government would do whatever was necessary should public safety demand it. However, it was clear that the service we had been providing, and would continue to provide, was working well. He added that he had no intention of answering ‘what if…’ questions. He thought that journalists had a big enough bone to chew on today.
Put to him that an eight-day strike was different to a two-day strike and that the Government should have drawn up new plans to deal with it in terms of training up troops to use red fire engines, the PMOS said that we had addressed questions about training up the military on red tenders during the course of many briefings in recent weeks. As we had explained countless time, it was not possible to train them on the red engines because there was no shadow fleet to train them on. To have done so would have meant taking existing tenders out of service. Put to him that we had been able to find some to support the Green Goddesses, the PMOS pointed out that they were not the full red fire tenders and that there were not hundreds of them, contrary to reports. According to the military’s operational advice, they were best off staying with the Green Goddesses upon which they had been trained, as the Chief of Defence Staff had made clear earlier this week. That remained the position. Challenged that we had had plenty of time to train the military on the red engines and yet there were only a small number who were able to use them, the PMOS pointed out that there were 19,000 troops who had been trained to provide an emergency service with the Green Goddesses. He repeated that there was no shadow fleet of red engines to train soldiers on. Put to him that ‘there was a whole bunch’ of red fire engines now available in fire stations the PMOS said that if the Government had to take a particular course of action because circumstances dictated it, then it would. The issue of training was not a simple one. If we had trained the military on the red tenders when there hadn’t been a strike, we would have had to take the vehicles out of service, which would have meant having a sub-standard fire service on days when there was no industrial action. Asked how many red engines were being used during the strike, the PMOS said that 27 were currently augmenting the Green Goddesses and we were looking at bringing in some in from the reserve.
Questioned about the crossing of picket lines, the PMOS said that we would take any action that was thought necessary to protect public safety. Asked how he would reconcile his statement yesterday - that people ‘out with the police’ would cross the picket lines - with the Deputy Prime Minister’s assertion in the House yesterday that there was no need to cross picket lines because the military were happy to use the Green Goddesses, the PMOS said that this was precisely the point he had been making from the outset about the effectiveness of the military operation. If, in extremis, the Government had to take a particular course of action, it would do so. There was no political or ideological bar to taking whatever action was necessary to protect public safety. That said, it was important to understand that the core service being provided would continue to be provided by the military through the Green Goddesses for reasons he had set out many times previously.
Asked if there was any ‘conceivable area of compromise’ that the Government might look at in the next few days, the PMOS said that until the FBU took a proper step forward on modernisation, then we would remain in the situation we were currently in. Asked how long that might be, the PMOS said that he was not a spokesman for the FBU. Journalists themselves should ask the union to explain what it was about their working practices that they were so wedded to that they would not countenance any change. No doubt the public would be very interested to know. We had made it clear from the outset that any additional money had to be tied to modernisation. We had said that money could be found, but only as a result of savings. The FBU couldn’t have it both ways.
Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister would involve himself personally in the dispute, the PMOS pointed out that he had already spoken to the Deputy Prime Minister this morning. No doubt he would have further conversations with a variety of people on his return from the NATO Summit in Prague this afternoon.
Asked whether we were looking to review possible military operations, such as action in Iraq, given the FBU appeared to be ‘digging in’ for a long battle, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to his briefing on Wednesday afternoon when he had supplied figures relating to current troop deployments. The British armed forces numbered 190,000 in total. At the moment, 3.3% (just over 6,000) were on overseas deployments (including Afghanistan, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and the no-fly zones in Iraq). 10.2% were committed to Operation Fresco, on standby to take over the job of the fire-fighters in the event of industrial action, as had already happened. The remainder were either in the UK or stationed at permanent base areas overseas - for example, 13,500 were in Northern Ireland, 25,000 were in Germany, 3,190 in Cyprus, 1,257 in the Falklands and 774 in Gibraltar. As the CDS had underlined on Wednesday, there was clearly still capacity should it be required.
Asked if the Government would be happy to endorse a 16% pay rise for the fire-fighters if they agreed to accept Professor Bain’s modernisation recommendations, the PMOS said that until the FBU decided to operate in the real world, then we did not consider these matters to be on the radar.
delicious
digg
facebook
