Documents of the Fire-fighters’ Dispute

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Documents of the Fire-fighters’ Dispute

Andy Gilchrist’s Letter to all FBU Members on the FBU Talks with Employers

Fire Service Pay and Modernisation Draft Agreement

Modernisation Means Putting Public Safety First

The Fire Brigades Union Position Statement on the True Modernisation of the UK Fire Service

Scottish Employers Say Eight Day Strike an Absolute Tragedy

Fire agreement – "Don’t rubbish it. Use it."

DPM Statement to MPs on Firefighters’ Dispute

In this issue we are reproducing documents of the FBU, the Employers, the TUC and the Government relating to the fire-fighters’ dispute.

Members should be aware that members of the Executive Council yesterday commenced talks at approximately 11:00 hrs with our Fire Service Employers. The meeting was simply to try and resolve or to find a way forward without strike action on our Pay Dispute.

After many hours of difficult negotiation and discussion a form of words was accepted by the Executive Council as a way forward to suspending strike action and having further talks next week. The essential element of this form of words was that in 12 months a rise of 16% would be delivered. We had indicated that we were prepared to get involved in meaningful negotiations on modernisation of the Fire Service. The Employers in their discussions to agree this form of words indicated that although extremely delicate they felt they would eventually be able to sign up.

Astonishingly during the hours of dawn intervention by the Government in the form of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister effectively blocked this opportunity to make progress. This is the third and easily the most reckless intervention Government has made in these negotiations.

Having demanded to see the offer the Employers were considering the Government expressed the view "that it is unreasonable to expect the Government to look at this paper before 09:00 hrs". This is incredulous and shocking irresponsibility and clearly now all can see this strike as being provoked by the Government.

As a result members of this Union will be taking strike action eight days. That is regrettable in the extreme but it is unacceptable for Government to continually block any meaningful way forward to resolving this dispute and it is unfortunate in the extreme our Employers cannot find the political will or courage to reach the agreement discussed with us in any case.

This is the text of the draft agreement between the local authority employers and the FBU, November 22, 2002.

1. This is a package agreement, linking pay rises to a real commitment to modernise and improve the fire service. The two sides of the NJC will work together under this agreement to modernise the service and professionalise firefighters and emergency fire control staff so that they are properly rewarded for the skills they acquire and the responsibilities they carry out.

2. MODERNISATION OF THE FIRE SERVICE
2.1 The NJC will immediately start negotiations on Stage 1 of the Agenda for Change with a view to reaching agreement by 28th February 2003.
2.2 The NJC will negotiate with a view to reaching agreement on Stage 2 of the Agenda for Change between April and September 2003.
2.3 The Agenda for Change will include all modernisation items either side wish to raise. Over the next week the NJC will agree on which items belong in Stage 1 and which in Stage 2.
2.4 Both sides are irrevocably committed to these negotiations determining in a full and final way all the modernisation issues tabled by either Side. In the event that finality is not achieved by negotiation and agreement within the timescales above reference can be made by either party to an Independent Panel which will adjudicate on the contested issues. The adjudication will be binding and both parties guarantee to accept the outcome. The Panel will consist of three members, one each from the Audit Commission and the TUC and an appropriate independent eminent person to act as Chair to be agreed between the parties as soon as possible.

3. PAY
3.1 4 % on all pay rates and fees from 7th November 2002.
3.2 Following completion of negotiations and any adjudication under Stage 1, 3.5% more on paybill from 1st April 2003; distribution to be agreed by 28th February 2003.
3.3 Following completion of negotiations and any adjudication under Stage 2, 3.5% more on paybill from 7th November 2003, distribution to be agreed by 30th September 2003; application of new pay formula to all pay rates from 7th November 2003, subject to guaranteed minimum of 3.5%; and qualified firefighters to have basic pay of £25,000 by 7th November 2003.
3.4 [New pay structure for retained personnel to be implemented on 1st April 2003.]
3.5 The total paybill increase under paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 is 16%.
3.6 [Joint evaluation of emergency fire control operators' and firefighters' jobs to be completed by 31st March 2003. Results to be considered in the NJC. Any agreed improvement to the existing 92% relationship to be backdated to 7th November 2002 and would not be funded from the total paybill increase at paragraph 3.5 above.]

4. Any failure to abide by any part of this agreement by either side constitutes a breach of the whole agreement and invalidates it in its entirety.

5. The NJC notes that while the negotiations under paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 above are taking place there will be parallel discussions among fire service stakeholders including the Government on other issues such as fire cover, collaborative arrangements and central institutional reform, the Discipline Regulations and the Appointments and Promotions Regulations. It is proposed that a special temporary forum is established to ensure that these wider policy issues are dealt with in a way that is co-ordinated with the negotiations under section 2 above. This would include key fire service stakeholders including the Government.

6. The NJC recognises that the above package will impose significant additional costs on local fire authorities paybills over and above any efficiency savings that might be generated by modernisation, and existing budget allocations. We will explore with Government how this situation can be resolved. We urge Government to respond to this as a matter of urgency.

Signed and dated on behalf Signed and dated on behalf of the Employers of the Fire Brigades Union

Note: There will be appendices setting out the new pay formula as previously agreed and the new retained structure once agreed.

FBU, November 22, 2002

The government scuppered the suspension of the strike – the FBU and our employers had found a way forward.

This is treating firefighters and emergency fire control operators with contempt.

We had a draft agreement drawn up. We were on the point of suspending action. The government torpedoed this. It is their responsibility that the strike has gone ahead.

The government's "modernisation" means cuts – fewer people on duty at night when casualties from fire increase – see Fire Statistics, United Kingdom 2000 on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (www.opdm.gov.uk) at www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/fire/rds/stats2000/pdf/ukstats.pdf - page 37.

"There were more casualties per dwelling fire in the early hours of the morning. The highest casualty rate was between 2am and 3am."

The FBU's modernisation means putting public safety first – we drafted a fire safety Bill two years ago for this government who has failed to put it on the statute book.

Our modernisation also means providing fire kit which fits women firefighters so that they are properly protected as all firefighters should be in the dangerous situations in which they work.

Our modernisation means getting to victims speedily and assisting them speedily. FBU members already administer first aid at incidents – what we should not do is substitute for trained professional medical staff. This position is supported by the British Paramedics Association and ambulance workers through their trade union, Unison. Both of these organisations have written to Sir George Bain on this matter.

Our modernisation of the service means that £1bn invested in the service saves £1bn in property, lost days at work and NHS care and 68 lives! (Source – Fire Cover Review – Task Group of the CFBAC)

Andy Gilchrist, General Secretary of the FBU, sent the following position statement to John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, on November 19, 2002. It sets out what the FBU believes to be the true modernisation of the Fire Service and a modernisation agenda that would take the Service forward.

In his accompanying letter, Andy Gilchrist wrote that, as he has stated many times, the FBU would have no difficulty discussing a significant increase in pay in conjunction with an open and progressive discussion on modernisation, the framework of which it believes is contained in the attached document. It is our sincere wish, Andy Gilchrist said, to avoid future strike action, and the FBU believes that a genuine commitment to a deal with pay linked to modernisation as set out in the attached document could be the basis for achieving this.

Introduction

"The Fire Service is one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government.

This ‘succeeding’ service is highly effective in its work of responding to fire and other emergencies and widely admired by the public. Certainly the Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 1999-2000 published in January 2001 fully bear it out. At the same time, the role of the fire service has begun to change, essentially from a reactive to a proactive one; and the next few years will see a major transformation in the way fire brigades deliver services to the public."

This is not a statement by the Fire Brigades Union but in fact the introductory paragraph of a draft ‘White Paper’ produced by the Labour Government prior to the General Election of June 2001. The draft ‘White Paper’ was produced following full consultation with Fire Service stakeholders including the Employer Organisations, Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the Union.

The draft paper then went on to detail the framework of the modernising government programme and stated that the Government believed the time had come to propose a clear statement of the purpose of the fire service for the next decade. The draft ‘White Paper’ remains unpublished nearly two years later and the vision has still not been endorsed and published by Government.

"The fire service has already made considerable progress towards modernisation", again not a statement from the Union but from the Governments own draft ‘White Paper’.

Purpose and Vision

In the draft ‘White Paper’ the Government proposes that the fire services purpose should be as follows:

"The purpose of the fire service is helping to build a safer society by working with others to reduce death and injury, damage to property and the environment from fire and other emergencies."

The draft ‘White Paper’ also proposed the Governments modern vision statement for the fire service as follows:

"Our vision of a modern fire service is of a service which:

• Works with local communities to reduce risks to life, property and the environment from fire and other emergencies.
• Assists promptly and effectively when fire and other emergencies occur.
• Has a well-equipped, skilful and highly motivated workforce, able to work safely and whose composition reflects the diverse communities it services.
• Continuously improves its purpose in order to deliver Best Value."

The Government also proposed that the Fire Brigades should remain locally organised, democratically accountable bodies, delivering their services to local people.

"The Fire Service should be seeking to achieve measurable reductions in:

• The number of fires.
• Fire related deaths and injuries, and deaths and injuries arising from other emergencies which it attends.
• The economic and social costs of fire."

The purpose and vision set out in the draft ‘White Paper’ was fully supported by the Fire Brigades Union and the Union remains committed to those principles. The blame for the lack of direction and leadership on the definition of modernisation for the fire service lies with Government not with the Union and its members.

The true test for modernisation proposals is as to whether they facilitate the purpose and vision set out above, or as to whether they represent an old fashioned ‘wish list’ of attacks on the conditions of service of those who provide the service and the trade union which represents them. The Union remains committed to the true modernisation of the service and sets out in this position statement its firm proposals.

Employers Proposals on ‘Modernisation’

Fire Service Local Authority Employers do not appear to have any clear understanding of what they refer to as their modernisation agenda. They have made proposals to radically change the conditions of service of members of the service but have failed to articulate as to how their proposals would achieve the vision and purpose set out in the draft ‘White Paper’. The Union believes that they have also been unable to articulate to Government the ‘savings’ that they say their modernisation agenda would achieve.

The Fire Service Employers, unable to accept their own responsibilities effectively, sub-contracted those responsibilities to the Bain Review which by it’s own position paper published on 11 November 2002 demonstrated it’s inability in the short time it had been working to accurately grasp the concept of a truly modern fire service. A return to ways of working and delivery of service of more than 20 years ago cannot be described as either modern or progressive.

The Union remains fundamentally opposed to the old fashioned agenda of the National Employers and the even more regressive approach of the Bain Review.

True ‘Modernisation’

As stated in the draft Government ‘White Paper’ the fire service is one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government. It is a succeeding service but yes there is still much to do. The success of the service is in no small part down to the men and women who provide that service, who have continuously ‘modernised’ despite under-funding and a chronic lack of leadership by Principal Officers and local authority associations. There is much to do and we can further improve the service to our communities, we need:

• A proper and modern legislative framework for the fire service.
• An adequate and modern funding arrangement.
• Professional Pay and professional conditions of service for professional workers in a modern service.
• A safer and healthier workforce within a modern working environment.
• A modern risk based approach to deliver safer communities where the priority is prevention rather than intervention.
• A modern culture for the service which will allow its composition reflect the diverse communities it serves.

The achievement of the above agenda requires a change of approach where government and employers value public service rather than denigrate it and are prepared to invest in both the service and those who provide it so that true savings can be achieved for our communities and the UK economy.

The Union, as it has throughout its history, is prepared to propose the agenda required and to fully commit itself to its deliverance but it will and can only do so when a similar commitment is received from the government and employers. That commitment needs to include proposals to resolve the immediate and long term issue of professional pay for members of the service.

Legislative Framework

The legislative framework for the provision of the fire service in the UK and the deliverance of fire safety (prevention) within the community is out of date and wholly inadequate. The fire service has not been high enough on the political agenda to warrant legislative time despite commitments by successive governments.

The Union would support a fundamental review of the 1947/59 Fire Services Act for England and Wales (a review has already been undertaken in Scotland). This review would have as its aim the achievement of legislation to deliver a fire service which meets the purpose and vision set out in the governments draft ‘White Paper’.

The Union proposed a ‘Fire Safety Bill’ which modernised and consolidated many existing pieces of fire safety legislation which despite the promises of the then Labour opposition to introduce it in parliament when elected has still not been delivered in statute. The Union has though supported the Governments proposal to introduce a Fire Safety Order under regulatory reform and has been and remains fully committed to the principles within that order.

The Union supports a legislative framework which puts at its core the prevention of fire and fire education within the community. This framework will require funding and will provide long term savings in death and injury and for the economy as a whole.

The Union continues to support the need for regulations on employment issues such as appointments, promotions and discipline but accepts there will need to be changes to reflect the modern service, including training and development issues and equality matters. Regulation is still required on these matters to ensure that a service that is delivered at a local level meets national standards and to provide uniformity of those standards and procedures to ensure a safe and effective workforce. An example of this being where the Fire Service Equal Opportunities plan (endorsed by Government and all fire service stakeholders) proposed a statutory national standardised fair recruitment and selection process.

Funding Arrangements

There seems to be no disagreement on the fact that the fire service has over many years been under-funded, as have many other public services, and recent settlements by the present Government have allowed some ‘investment’. The principle of investing to save is easily applied to the fire service. Despite this still much needs to be done, continuing modernisation initiatives like community fire safety, integrated personal development systems, health and safety, equality issues, risk based emergency cover can only be achieved through investment. The necessary funding for New Dimension Work, post September 11, has still not been provided to the level we would want and the expected role of the fire service in search and rescue cannot be delivered. Although of course the fire service will still respond as the public expects. The Union gives support for the need for a fair and adequate funding mechanism for the fire service which allows it to remain locally organised, democratically accountable bodies delivering effective and efficient services to local people.

The Union gives support to ending perverse incentives which hinder the introduction of a risk based approach to providing emergency cover.

The Union agrees that the funding of the Firefighters Pension Scheme should be such that service provision does not suffer as a result of the need to meet the commitments of the Employer which has not been efficiently planned for over many years. It is a source funding problem not a scheme design problem.

The Union continues to oppose the use of Private Finance Initiatives within the Fire Service and the public sector in general and amongst many other issues we believe they will in time prevent the continuing modernisation of the service due to the long term financial implications of such schemes which cannot be seen as achieving Best Value.

Conditions of Employment

A modern fire service, delivering a highly efficient and effective service to its communities, requires a well equipped, skilful and highly motivated workforce. The conditions of employment are fundamental in achieving this along with ensuring the workforce also reflects the diverse communities it services.

The Union supports changes to the existing conditions of service but in each and every case the change has to be progressive and designed to achieve a modern service meeting the above principles.

The Unions agenda for change is based on the following principles:

• Professional Pay for a Professional Service.
• Parity between Emergency Fire Control Staff and ‘Firefighters’.
• Parity between ‘Firefighters’ working the retained duty system and those working the shift duty system.
• Pay Formula to reflect the role of fire service workers in a modern fire service.

Considerable progress was made and continued to be made on these principles right up until the publication of the Bain Review. The Union remains committed to the provisional agreements and understandings reached with the National Employers at the National Joint Council but remains fundamentally opposed to the ‘offer’ made by the employers on pay arising from the position paper of the Bain Review.

The Union would welcome meaningful negotiation with the national employers on specific proposals to truly modernise conditions of employment and these include:

• Provisions to enable staff to work in a way which allows them to balance family commitments with their commitment to the fire service. This should extend provisions for those members who do not wish to work 42 hours per week or a shift system.
• The ending of the extended availability culture implicit within the present day crewing and flexible duty systems which have a detrimental effect on the health of those working such systems.
• A commitment to the health, safety and welfare of staff in whatever work patterns are developed.
• The creation of conditions of employment, including pensions, that provide equality and parity between all members of the service thus ensuring the end of false demarcations between existing wholetime, retained and control staff.
• Pay structures which will provide for the implementation of the Integrated Personal Development System (IPDS).
• Concluding negotiations on the already agreed position to replace the existing rank structure with a role based structure.
• Establishing policies on maternity leave, paternity leave and other family issues which will assist the service to meet the Governments target for the service to better reflect the community it services.
• Industrial relations to be core within the training and development systems to ensure senior managers are in future competent to deal with such issues and end the current hierarchical approach to the subject.
• Creating a culture within the fire service that enables its workforce to work safely and whose composition reflects the diverse communities it serves. The ending of harassment and bullying and fundamental changes in management are required to achieve this.

Safe and Healthy Workforce

Chief Fire Officers and fire authorities have failed to meet their responsibilities for the health, safety and welfare of their employees. They have failed to grasp the concept of managing risk in an operational service like the fire service and instead have replaced it with a strategy of a ‘blame culture’ using conditions of employment that they portray as ‘restrictive’. The Bain concept of working longer hours as the only route to increased earnings is symptomatic of this approach to the issue as is the attacks on pension arrangements.

The Union will work with National Employers to ensure the Health and Safety Commission’s Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement and Securing Health Together is fully implemented in the Fire Service.

The Union will support and has proposed earlier in this position statement changes to employment conditions which will ensure a safer and healthier workforce. Such changes, as well as improving the wellbeing of staff, will ensure long term and real savings for the public purse. Long hours, poor management and lack of resources produce a stressful environment which can and should be avoided.

A Risk Based Approach

A modern fire service will deliver the protection to the communities it serves through the adoption of a risk based approach which includes at its core the prevention of fire and other emergencies, a highly trained and skilled workforce and an intervention strategy for fires and other emergencies that has the principle of reducing the risk to life as its priority. This integrated approach does not appear to have been understood by the National Employers or the Bain Review to date.

Proposals that have so far been put to the Union are nothing other than the out of date, old fashioned approach of putting together a ‘wish list’ of change for changes sake that is still based upon an agenda from the 60’s and 70’s.

The Union is committed to the integrated risk based approach to safety from fire and other emergencies but will rightly continue to challenge proposed change to ensure it is designed to improve the service to our communities and does not put our members at additional risk.

The Union accepts that some changes to conditions of employment and methods of working are inevitable with the introduction of a risk based approach. Many of these have already been discussed earlier in this position statement on items such as IPDS and fire safety. Change though has to be justified and this is not the case with the employer’s current proposals for what they call a modernisation agenda.

The Union’s Annual Conference in May 2002 fully endorsed a risk based approach to providing emergency cover. This followed a Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council (CFBAC) Review of Fire Cover in which the Union participated along with representatives from Government, National Employer Associations (LGA and COSLA) and the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association (CACFOA). The final ‘draft’ report of the Review in considering issues for implementation makes the following statement:

"It was not envisaged that any major changes to the conditions of service would be required if it was decided to implement the methodology."

This statement was in fact the conclusion of the 11 pathfinder brigades which was a representative sample of UK brigades including London. Further the Home Office’s submission to the CFBAC Fire Service Implementation Group, on which LGA, COSLA and CACFOA are represented, stated that the proposed new fire service emergency cover planning process can be implemented under the existing conditions of service.

A risk based approach to providing emergency cover does require flexibility but this is not met by the current employer proposals. The failure of their proposals may well be because of the lack of understanding on the employers’ part of the methodology and because many of the issues, according to the ‘draft’ report, are complex and difficult. Only when there is this better understanding will it be possible to give proper consideration to any changes that may be required. The report has not yet even been before the CFBAC and yet the Employers are proposing changes to working conditions to facilitate its implementation. Significant further research and development is required of the proposed model including the weight and phasing of the response. Until this is done seeking the sort of change proposed by the employers is dangerous and futile.

Cultural Change and Equality

Significant change is required in the culture of the fire service, a culture which along with leadership style was severely criticised in the report Equality and Fairness in the Fire Service Founding a Cultural Equality, published in September 1999 following a thematic inspection carried out by HM Inspectorate of Fire Services.

The Union has led the campaign for such a change and is proud to have brought about major changes in our own structure to address issues. This was reflected in the thematic review when it said:

"It was found that the most significant involvement by far was on the part of the FBU. A clear leadership role has emerged for this Union."

In respect of Government, Employers and senior managers it reached a different conclusion:

"We found that in a number of respects, the bodies responsible for giving leadership to the fire service had so far failed to date to provide sufficient direction in respect of equality and fairness."

The Union will support any changes to the fire service which are designed to genuinely improve the current culture of the service and bring about equality but will not accept attempts by employers to hijack the equality agenda and use it to achieve other aims. Through the CFBAC Advisory Board a common agenda is being pursued on equality and cultural change and the Union remains fully committed to this agenda. This includes matters such as the Review of Discipline Regulations and Appointments and Promotions Regulations and if change is identified as being required then the Union will not only give its full support it will actively pursue such change itself.

Conclusions and Summary

The Union has set out in this Position Statement an opportunity for the true modernisation of the UK Fire Service. An opportunity that can only be taken once the issue of pay in the fire service is resolved and agreed by the National Joint Council. Such an agreement needs to be in the context of the Unions pay claim of 28 May 2002 and for its part the Union remains committed to the draft agreement on the pay formula and the understanding reached with the national employers on retained and emergency fire control staff parity.

Modernisation proposals need to be taken out of the old fashioned framework which has hindered previous discussions and negotiations and they need to be justified on a criteria of improving the service to the communities whilst at the same time ensuring a well equipped, skilful and highly motivated workforce who are also able to work safely and whose composition reflects the diverse communities it serves. Modernisation will not succeed if it is nothing other than an excuse to attack the pay and conditions of the workforce.

The Union proposes a true modernisation programme as outlined in the Governments draft ‘White Paper’ of 2001 and is prepared to negotiate a timetable for determining and agreeing any changes to conditions of employment that are required to implement the programme proposed.

This approach to modernisation, as opposed to that proposed by the National Employers and the Bain Review has the potential to achieve considerable savings to the UK economy and we repeat out statement of September 2002.

"The true challenge to our employers and Government is to invest in the pay of our members, provide safer communities and effect savings to the UK economy of up to £3.031 billion".

That challenge remains, the opportunity is still there, and this Position Statement provides the framework for its achievement.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FIRE BRIGADES UNION

An absolute tragedy is how COSLA, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, described on the morning of November 22 the last minute breakdown of talks with the FBU.

COSLA also stressed the part that being reliant on central government funding had to play in the collapse of the deal, with president Pat Watters saying: "There is no doubt that lack of adequate funds within local government had a part to play in the collapse of this deal because it meant that we were reliant on central government funding which was not forthcoming."

Responding to the FBU's decision to press ahead with strike action Mr Watters said: "Obviously after coming so far I am extremely disappointed and more than a little annoyed that talks ended this way after having been so close to a settlement.

"The situation we now find ourselves in is an absolute tragedy that puts the public and property at risk for a further eight days.

"Throughout this whole dispute we, the employers have always had the safety of the public as our primary concern and now unfortunately it appears that they again are to be the ones that will suffer.

"The only way to solve this dispute is by keeping all the channels of communication open."

Speaking at the TUC’s Organise 2002 conference, TUC General Secretary John Monks said on Saturday, November 23, 2002:

"No one in this hall will be unaware of the circumstances of the firefighters’ strike, the second one of which started yesterday. We all know how dangerous the situation is and I am therefore astonished and hurt that the Government did what it did early yesterday morning. Let me explain.

"Brendan Barber and I helped the FBU and the employers construct a draft pay and modernisation agreement. The pay levels were almost precisely those set out by the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement to the House of Commons on Thursday.

"And the modernisation proposals were based around a commitment to reach agreement by the FBU with a right of each party to submit outstanding modernisation issues to independent, binding adjudication.

"There was also a fall back position whereby if either party thought the other was not observing the agreement, it could cancel it.

"In my view, this was a robust and practical approach. The employers liked it and we assumed that the Government did too. There was undoubtedly regular contact between the Government and the employers through the talks. The FBU decided to call off this strike on this basis.

"This was then shattered by the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision that he could not sanction the deal without knowing the savings to be made from modernisation. The employers did not therefore make the offer and the strike started.

"The fact is that he did not have figures for savings when he commended the offer of 16% to the Commons on Thursday.

"The need now is to get the talks back on track before the strike slides into a morass of bitterness, which will be very costly to the community and the labour Movement. The Government’s clumsy shoot from the hip approach needs urgent revision. Their aim, like ours, should be fair pay, decent opportunities, and an effective and modern fire service.

"We all know about family rows. They are the worse kind if they are allowed to fester. They need urgent resolution. This dispute feels like a family row to me. So, my message to Nick and our many very good friends in the Government is take another look at this draft agreement. Don’t rubbish it. Use it.

"In the meantime, the TUC will be doing all it can to help the FBU secure a fair and decent settlement in this dispute."

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott made the following statement to MPs on November 21, 2002.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make another statement on the Fire Service pay dispute.

I apologise to the House for making this Statement when matters are still unresolved, but the House does not sit tomorrow and I undertook to keep the House informed.

My previous statement on 14 November informed the House of the events leading up to the two-day fire-fighters strike on 13 to 15 November.

Since then my Rt Hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions and I have had numerous meetings with the Fire Brigades Union and the employers and Sir George Bain in order to bring them back to the negotiating table.

The negotiations are a matter for the employers and the unions, but our latest information is that negotiations are continuing.

The employers have released some details of their pay offer. It amounts to a pay increase of 16% over two years linked to modernisation.

This would give a qualified fire-fighter a basic salary in the region of £25,000 a year by November 2003, it is not true to say it has been limited to 4%.

Mr Speaker, there have been a number of questions about funding. I have repeatedly made it clear to the House that any pay in addition to the original 4% offer has to be linked to modernisation.

The independent review headed by Sir George Bain has given us the route map in its Position Paper published on 11 November. Their full Report will be available in about three weeks' time.

Mr Speaker, I call on the FBU to engage constructively on this modernisation agenda.

The FBU has made it clear that it wants a substantial pay increase. Sir George Bain has shown that a substantial pay increase can be funded by substantial modernisation.

We want a fair deal for the fire-fighters. But we also want a fair deal for the public they serve.

The House is well aware of the original 40% pay claim made by the FBU - a claim which I would remind the House is still on the table.

No Government could fund a pay increase on that scale.

It would put at risk the economic stability we have worked so hard to achieve.

The knock on effect of a settlement on the scale demanded by the FBU would mean:

· less money to invest in public services and public sector workers

· it would be unfair on other groups who also do vital jobs and have accepted smaller wage increases linked to modernisation; and

· it would mean higher interest rates and mortgages.

I am sure all Honourable Members will join with me when I say that nobody wants another strike.

Of course if the strike does go ahead tomorrow morning we will do everything we can to protect public safety based on the best operational advice from the military, police and senior fire officers.

Nonetheless, as we have always made clear, the military will be providing an emergency, not a replacement, service.

We all need to be vigilant during the strike, but it is also imperative that our cover is not stretched by hoax calls. These calls put lives at risk. Anyone found to have made a hoax call will be dealt with as quickly and severely as possible.

In these circumstances it is the Government's responsibility to do all it can to protect public safety. Our plans will be kept under constant review. And when it comes to saving lives, no option can be ruled out.

The two-day strike was wrong, and dangerous. An eight-day strike would be even more so. The 40% claim they are fighting for is unjustified.

If they are serious about resolving this, they should continue to talk about pay in exchange for changing those outdated working practises.

But they have to understand, they will not get one without the other. And the country has to understand this Government will not give in to claims which are unreasonable; and which would have a detrimental impact upon the economy.

We govern for the whole country, we will exercise our responsibilities to the whole country; our responsibilities to the economy, to peoples' jobs and mortgages and living standards; and our responsibilities to ensure the safety of the public and to prevent the unnecessary loss of life.

Mr Speaker, any strike by the Union would be damaging and dangerous. It would put lives at risk.

It is that thought that has motivated me and my Rt Hon Friend in the last few days in our efforts to keep people talking, not walking.

Lives are saved every day a strike is cancelled.

Mr Speaker, even at this late stage I want to call on the FBU to continue negotiating and call off the eight day strike due to start at 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning.

We want an agreement between the fire-fighters and the employers.

But we have to be fair to all.

Fair to nurses.

Fair to teachers.

Fair to ambulance workers.

Fair to the police.

And in the wider management of the economy, fair to factory workers, shop workers and office workers.

We cannot and we will not accept rises for fire-fighters which are unfair to others.

So I say to the FBU.

Call off the strike.

Stay at the negotiating table.

Work out a deal which is fair to fire-fighters and fair to all.

Mr Speaker, I promise to keep the House informed.

My message to the Fire Brigades Union is talk, don't walk.