FBU DeHavilland Report 01/11/10

Posted by on Monday, November 1, 2010 · Leave a Comment 

Weekly FBU Report

Monday, 1 November 2010

Mentions

Westminster Debates and Legislation

House of Commons

Statements

Non-governmental and International Organisation Press Releases

TV and Radio

Fire services

Westminster Debates and Legislation

House of Commons

Early Day Motions and Petitions

Statements

House of Commons Questions

House of Lords

Non-governmental and International Organisation Press Releases

TV and Radio

Regional

No items
Mentions

Westminster Debates and Legislation

Lords Second Reading – Building Regulations (Review) Bill

Fri, 22 October 2010 | Second Reading Debate
back to top Click here to view the item online

House of Commons

Statements

Jackson, S responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

…hority and as only the second graduate of the parliamentary firefighters scheme. I congratulate the Minister on his robust line, which better represents the public than the hard-left leadership of the Fire Brigades Union. Is it not a fact that the previous Labour Administration allowed the Fireguard resilience planning programme to fail? Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that he will work with the Chi…
back to top Click here to view the item online

Leslie responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement
back to top Click here to view the item online

Zahawi responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement
back to top Click here to view the item online

McDonnell responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Only a few months ago, I came to this House with the families of FBU members who had given their lives to save members of the public. The FBU does not take industrial action lightly, and it is doing so only because unacceptable statements …
back to top Click here to view the item online

Brake responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement
back to top Click here to view the item online

Corbyn responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement
back to top Click here to view the item online

Lammy responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement
back to top Click here to view the item online

Hughes responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement
back to top Click here to view the item online

Blackman responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement
back to top Click here to view the item online

Williamson, C condemns a Firefighters strike

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

…ck), may I tell the Minister that he has our support in seeking a resolution to this dispute as soon as possible? What discussions has he had with the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Fire Brigades Union and the Mayor of London to encourage all parties to come together to reach an agreement?

Robert Neill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and for those observations and I …
back to top Click here to view the item online

Bob Neill responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

…ght period disgraceful. It is made worse by the fact that in this most diverse of cities, it will also be Diwali. When Londoners will be trying to enjoy those events, I am sorry that it seems that the Fire Brigades Union will be working actively to maximise the risk to them. Not only is the safety of families being put at risk, but the union is crudely attempting to put pressure on community groups to cancel their fi…
back to top Click here to view the item online

MPs hear Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | Statement Debate

…ght period disgraceful. It is made worse by the fact that in this most diverse of cities, it will also be Diwali. When Londoners will be trying to enjoy those events, I am sorry that it seems that the Fire Brigades Union will be working actively to maximise the risk to them. Not only is the safety of families being put at risk, but the union is crudely attempting to put pressure on community groups to cancel their fi…
back to top Click here to view the item online

Non-governmental and International Organisation Press Releases

Trade Union Co-Ordinating Group – Unions send message of solidarity to London firefighters

Thu, 28 October 2010 | Campaign Organisation Press Release

…

Unions send solidarity message to London firefighters

The Trade Union Co-ordinating Group, which represents 9 unions and over 700 000 workers, today sent a message of support to FBU members in London who will take industrial action this week and next unless sacking notices sent to 5600 workers are withdrawn.

“The Trade Union Coordinating Group sends a message of solid…
back to top Click here to view the item online

TV and Radio

C4 News – Wrack & Coleman debate London firefighters’ dispute

Wed, 27 October 2010 | DeHavilland Report – TV and Radio

Fire fighters in London are due to strike on Bonfire Night as part of a series of industrial action in protest at shift changes. The Fire Brigades Union claims the changes are being forced through, with members threatened with dismissal unless they sign the revised contracts.

Matt Wrack, General Secretary, Fire Brigad…
back to top Click here to view the item online

Breakfast – Fire Brigades Union explain background to strike call

Tue, 26 October 2010 | DeHavilland Report – TV and Radio

The Fire Brigades Union has called for industrial action over changes to shift patterns for fire fighters in London, with one of a series of strikes planned for the Bonfire Night weekend. The decision has been criticised by…
back to top Click here to view the item online

Fire services

Westminster Debates and Legislation

Lords Second Reading – Building Regulations (Review) Bill

Fri, 22 October 2010 | Second Reading Debate

Summary

The Fire Kills Campaign would continue to receive funding, the Lords heard today.

Speaking at the debate, Government spokesperson Lord Attlee confirmed that Government would continue to fund the Fire Kills Campaign, following assessments of the public safety benefit it offered.

The coalition Government were committed to simplifying regulation, including for the building industry, combined with a review of building standards, the Conservative Spokesperson stated, noting that the review would be published at the end of the year.

There was little evidence to suggest that further requirements for installing sprinklers should be included in these standards, instead rescue services should stress their case with home owners and developers, he said, adding that guidance already set out the benefits of such measures. Moreover, the cost of proposed bill could not be afforded at a time of spending cuts, he warned.

Any safety effort which could prevent harm to families or firefighters ought to be adopted, Shadow Labour Minister Baroness Smith of Basildon insisted. The spending review had limited the budget for fire services and local government funding was being cut, presenting a major challenge to fire services and future safety, she warned.

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Tope observed that the Chief Fire Officers Association had formed an interest group to conduct the research relevant to this bill, which would provide considerable added-value to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s efforts. He also highlighted calls from NICEIC for improved standards in electrical installation work.

Introducing the Bill, Labour peer Lord Harrison outlined his ambition to see requirements for sprinklers to be installed in all new buildings under 30 meters in height. Sprinklers would improve safety, reduce harm and have additional benefits for the environment in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and building restoration, he claimed.

Click here to view the source of this item online.
back to top

House of Commons

Early Day Motions and Petitions

New EDM 921 – Funding for Fire Services

Thu, 28 October 2010 | House of Commons – Early Day Motion

Summary

The following EDM was tabled on 28 October 2010.

Contents

New EDM Tabled
921 FUNDING FOR FIRE SERVICES 28:10:10
Signed by 2 MPs

Mr Alan Meale
John McDonnell [R]
* 2
That this House is aware that in recent independent polls carried out in the UK which enquired into what the public thought about its fire services, 93 per cent. believed they provided a good or very good service, 82 per cent. were satisfied or very satisfied with their local fire and rescue service, 85 per cent. opposed plans to cut funding for such services and 95 per cent. opposed any reduction in the number of firefighters; recalls that in the year to March 2010 a total of 7,098 people were rescued from fires in the UK; believes that any further cuts will lead to slower response times to emergency incidents, put the safety of the public and firefighters at risk and will lead to increased fire losses which in turn will destroy jobs and damage economies; and calls on the Government to desist from carrying out cuts to these necessary services which the general public overwhelmingly supports.

[R] Relevant interest declared

back to top

Statements

Jackson, S responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): I speak as a former member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and as only the second graduate of the parliamentary firefighters scheme. I congratulate the Minister on his robust line, which better represents the public than the hard-left leadership of the Fire Brigades Union. Is it not a fact that the previous Labour Administration allowed the Fireguard resilience planning programme to fail? Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that he will work with the Chief Fire Officers Association and other key stakeholders to ensure that resilience planning is in place, particularly in the run-up to the Olympics, so that we can be prepared for any further industrial action and other eventualities?

Robert Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest and expertise in these matters. He is right to say that Fireguard did not succeed; that leaves a limited number of options available to us. It is also fair to say that, since becoming a Minister, I have made it my business to keep in contact with all the principal players, including the Chief Fire Officers Association and the union, whose general secretary and assistant secretary I have met on a number of occasions. I want to put it on record that my door remains open to them as much as to anyone else.

The Audit Commission recently reported on resilience, and it is important that we should never be complacent about it. That applies right across the country. The chief fire and rescue adviser, together with officials in the Department, continue to keep in touch with the fire authorities to ensure that we review and maximise the resilience arrangements that are available to the fire and rescue authorities.

back to top

Leslie responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): But is it not clear that the lamentable settlement that the Minister achieved in the spending review will result in cutbacks not just in London but across the rest of the country, and that that will lead to disagreements and disputes fanning out everywhere? For instance, is he happy about reports that the number of fire engine appliances in Nottinghamshire is to go down from 36 to 30?

26 Oct 2010 : Column 176

Robert Neill: The attempt by the hon. Gentleman to distract us from the immediate situation in London by making reference to the spending review does him little credit and is frankly unworthy of the seriousness of the situation. This dispute was in existence long before the spending review took place, and I hope that he will concentrate on resolving it. We can have debates about the spending review in more appropriate circumstances.

back to top

Zahawi responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): The Minister will know that I have championed the cause of firefighters in my constituency. As a member of the all-party fire safety and rescue group, I want to ask him about the cynical decision to hold a strike on bonfire night, when the number of incidents is sometimes double or triple what it usually is. Will he work with the Opposition to bring forward emergency legislation to stop the strike on bonfire night?

Robert Neill: With every respect to my hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter I acknowledge, I do not think that the introduction of emergency legislation is going to help to resolve a difficult scenario such as this. We need to ensure that we make some serious progress. However, I take want to take this opportunity to say that I stand second to none in my respect and admiration for the fire service and for the men and women who work it up. I have been involved with it, in the various forms of my public life, for the best part of 25 years, which is why I am so saddened that the leadership of the union has so badly misjudged the timing of this dispute and let down the brave men and women among its membership.

back to top

McDonnell responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Only a few months ago, I came to this House with the families of FBU members who had given their lives to save members of the public. The FBU does not take industrial action lightly, and it is doing so only because unacceptable statements have been made, such as statements about five years of negotiations. Negotiations started two months ago, and then unprecedentedly, as the Minister said, all FBU members in London were threatened with the sack if they did not sign up to new contracts. The situation now is that the Mayor refuses to intervene, while the leader of the authority-whom the Audit Commission has described as confrontational, and whom his colleagues describe as, at times, hysterical in his approach to the issues-is aggravating the situation. Therefore, I believe that it now behoves the Minister to intervene to save us from the dispute and to bring both sides together to ensure a negotiated settlement; otherwise lives will be put at risk not by the FBU, but by this Government and their representatives on the fire authority.

Robert Neill: Ultimately, I am afraid, the risk to life is caused by those who chose to strike on that particular date. I am afraid that I just cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that what has happened comes outside that context. I do not believe that such decisions are taken lightly, but I have to say-and I say it again-that I regret that the FBU has made such a serious misjudgment on the timing and calling of the strike. I repeat: discussions have been going on for upwards of five years to try to resolve the matter-they have been on-off-and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed to say that what has happened has been suddenly plucked out of the air, in isolation.

I do not intend to lecture the statutorily responsible bodies, which are democratically elected and accountable, on how they carry out their job, particularly when they
26 Oct 2010 : Column 175
have made an offer to negotiate that has apparently been rejected on the very day that they could have been sitting round the table. The best thing that the hon. Gentleman could do is use his good offices and contacts in the union to persuade them to get back round the table on 5 November, and if not hopefully before that.

back to top

Brake responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): What additional resources can the Minister call on if the contingency arrangements fail?

Robert Neill: I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the contingency resources will fail. The important thing is to ensure that no impediment is put in the way of those operating the contingency resources, to ensure that they do just that. Under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the legal duty to ensure that those resources are in place rests with the fire authority, to which we offer advice and assistance in carrying out that duty. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has chosen to meet those statutory requirements through the contract that it has. It has operated satisfactorily, despite the difficultly on Saturday, and I am sure that the authority is refining its operation in the event that it should be necessary on a future occasion.

back to top

Corbyn responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Does the Minister not understand the anger of firefighters-who have kept this city safe for so long, and whom we all rely on and applaud when they put fires out and make places safe-when they are sent dismissal notices and are told that they have to accept a new contract without any negotiation, and when we have a Mayor who refuses to meet them and a Minister who is apparently not even prepared to meet the Mayor to discuss a resolution? Can the Minister not use this opportunity today to send a message to the Mayor and the chair of the fire authority to meet the union now, and come to an agreement that does not involve the wholesale dismissal of loyal public sector workers who have kept this city safe for so long?

Robert Neill: The context of my response has already been set out. It is quite clear that the dismissal notices, which are not issued lightly, came only at the end of negotiations that have gone on for something like five years. I am not going to start lecturing the Mayor of
26 Oct 2010 : Column 174
London on how to conduct matters, particularly when the management side on the fire authority has suggested that there should be negotiations through the recognised national negotiating body on 5 November. I would have hoped that the union would take up that offer, but instead it chose to call a strike. Perhaps the best people to advise, therefore, are those in the union, who should be asked why they are not taking up the offer and getting round the table on 5 November, rather than walking out.

back to top

Hands responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con): I know that the Minister shares my concern about reports from the BBC and elsewhere about engines being stopped by picket lines during last Saturday’s strike. Will he reassure us again that the Government will do all they can to support emergency crews who do want to work, and to stop any intimidation and harassment?

Robert Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It cannot be acceptable, whatever the situation or dispute, for fire engines attending to a call to be forced to pull over to the side of the road by people who have pursued them on motorbikes, in cars and sometimes in black taxi cabs, for their water tanks to be emptied to render them useless, and for equipment to be removed, and neither is it acceptable for threatening text messages to be sent to people trying to work. That is utterly unacceptable behaviour, and I am sure that every Member finds it revolting. Of course, the Government will do all they can. I know that the fire commissioner is liaising with the police commissioner. The police endeavour to give appropriate support, but of course, given the nature of things, their resources are stretched as well. I am confident, however, that the Metropolitan police will give all appropriate support to those who are working to carry out a statutory duty.

back to top

Lammy responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Over the weekend, there was a fire in Enfield in which a house burned to the ground, and there are serious suggestions that the stand-in fire officers who turned up pointed their hose in the wrong direction. Will the Minister say more about the contingency arrangements, and will he also say what his assessment is of fire services in London, given the 13% cut in the spending review?

Robert Neill: I have been acquainted with the reports on the Enfield incident. The chief fire and rescue adviser liaised with the commissioner on that matter. Sadly, I
26 Oct 2010 : Column 173
have also been acquainted with reports-in some cases, documented on camera-of the harassment that the crews endeavouring to provide cover had to suffer. They had to do a job under extremely difficult-frankly, unacceptably difficult-circumstances. We want to ensure the best possible standards of cover, and we condemn anyone who seeks to undermine the cover that people attempt to provide. I am satisfied that the London fire brigade-I know it well, as does the right hon. Gentleman-operates to the highest professional standards and will do its level best, despite the difficulties, to make arrangements available. Those arrangements are made via the contract with AssetCo, which is a company with considerable experience in the fire service field, and involve the provision of services using up-to-date fire brigade equipment and persons trained to use that equipment.

back to top

Hoey responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): But does the Minister agree-he is a fairly reasonable man-that it was reckless of the London fire commissioner to serve the notices to make people redundant? Does the Minister realise that this is not now about shift patterns? Most of the firemen and women whom I met on the picket lines when I went to talk to them in my constituency at the weekend are happy to discuss that issue, but they want the threat of redundancy-which has been brought in, but not for a very long time-to be withdrawn. Can the Minister intervene with the commission and the chairman of LFEPA to get those threats withdrawn, to get round the table and to get this settled before next Monday?

Robert Neill: Two points arise from the hon. Lady’s question. First, it is scarcely appropriate, if we believe in trusting locally elected representatives, for Ministers to seek to micro-manage the negotiations. The people involved, at the London level, on both sides of the dispute are mature and experienced people, and I hope that they will be best placed to resolve it. Secondly, the issue of the dismissal notices sometimes arises in industrial relations disputes. It has not happened in the context of the fire brigade before, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) observed, this situation did not arise suddenly, but at the end of a protracted five-year negotiation. I am not saying what tactics the parties should use, but I do think that the lengthy context has to be borne in mind.

back to top

Hughes responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): As somebody who has in their constituency the London fire brigade headquarters, three fire stations and a fire training centre, and who has met both management and the unions in the past fortnight, may I ask that the message be passed on, first, that most fire officers are really keen that there be a resolution, because they do not want to go on strike, and secondly that on the shift patterns, there is not much objective distance between the management and the unions? It should be capable of resolution. I want to add my voice to those who say that there is a way forward by negotiation rather than this clearly unwanted industrial action, which would affect the whole city.

Robert Neill: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is perhaps significant that the management side adjusted its offer and was prepared to change, to some degree, the extent of the alteration of the hours to reflect earlier discussions. I hope that that will be the spirit in which the negotiations are taken forward.

back to top

Blackman responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): Voters in my constituency are looking forward to celebrating Diwali and Guy Fawkes night on 5 November. Does my hon. Friend agree that five years is long enough to negotiate shift roster patterns? Is it not time that we considered reviewing whether no-strike arrangements should be introduced for the fire service nationally?

Robert Neill: Having said to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) that I do not think that it is appropriate for the Government to be involved in the detailed negotiations, which are best dealt with between the employers and employees, I shall not respond any differently to my hon. Friend. However, I understand the point that he makes, and it is worth reminding people that this is not something that has happened out of the blue. There has been a long build-up to this and there is a sense of frustration. I do not think that the Government have any plans to change the overall framework of industrial relations, but I want to ensure that we encourage the parties concerned to reach a resolution. My priority is to ensure that appropriate contingency arrangements are in place to keep Londoners safe in the event of this happening-and I am sure that
26 Oct 2010 : Column 172
that is the case. We must also ensure that we review those contingency arrangements and keep them up to date across the country as a whole.

back to top

Williamson, C condemns a Firefighters strike

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): I thank the Minister for updating the House on the situation.

Any strike by the fire service is obviously a very serious matter and one that the public will understandably and justifiably be concerned about. We understand that concern, and our position is absolutely clear. Bonfire night is one of the busiest periods in the year for the fire service and will in all likelihood be even busier this year, as Diwali falls on the same date. Whatever the issues surrounding the proposed new shift patterns and contracts, a strike by the fire service on bonfire night would potentially put Londoners at risk. It is not supported by the public, and it does not have our support either. The public will rightly expect both sides in this dispute to do everything that they can to avoid an unnecessary strike. We urge both sides to sit down and talk to each other to reach an agreement as soon as possible.

26 Oct 2010 : Column 171

Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), may I tell the Minister that he has our support in seeking a resolution to this dispute as soon as possible? What discussions has he had with the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Fire Brigades Union and the Mayor of London to encourage all parties to come together to reach an agreement?

Robert Neill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and for those observations and I am sure that everyone will welcome the condemnation implicit in his statements of some of the behaviour that we saw. He is right to say that there is scope to decide when a strike takes place and choosing 5 November was especially inappropriate in the circumstances. I hope that his condemnation of that decision will extend to a condemnation of the intimidation of those people who sought to provide cover in London on Saturday.

I have made it clear from the beginning that I hope that this will be settled by negotiation because it is best dealt with at a local level. I do not believe that Ministers intervening in the detail of that negotiation would be appropriate, but we have made it clear that our officials are in contact with the parties. The chief fire and rescue adviser has kept me appraised of all the developments throughout the recent deterioration in the circumstances and will continue to do so. Of course, he continues to receive information from all the interested parties.

Things need not happen this way, and I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s words that the Opposition do not wish things to happen this way. I hope that we can say that both sides of the House conclude that this is not a mature way to deal with a dispute that involves a critical service. I hope that we can achieve a resolution and, above all, I hope that we will not see Londoners put at risk on an especially high-risk day. That would be a regrettable bit of brinkmanship, and that is why I have used the strong language that I have-it reflects the views of the public on the way in which they have been used in this matter.

back to top

Bob Neill responds to an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Main Statement

Contents

Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) (Urgent Question): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) if he will make a statement on what the Government are doing to halt the dangerous situation in prospect in London of industrial action by firefighters over the bonfire period.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): As the hon. Gentleman knows from his own long experience in relation to the fire service, the management of industrial disputes in the fire and rescue service is a matter for the fire and rescue authority concerned. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority holds the statutory duty to have plans in place to deal with such disruption. London has met this requirement by putting in place a contingency arrangement through a contract with a company, AssetCo.

I am retaining a close interest in the situation and I am in regular contact with the interested parties. I have emphasised that this dispute should be settled through negotiation. I understand that discussions are continuing, and I urge all concerned to find a solution to this disruptive action.

It is not the role of Government to intervene in the details of these negotiations. However, I would like to put on record my alarm and distress at the intimidation and bullying on the picket lines against AssetCo staff. At any time, abuse and violence against any front-line public servant, be they ambulance staff, firefighters or police officers, is never justified. I am shocked that it would appear that some trade union militants are now attempting to intimidate those providing an emergency service.

I have also made it clear that I find the threat of industrial action over the bonfire night period disgraceful. It is made worse by the fact that in this most diverse of cities, it will also be Diwali. When Londoners will be trying to enjoy those events, I am sorry that it seems that the Fire Brigades Union will be working actively to maximise the risk to them. Not only is the safety of families being put at risk, but the union is crudely attempting to put pressure on community groups to cancel their firework celebrations. I really am sorry to have to say that such behaviour is reckless and cynical and does no credit to the fire service. The service has great traditions, and I am sorry that they have been let down in this manner. The public will not think it a responsible way of conducting industrial action in the 21st century. They will see it for what it is: old-fashioned militant muscle-flexing.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I thank the Minister for his response to my question and for the answer to my letter of 15 October, which arrived two hours ago by e-mail.

I agree that no one wants to see the strikes, but the House should remember that when such strikes take place, the firefighters’ loved ones are in as much danger as the rest of their community. No one takes these decisions lightly, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, I know, because I have been there.

26 Oct 2010 : Column 170

What is Mayor Johnson doing to try to resolve the dispute? Can the Minister confirm that new shift patterns have been agreed in other parts of the country after negotiation by the Fire Brigades Union with chief fire officers and local councils, and can he tell us why he thinks London is different? Does he think that the use of dismissal notices is an appropriate way to conduct negotiations? And, will he seek to ensure that Mayor Johnson and ACAS get involved to defuse the situation?

The threat of strike action on 5 November, Guy Fawkes night and Diwali has caught everyone’s attention and been criticised by all, but the next strike is planned for Monday 1 November, in six days’ time. Can the Minister assure us that his senior advisers and officials will do all that they can to get the key players first into the same building, then into the same room, and will keep them there until an agreement is hammered out? The public want to see the situation sorted. They want to see a real effort by the Government, the Mayor, the fire authority and the union. They want a resolution, and they want to see fire crews on duty, protecting us as they always do, not on picket lines.

Robert Neill: As I said in my first response, the statutory duty to provide fire and rescue services and proper contingency arrangements lies with the fire and rescue authority, in this case the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which is of course appointed by and answerable to the Mayor of London. The Mayor has issued a statement today in which he expresses his confidence that appropriate contingency arrangements are in place, and I trust him and the fire authority to deal with that.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that any dispute that reaches this stage is very regrettable. However, it is worth bearing in mind, first, that there have been changes to shift patterns elsewhere in the country; secondly, that there have been protracted negotiations over many years in relation to the London situation; thirdly, that although dismissal notices have been used, the fire authority intends to offer to re-employ all its staff on fresh contracts, so nobody need lose jobs or pay; and finally, and perhaps significantly, the fire authority chairman has pointed out how the employers’ side offered and suggested a meeting of the national negotiators on that very day, 5 November. Instead of accepting that offer, the union, I very much regret to say, chose to call a strike for that day.

back to top

MPs hear Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | Statement Debate

Summary

After Communities and Local Government Minister Robert Neill had answered an Urgent Question on Firefighters (Industrial Action), he answered further questions from opposition spokespersons and backbench MPs.

Contents

Firefighters (Industrial Action)

3.32 pm
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) (Urgent Question): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) if he will make a statement on what the Government are doing to halt the dangerous situation in prospect in London of industrial action by firefighters over the bonfire period.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): As the hon. Gentleman knows from his own long experience in relation to the fire service, the management of industrial disputes in the fire and rescue service is a matter for the fire and rescue authority concerned. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority holds the statutory duty to have plans in place to deal with such disruption. London has met this requirement by putting in place a contingency arrangement through a contract with a company, AssetCo.

I am retaining a close interest in the situation and I am in regular contact with the interested parties. I have emphasised that this dispute should be settled through negotiation. I understand that discussions are continuing, and I urge all concerned to find a solution to this disruptive action.

It is not the role of Government to intervene in the details of these negotiations. However, I would like to put on record my alarm and distress at the intimidation and bullying on the picket lines against AssetCo staff. At any time, abuse and violence against any front-line public servant, be they ambulance staff, firefighters or police officers, is never justified. I am shocked that it would appear that some trade union militants are now attempting to intimidate those providing an emergency service.

I have also made it clear that I find the threat of industrial action over the bonfire night period disgraceful. It is made worse by the fact that in this most diverse of cities, it will also be Diwali. When Londoners will be trying to enjoy those events, I am sorry that it seems that the Fire Brigades Union will be working actively to maximise the risk to them. Not only is the safety of families being put at risk, but the union is crudely attempting to put pressure on community groups to cancel their firework celebrations. I really am sorry to have to say that such behaviour is reckless and cynical and does no credit to the fire service. The service has great traditions, and I am sorry that they have been let down in this manner. The public will not think it a responsible way of conducting industrial action in the 21st century. They will see it for what it is: old-fashioned militant muscle-flexing.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I thank the Minister for his response to my question and for the answer to my letter of 15 October, which arrived two hours ago by e-mail.

I agree that no one wants to see the strikes, but the House should remember that when such strikes take place, the firefighters’ loved ones are in as much danger as the rest of their community. No one takes these decisions lightly, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, I know, because I have been there.

26 Oct 2010 : Column 170

What is Mayor Johnson doing to try to resolve the dispute? Can the Minister confirm that new shift patterns have been agreed in other parts of the country after negotiation by the Fire Brigades Union with chief fire officers and local councils, and can he tell us why he thinks London is different? Does he think that the use of dismissal notices is an appropriate way to conduct negotiations? And, will he seek to ensure that Mayor Johnson and ACAS get involved to defuse the situation?

The threat of strike action on 5 November, Guy Fawkes night and Diwali has caught everyone’s attention and been criticised by all, but the next strike is planned for Monday 1 November, in six days’ time. Can the Minister assure us that his senior advisers and officials will do all that they can to get the key players first into the same building, then into the same room, and will keep them there until an agreement is hammered out? The public want to see the situation sorted. They want to see a real effort by the Government, the Mayor, the fire authority and the union. They want a resolution, and they want to see fire crews on duty, protecting us as they always do, not on picket lines.

Robert Neill: As I said in my first response, the statutory duty to provide fire and rescue services and proper contingency arrangements lies with the fire and rescue authority, in this case the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which is of course appointed by and answerable to the Mayor of London. The Mayor has issued a statement today in which he expresses his confidence that appropriate contingency arrangements are in place, and I trust him and the fire authority to deal with that.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that any dispute that reaches this stage is very regrettable. However, it is worth bearing in mind, first, that there have been changes to shift patterns elsewhere in the country; secondly, that there have been protracted negotiations over many years in relation to the London situation; thirdly, that although dismissal notices have been used, the fire authority intends to offer to re-employ all its staff on fresh contracts, so nobody need lose jobs or pay; and finally, and perhaps significantly, the fire authority chairman has pointed out how the employers’ side offered and suggested a meeting of the national negotiators on that very day, 5 November. Instead of accepting that offer, the union, I very much regret to say, chose to call a strike for that day.

Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): I thank the Minister for updating the House on the situation.

Any strike by the fire service is obviously a very serious matter and one that the public will understandably and justifiably be concerned about. We understand that concern, and our position is absolutely clear. Bonfire night is one of the busiest periods in the year for the fire service and will in all likelihood be even busier this year, as Diwali falls on the same date. Whatever the issues surrounding the proposed new shift patterns and contracts, a strike by the fire service on bonfire night would potentially put Londoners at risk. It is not supported by the public, and it does not have our support either. The public will rightly expect both sides in this dispute to do everything that they can to avoid an unnecessary strike. We urge both sides to sit down and talk to each other to reach an agreement as soon as possible.

26 Oct 2010 : Column 171

Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), may I tell the Minister that he has our support in seeking a resolution to this dispute as soon as possible? What discussions has he had with the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Fire Brigades Union and the Mayor of London to encourage all parties to come together to reach an agreement?

Robert Neill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and for those observations and I am sure that everyone will welcome the condemnation implicit in his statements of some of the behaviour that we saw. He is right to say that there is scope to decide when a strike takes place and choosing 5 November was especially inappropriate in the circumstances. I hope that his condemnation of that decision will extend to a condemnation of the intimidation of those people who sought to provide cover in London on Saturday.

I have made it clear from the beginning that I hope that this will be settled by negotiation because it is best dealt with at a local level. I do not believe that Ministers intervening in the detail of that negotiation would be appropriate, but we have made it clear that our officials are in contact with the parties. The chief fire and rescue adviser has kept me appraised of all the developments throughout the recent deterioration in the circumstances and will continue to do so. Of course, he continues to receive information from all the interested parties.

Things need not happen this way, and I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s words that the Opposition do not wish things to happen this way. I hope that we can say that both sides of the House conclude that this is not a mature way to deal with a dispute that involves a critical service. I hope that we can achieve a resolution and, above all, I hope that we will not see Londoners put at risk on an especially high-risk day. That would be a regrettable bit of brinkmanship, and that is why I have used the strong language that I have-it reflects the views of the public on the way in which they have been used in this matter.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): Voters in my constituency are looking forward to celebrating Diwali and Guy Fawkes night on 5 November. Does my hon. Friend agree that five years is long enough to negotiate shift roster patterns? Is it not time that we considered reviewing whether no-strike arrangements should be introduced for the fire service nationally?

Robert Neill: Having said to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) that I do not think that it is appropriate for the Government to be involved in the detailed negotiations, which are best dealt with between the employers and employees, I shall not respond any differently to my hon. Friend. However, I understand the point that he makes, and it is worth reminding people that this is not something that has happened out of the blue. There has been a long build-up to this and there is a sense of frustration. I do not think that the Government have any plans to change the overall framework of industrial relations, but I want to ensure that we encourage the parties concerned to reach a resolution. My priority is to ensure that appropriate contingency arrangements are in place to keep Londoners safe in the event of this happening-and I am sure that
26 Oct 2010 : Column 172
that is the case. We must also ensure that we review those contingency arrangements and keep them up to date across the country as a whole.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): But does the Minister agree-he is a fairly reasonable man-that it was reckless of the London fire commissioner to serve the notices to make people redundant? Does the Minister realise that this is not now about shift patterns? Most of the firemen and women whom I met on the picket lines when I went to talk to them in my constituency at the weekend are happy to discuss that issue, but they want the threat of redundancy-which has been brought in, but not for a very long time-to be withdrawn. Can the Minister intervene with the commission and the chairman of LFEPA to get those threats withdrawn, to get round the table and to get this settled before next Monday?

Robert Neill: Two points arise from the hon. Lady’s question. First, it is scarcely appropriate, if we believe in trusting locally elected representatives, for Ministers to seek to micro-manage the negotiations. The people involved, at the London level, on both sides of the dispute are mature and experienced people, and I hope that they will be best placed to resolve it. Secondly, the issue of the dismissal notices sometimes arises in industrial relations disputes. It has not happened in the context of the fire brigade before, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) observed, this situation did not arise suddenly, but at the end of a protracted five-year negotiation. I am not saying what tactics the parties should use, but I do think that the lengthy context has to be borne in mind.

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): As somebody who has in their constituency the London fire brigade headquarters, three fire stations and a fire training centre, and who has met both management and the unions in the past fortnight, may I ask that the message be passed on, first, that most fire officers are really keen that there be a resolution, because they do not want to go on strike, and secondly that on the shift patterns, there is not much objective distance between the management and the unions? It should be capable of resolution. I want to add my voice to those who say that there is a way forward by negotiation rather than this clearly unwanted industrial action, which would affect the whole city.

Robert Neill: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is perhaps significant that the management side adjusted its offer and was prepared to change, to some degree, the extent of the alteration of the hours to reflect earlier discussions. I hope that that will be the spirit in which the negotiations are taken forward.

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Over the weekend, there was a fire in Enfield in which a house burned to the ground, and there are serious suggestions that the stand-in fire officers who turned up pointed their hose in the wrong direction. Will the Minister say more about the contingency arrangements, and will he also say what his assessment is of fire services in London, given the 13% cut in the spending review?

Robert Neill: I have been acquainted with the reports on the Enfield incident. The chief fire and rescue adviser liaised with the commissioner on that matter. Sadly, I
26 Oct 2010 : Column 173
have also been acquainted with reports-in some cases, documented on camera-of the harassment that the crews endeavouring to provide cover had to suffer. They had to do a job under extremely difficult-frankly, unacceptably difficult-circumstances. We want to ensure the best possible standards of cover, and we condemn anyone who seeks to undermine the cover that people attempt to provide. I am satisfied that the London fire brigade-I know it well, as does the right hon. Gentleman-operates to the highest professional standards and will do its level best, despite the difficulties, to make arrangements available. Those arrangements are made via the contract with AssetCo, which is a company with considerable experience in the fire service field, and involve the provision of services using up-to-date fire brigade equipment and persons trained to use that equipment.

Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con): I know that the Minister shares my concern about reports from the BBC and elsewhere about engines being stopped by picket lines during last Saturday’s strike. Will he reassure us again that the Government will do all they can to support emergency crews who do want to work, and to stop any intimidation and harassment?

Robert Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It cannot be acceptable, whatever the situation or dispute, for fire engines attending to a call to be forced to pull over to the side of the road by people who have pursued them on motorbikes, in cars and sometimes in black taxi cabs, for their water tanks to be emptied to render them useless, and for equipment to be removed, and neither is it acceptable for threatening text messages to be sent to people trying to work. That is utterly unacceptable behaviour, and I am sure that every Member finds it revolting. Of course, the Government will do all they can. I know that the fire commissioner is liaising with the police commissioner. The police endeavour to give appropriate support, but of course, given the nature of things, their resources are stretched as well. I am confident, however, that the Metropolitan police will give all appropriate support to those who are working to carry out a statutory duty.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Does the Minister not understand the anger of firefighters-who have kept this city safe for so long, and whom we all rely on and applaud when they put fires out and make places safe-when they are sent dismissal notices and are told that they have to accept a new contract without any negotiation, and when we have a Mayor who refuses to meet them and a Minister who is apparently not even prepared to meet the Mayor to discuss a resolution? Can the Minister not use this opportunity today to send a message to the Mayor and the chair of the fire authority to meet the union now, and come to an agreement that does not involve the wholesale dismissal of loyal public sector workers who have kept this city safe for so long?

Robert Neill: The context of my response has already been set out. It is quite clear that the dismissal notices, which are not issued lightly, came only at the end of negotiations that have gone on for something like five years. I am not going to start lecturing the Mayor of
26 Oct 2010 : Column 174
London on how to conduct matters, particularly when the management side on the fire authority has suggested that there should be negotiations through the recognised national negotiating body on 5 November. I would have hoped that the union would take up that offer, but instead it chose to call a strike. Perhaps the best people to advise, therefore, are those in the union, who should be asked why they are not taking up the offer and getting round the table on 5 November, rather than walking out.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): What additional resources can the Minister call on if the contingency arrangements fail?

Robert Neill: I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the contingency resources will fail. The important thing is to ensure that no impediment is put in the way of those operating the contingency resources, to ensure that they do just that. Under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the legal duty to ensure that those resources are in place rests with the fire authority, to which we offer advice and assistance in carrying out that duty. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has chosen to meet those statutory requirements through the contract that it has. It has operated satisfactorily, despite the difficultly on Saturday, and I am sure that the authority is refining its operation in the event that it should be necessary on a future occasion.

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Only a few months ago, I came to this House with the families of FBU members who had given their lives to save members of the public. The FBU does not take industrial action lightly, and it is doing so only because unacceptable statements have been made, such as statements about five years of negotiations. Negotiations started two months ago, and then unprecedentedly, as the Minister said, all FBU members in London were threatened with the sack if they did not sign up to new contracts. The situation now is that the Mayor refuses to intervene, while the leader of the authority-whom the Audit Commission has described as confrontational, and whom his colleagues describe as, at times, hysterical in his approach to the issues-is aggravating the situation. Therefore, I believe that it now behoves the Minister to intervene to save us from the dispute and to bring both sides together to ensure a negotiated settlement; otherwise lives will be put at risk not by the FBU, but by this Government and their representatives on the fire authority.

Robert Neill: Ultimately, I am afraid, the risk to life is caused by those who chose to strike on that particular date. I am afraid that I just cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that what has happened comes outside that context. I do not believe that such decisions are taken lightly, but I have to say-and I say it again-that I regret that the FBU has made such a serious misjudgment on the timing and calling of the strike. I repeat: discussions have been going on for upwards of five years to try to resolve the matter-they have been on-off-and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed to say that what has happened has been suddenly plucked out of the air, in isolation.

I do not intend to lecture the statutorily responsible bodies, which are democratically elected and accountable, on how they carry out their job, particularly when they
26 Oct 2010 : Column 175
have made an offer to negotiate that has apparently been rejected on the very day that they could have been sitting round the table. The best thing that the hon. Gentleman could do is use his good offices and contacts in the union to persuade them to get back round the table on 5 November, and if not hopefully before that.

Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): The Minister will know that I have championed the cause of firefighters in my constituency. As a member of the all-party fire safety and rescue group, I want to ask him about the cynical decision to hold a strike on bonfire night, when the number of incidents is sometimes double or triple what it usually is. Will he work with the Opposition to bring forward emergency legislation to stop the strike on bonfire night?

Robert Neill: With every respect to my hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter I acknowledge, I do not think that the introduction of emergency legislation is going to help to resolve a difficult scenario such as this. We need to ensure that we make some serious progress. However, I take want to take this opportunity to say that I stand second to none in my respect and admiration for the fire service and for the men and women who work it up. I have been involved with it, in the various forms of my public life, for the best part of 25 years, which is why I am so saddened that the leadership of the union has so badly misjudged the timing of this dispute and let down the brave men and women among its membership.

Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): But is it not clear that the lamentable settlement that the Minister achieved in the spending review will result in cutbacks not just in London but across the rest of the country, and that that will lead to disagreements and disputes fanning out everywhere? For instance, is he happy about reports that the number of fire engine appliances in Nottinghamshire is to go down from 36 to 30?

26 Oct 2010 : Column 176

Robert Neill: The attempt by the hon. Gentleman to distract us from the immediate situation in London by making reference to the spending review does him little credit and is frankly unworthy of the seriousness of the situation. This dispute was in existence long before the spending review took place, and I hope that he will concentrate on resolving it. We can have debates about the spending review in more appropriate circumstances.

Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): I speak as a former member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and as only the second graduate of the parliamentary firefighters scheme. I congratulate the Minister on his robust line, which better represents the public than the hard-left leadership of the Fire Brigades Union. Is it not a fact that the previous Labour Administration allowed the Fireguard resilience planning programme to fail? Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that he will work with the Chief Fire Officers Association and other key stakeholders to ensure that resilience planning is in place, particularly in the run-up to the Olympics, so that we can be prepared for any further industrial action and other eventualities?

Robert Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest and expertise in these matters. He is right to say that Fireguard did not succeed; that leaves a limited number of options available to us. It is also fair to say that, since becoming a Minister, I have made it my business to keep in contact with all the principal players, including the Chief Fire Officers Association and the union, whose general secretary and assistant secretary I have met on a number of occasions. I want to put it on record that my door remains open to them as much as to anyone else.

The Audit Commission recently reported on resilience, and it is important that we should never be complacent about it. That applies right across the country. The chief fire and rescue adviser, together with officials in the Department, continue to keep in touch with the fire authorities to ensure that we review and maximise the resilience arrangements that are available to the fire and rescue authorities.

Parliamentary Copyright Material Reproduced Under Licence From The Controller Of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

Click here to view the source of this item online.
back to top

House of Commons Questions

Blenkinsop – Floods

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Written Answer

Contents

Tom Blenkinsop: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he has considered the merits of introducing a statutory requirement for making emergency planning arrangements for flooding. [18595]

Richard Benyon: I have been asked to reply.

DEFRA, in following the recommendation by Sir Michael Pitt in his Review of the 2007 floods, has worked to enhance the national capability for flood emergency response in conjunction with the main first responders to such events, including the Fire and Rescue Services.

While the Pitt Review is not categorical about the issue of statutory duty, the idea has not been ruled out. On its completion, the Flood Rescue National Enhancement Project will provide us with the means of assessing what shortfalls exist in our national capability, and also what statutory underpinning is needed, if any.

Click here to view the source of this item online.
back to top

Corbyn – Fire Services (Language)

Tue, 26 October 2010 | House of Commons – Written Answer

Contents

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what advice his Department issues to fire control centres on assistance to those whose first language is not English who are reporting a fire. [19605]

Robert Neill: There is a legal requirement for all Fire and Rescue Authorities to make the necessary arrangements to ensure their services are delivered equitably, taking into account the varying needs in their community.

Click here to view the source of this item online.
back to top

House of Lords

Smith of Basildon – Fire Authority Budgets

Thu, 28 October 2010 | House of Lords – Written Answer

Summary

The following question was answered on 28 October 2010.

Contents

Asked by Baroness Smith of Basildon

- To ask Her Majesty’s Government by what (a) amount, and (b) percentage, Communities and Local Government has reduced budgets for each Fire Authority following Spending Review 2010. [HL2957]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): The provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for the period from 2011-12 will be announced in late November or early December, as in previous years. This includes the provisional formula grant allocations for fire and rescue authorities.

Fire and rescue authorities will then set their budgets taking into account the amount of grant that they will receive and the income that they can raise through council tax.

The additional funding being offered to support a council tax freeze will include fire and rescue authorities.

Click here to view the source of this item online.
back to top

Non-governmental and International Organisation Press Releases

National Farmers Union (NFU) – NFU News – Enjoy Halloween and Bonfire Night without Chinese lanterns, urges NFU

Wed, 27 October 2010 | Campaign Organisation Press Release

Contents

Dear DeHavilland

Please find below the lastest news from the NFU Press Office.

Media Release

Wednesday October 27 2010

Enjoy Halloween and Bonfire Night without Chinese lanterns, urges NFU

The public are being urged by the NFU not to use Chinese lanterns as part of Halloween and Bonfire Night celebrations.

Thousands of events are expected to take place up and down the country but the NFU has asked people to think twice about releasing any lanterns into the countryside over both weekends.

The warning comes after farming minister Jim Paice MP said that Defra is collating evidence on the true extent of the damage caused by lanterns, from livestock deaths to crop fires.

NFU Government affairs adviser Nick von Westenholz said: “Halloween and Bonfire Night can be fun events for all the family and we hope everyone will enjoy them safely and responsibly.

“We hope, however, that people will refrain from using Chinese lanterns or releasing them into the countryside as part of celebrations. Even though the fire risk is reduced at this time of year, lanterns continue to pose a risk to livestock, either to those still out in their fields, or at a later date when fallen lanterns go undetected. They also pose a huge litter nuisance, and dozens of these large, unsightly objects are often found spread over a wide area of countryside the day after a local celebration or party.

“We are pleased that Defra has taken on-board our messages and is now working with the industry in an attempt to reduce the risks posed.”

The NFU has received numerous reports of harm to livestock, and in some instances death, caused by cattle ingesting the metal wires contained within the lantern frames. Lanterns can also be also be chopped up during silage and hay making leading to ingestion at a later date, while the wire can also get tangled around the animal’s feet or become embedded in its skin. The NFU is also concerned about the bamboo frame used in the construction of most lanterns, which are very durable and prone to splintering, and continues to monitor potential problems similar to those found with metal wires.

Notes to editors:

1) Mr Paice was responding to a Parliamentary Written Question on October 19.

2) As well as the NFU, fire services throughout the country and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have also called for a ban on Chinese lanterns.

3) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency responded to 128 false alerts believed to have been caused by Chinese lanterns from October 1 2009 to September 30 2010.

NFU, Agriculture House, Stoneleigh Park, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire, CV8 2TZ

Press Officer: Lee Perry

Telephone: 024 7685 8686 FAX: 024 7685 8651 ISDN: 02476 416289

Http://www.nfuonline.com

The NFU is the voice of British farming and provides professional representation and services to its farmer and grower members.

back to top

TV and Radio

C4 News – Wrack & Coleman debate London firefighters’ dispute

Wed, 27 October 2010 | DeHavilland Report – TV and Radio

Summary

Fire fighters in London are due to strike on Bonfire Night as part of a series of industrial action in protest at shift changes. The Fire Brigades Union claims the changes are being forced through, with members threatened with dismissal unless they sign the revised contracts.

Matt Wrack, General Secretary, Fire Brigades Union (FBU), told Channel 4 News, “We don’t want to take any strike action in the fire service in London or anywhere else. (But) unfortunately the clock is ticking on our members’ contracts of employment. (The London) Fire Authority (LFA) have decided that they will dismiss 5,500 London fire fighters. That’s … reckless and irresponsible in our view, (and) that’s what has to be challenged.

“The strikes can be resolved. Lift the sacking notices and there won’t be any industrial action whatsoever.”

On the LFA’s 11:13 hour shift proposal, he said, “We’re happy to discuss … (it). We’ve also put at least two alternative proposals to (them).

“We’ve never walked away from any negotiations. We’ve invited the fire service to negotiate time and time again. Our officials will be ready at any time between now and the strike on the 1st of November.

“In other parts of the country we have negotiated an agreement. The difficulty with Mr Coleman’s approach is that they aren’t willing to negotiate.”

Brian Coleman, Chairman, (LFA), said, “We’ve been talking about it for five years. The matter hasn’t been resolved. It’s been resolved in the rest of the country (with) very similar tactics by the fire authorities. We need these changes. Nobody’s losing their job, nobody’s going to earn less money (and) nobody’s going to work for longer hours.

“We’ve offered compromise: It started off a 12:12 (hour) shift pattern (but we’ll) go to 11:13. We’re willing to have talks; at the moment the FBU aren’t.”

He said, “The fire authorities have been negotiating. The Mayor of London is quite prepared to negotiate. The talks have got nowhere. We’ve had to bring them to a head to resolve the dispute in order that we can do more community fire safety work and make London safer.”

back to top

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Filed under News, Political · Tagged with

Comments are closed.