I listened with interest to the Minister's response. It seems that there is a lot of confusion. We appreciate that a resolution is necessary because more and more untreated sewage is flowing into places such as Belfast Lough and, particularly, Ballyholme Bay, and that is disgraceful. I should like confirmation from the Minister that planning approvals have not been blocked anywhere in north Down. I did not hear any specific reference to north Down in his list. I want clarification on that, because the sewerage system cannot be overloaded in places such as Briggs Rock.

I also want to know exactly what discussions are taking place with the Minister for Regional Development, because it seems from a reply that Mr P Robinson gave that the failings of the sewerage systems mean that planning applications are not proceeding is not equally appreciated in both Departments.

I am sorry that Ms Morrice is confused, although this is not the first time that she has been confused when she has spoken in the Assembly. The Planning Service in Northern Ireland is split into divisions. I told her that there are 257 planning applications in Downpatrick. We learnt in a debate in May that the treatment works in the Downpatrick division are all right again or will be, so I am clear about what I have said. I have also suggested that the breakdown by district council area, which I hope will help Ms Morrice, will be available in the Library and will be sent to her.

Ms Morrice's second point was that the Minister for Regional Development said something different to what I did. I know what he said, and I welcome it. He made it clear at the outset that there has been a difficulty with sewage since direct rule. He talked about £3 billion being needed over the next 20 years, which is £50 million a year. He also said that he wants to support the Environment and Heritage Service. He said that he and I had had a very good meeting, and Hansard will show that. Let us not have people trying to pull the Minister for Regional Development and me apart: we and our officials are working together to try to resolve a problem, and the Assembly is about working together to provide solutions for the people of Northern Ireland.

Let me emphasise this: I concur with the Minister for Regional Development that there is a problem with sewage treatment works in Northern Ireland - only 57 % of them are up to national standard. In Great Britain, 95 % are up to national standard. However, from the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, it appears that only 35 % of sewage treatment works are up to standard, so there is a problem: money is needed, and we are trying to approach that difficulty pragmatically and realistically.

Before I call the next Member, I wish to remind the House of the importance of brevity in questions and answers.

The Minister is probably aware that Members are being strongly lobbied on this. I understood that a previous moratorium had been lifted, but the Minister has told the House that a precautionary measure has been implemented. Is the Minister aware that many jobs are at stake while that precautionary measure exists?

I brought the matter to the Minister's attention before when Newcastle lost its blue flag status over the sewage works. What has been done as a precaution to get that status reinstated in Newcastle?

I am glad that the word "moratorium" has been mentioned again. The precise wording that went to the divisional planning offices was as follows:

We were trying to facilitate development. If we had acted upon the Environment and Heritage Service's recommendation, refusals would have been made to the council. Our advice was to wait until a further, detailed examination had been carried out. When a planning application is made, further detail is often sought before a decision is made. Therefore, a moratorium has not been imposed; rather a waste management precaution has been introduced. There is no problem with extensions to houses.

I am conscious of the jobs aspect and have met the Construction Employers Federation and, for example, Derry City Council to explain the situation. Those bodies appreciate the problem and our efforts to resolve the difficulty of inadequate infrastructure while protecting the environment. There are strong needs, and we want to provide solutions.

The Minister is aware of my concern about the matter. His attention was first drawn to it when I highlighted the serious situation in Ballyclare, in my constituency, where identifiable household bathroom waste had been entering the Sixmilewater River for years because the local sewage treatment works was working at 60% overload. When I first brought a deputation to the Minister, he was shocked by the news.

Will the Minister take into account the Department for Regional Development's future capital build programme? A balance should be achieved between the need for environmental protection and the need for development. More importantly, will the Minister inform district councils, when they are being consulted by the Planning Service, if the Environment and Heritage Service and the Department for Regional Development have advised that infrastructure - principally, sewage treatment, but also roads - would not support development? It is at that stage that the public can express its views about local circumstances.

Mr Wilson did bring the Ballyclare case to my attention. The Department must strike a pragmatic balance between dealing with developers' concerns and preventing pollution.

The Department of the Environment will take into account the Department for Regional Development's future capital build programme, identifying how much capital there is, the level of pollution that might result from development, and for how long development should be held back, taking into account when capital will be available. The Department must marry the capital throughput to the Department for Regional Development with the position as regards infrastructure and the need for more capital.

The second part of Mr Wilson's questions concerned infastructure not supporting development and informing district councils. I have no problem signing up to that. This is open Government, and I want the problems to be known. Only when district councils and residents know the problems will we be able to address the solutions and progress together.

TOP

4.

asked the Minister of the Environment to outline (a) how many contracts, to what value, and in what departmental areas, have been forwarded to the public procurement board for consideration and inclusion in the pilot studies for procurement policy; (b) what measures are being undertaken to assess each departmental contract for inclusion in the pilot studies; and to make a statement.

(AQO 59/02)

Further to the procurement board's decision on 3 July 2002 to undertake a pilot study on the use of public procurement contracts to help the unemployed back to work, my Department examined all contracts to be advertised over the next six to nine months. A service contract in the Environment and Heritage Service has been identified as meeting the criteria set out in the pilot study by the procurement board.

The contract is for the recruitment of tour guides to work at various locations throughout Northern Ireland. It is valued at £300,000 and involves the recruitment of permanent and temporary staff. The start date for the contract is expected to be November this year. The relevant details will be passed to the public procurement board later this week.

I acknowledge that the Department of the Environment is one of only four Departments that have forwarded possible contracts to the public procurement board. The Minister's answer is helpful, but it is hardly reassuring that, despite the efforts of his Department, only one contract at a total value of £300,000 has been identified as suitable for inclusion in the pilot scheme. Given that 20 such schemes are proposed under the policy, is the Minister satisfied that there are not other areas in the Department of the Environment where contracts of greater worth might be identified for inclusion in the scheme?

I thank Mr Attwood for recognising that the Department of the Environment is one of only four Departments to submit projects. However, I remind him that there is a financial limitation on contracts. In the construction industry the contracts must be worth between £1 million and £3·86 million, and for projects in the service industry the contracts must be worth between £250,000 and £500,000. That is not an inconsequential amount of money, particularly given that the Department of the Environment is primarily a regulatory body and that, as such, its expenditure is dominated by staff costs and support to counsel. I also remind Mr Attwood that the Department of the Environment's budget amounts to about £118 million a year. Given the magnitude of those figures and that my Department is one of the four Departments to respond, Mr Attwood should say " Well done" and stop at that.

TOP

5.

asked the Minister of the Environment to give an update on the Wake Up to Waste campaign.

(AQO 46/02)

Phase 1 of the Wake up to Waste campaign generated an excellent response. Several district councils and contractors reported increases of up to 30% in recyclable materials collected. People want to participate and to have the opportunity to take action to enhance their environment. I am pleased with the approach.

Phase 2 of the campaign starts in October. It will provide guidance on the practical steps members of the public can take in their everyday activities to reduce waste. It will focus on the things that we can all do to reduce, reuse and recycle, such as reusing plastic carrier bags. We are establishing a retail partnership to communicate that message to consumers and to promote sustainable waste management practices.

During the summer the Environment and Heritage Service also completed a pilot education programme, which was delivered to two schools in each of the 26 council areas.

I welcome phase 2 of the campaign, as I know that phase 1 was successful. Some £500,000 was invested in phase 1. How much will be invested in the second phase? Given the amount of paper that many Members are gathering, will the Minister's Department take the lead in using recycled paper?

I like the second part of the question - we lead by example. A total of £1·5 million over three years has been committed to the public awareness aspect of the campaign. One would think therefore that £500,000 is available to be spent each year. However, I am very conscious that the public must be made aware of the problem. Ten per cent of households in Northern Ireland responded to the questionnaire. Those who responded clearly want to play their part, and we must therefore provide a solution for them.

We will continue to educate the people of Northern Ireland further on that.

Regarding recyclable paper and public procurement in general, I agree that this Administration should lead by example in a whole raft of ways. It is difficult for us in the Administration to ask others to do things that we are not prepared to do. I sympathise and empathise with the second part of the question.

Will the Minister give assurances that his Department will ensure that community-based initiatives, as opposed to just individual ones, will play a major part in this programme?

Individuals make up the community, and the community is very important. Commencing in October, and building on what we did last year, we will have regular meetings with the regional communication co-ordinators and the local authority recycling officers, who are the people with links to the community. We will continue to work with the community, and we plan to produce a community guide to waste management, aimed at community groups, which will contain practical information on how to reduce, reuse and recycle.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am delighted to hear the Minister being so enthusiastic about the issue of waste paper. You need look no further than the Assembly to see the amount of waste paper going through our offices. In phase 2 will the Minister address the issue of introducing disposable paper bags and doing away with the plastic bags that clutter our environment and cost so much money to clear - a scheme which has been introduced successfully in the South of Ireland?

I am tempted, but I will not say anything about the waste paper caused by the number of languages we use. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is here, so I shall refrain from making any reference to that and to the paper it may or may not use - and I say that with a smile to the Minister.

Regarding the central point about the success of disposable paper bags in the South, as I indicated in my first answer, we are working with the retail industry and anticipate bringing forward an aspect of that after various meetings over the summer. I plan to announce this in a number of weeks. Views are split on whether or not we can tax plastic bags, as happens in the South. The best legal advice at present is that we cannot say that we cannot do it. However, even if we can, there is a certain gestation period, and it could not be done in the life of this Assembly. In the autumn I plan to do something with plastic bags in conjunction with retailers and others. The community has wakened up to waste - we have to build on that and deliver something.

TOP

6.

asked the Minister of the Environment what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations made in the designation guide booklet for the Ring of Gullion area of outstanding natural beauty.

(AQO 58/02)

The implementation of the recommendations in the guide to designation falls to several public bodies and community groups, including my Department. Progress has been greatly helped by the appointment of a liaison officer funded by the Environment and Heritage Service in my Department, Newry and Mourne District Council and the Regeneration of South Armagh Trust. Among the steps taken are the establishment of a Ring of Gullion waymarked trail and the development of interpretative panels and published guides on historic and traditional buildings in the area. Several improvements to the agricultural landscape have also been achieved through the environmentally sensitive area scheme, administered by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

I thank the Minister for the work done by his Department and other agencies over recent years to promote a very beautiful part of Northern Ireland - south Armagh.

Will the Minister specifically address the issues raised about military installations in relation to part of the designation guide, because one of the policy objectives is to diminish the impact of the military installations on public enjoyment of the rural amenities in south Armagh and the Ring of Gullion?

I ask him to redouble his efforts to ensure that that impact is eradicated completely.

I shall be brief in my answer to this question. I want to see the day come rapidly when the military installations to which Mr Fee refers are not here - namely, when we have peace, stability and a normal society in Northern Ireland.

Having had an interest in areas of outstanding natural beauty both as a councillor and as a Minister, I would like to know what progress has been made in considering the need to designate national parks in Northern Ireland?

That has been pressed upon me by various quarters. I am conscious that two national parks have been created recently in Scotland and that there are national parks in the South of Ireland, England and Wales. I have commissioned Europac, an independent agency, to advance principles by which we consider national parks in Northern Ireland. It will report to me within the next few days, and I will make a statement on the way forward before the end of the month. However, I remind Mr Foster and others that anything we wish to do needs money, and money requires commitment. National parks could make a significant contribution to tourism and to Northern Ireland's economy. Therefore, we should find some money for that if we discover that that is the way forward.

TOP

8.

asked the Minister of the Environment to outline the consultation process his Department engaged in with the Construction Employers Federation before imposing a moratorium on planning permissions.

(AQO 5/02)

I have already stated that a moratorium has not been imposed on planning permissions. As a precautionary measure, decisions on planning applications in several areas affected by concerns over the risks of water pollution from sewage treatment plants and sewerage networks have not been taken pending the outcome of discussions between my Department and the Department for Regional Development. Those discussions involve the consideration of complex legal, environmental and operational factors.

I am acutely aware of the concerns of the construction industry and others about the precautionary steps that my Department has taken in those areas where the risk of water pollution is significant. My officials have had regular contact with the Construction Employers Federation, both on specific applications and on the generality of the issue. I also met with senior representatives of the Construction Employers Federation to hear their concerns at first hand on 22 August 2002. I repeat the commitment that I gave them to seek a balanced and pragmatic solution with sustainable development as the guiding principle. The federation accepts that principle.

TOP

Firefighters' Pay

I wish to advise Members on how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated two hours by the Business Committee. Three amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. Speaking times will be as follows: the mover of the substantive motion will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to wind; the mover of each of the amendments will have seven minutes to propose and five minutes to wind; the Minister will have 20 minutes to respond to the debate; and all other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes each. The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. When the debate is concluded, I shall put the Question on amendment No 1. If amendment No 1 is made, amendments Nos 2 and 3 will fall. If amendment No 1 falls, I shall put the Question on amendment No 2 and so forth. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

I beg to move

I welcome the opportunity to bring this most important matter before the House. It is a reflection of the professionalism of the firefighters of Northern Ireland and of the high regard in which they are held by the public that the House has agreed to make the subject of the first debate of the new term the pay and conditions that we ask these professionals to labour under. The number of amendments also indicates the great interest in the issue.

It should not go unnoticed by the men and women of the Fire Service - and some of its representatives are in the Public Gallery today - who put their lives on the line every day they put on a uniform that we consider their efforts so important that we wish to debate this matter of urgent public concern.

My first duty as an elected Member of this House was a very sad and deeply distressing visit to the Glebe housing estate in my North Antrim constituency. A horrendous house fire had been started deliberately and had taken the lives of three little children. The local fire service, assisted by another unit, worked for hours and put their lives at risk trying to rescue those little boys. I remember standing in the burnt-out surroundings of that housing estate with firemen, police officers, residents and politicians silenced by the tragedy and weeping. I remember thinking of the grim and awful task that we ask those brave men and women of the Fire Service to do for us.

We call those officers brave, but if we look at how we pay them, it is as if their bravery is cheap. The House must send out a message that firefighters and the control staff who guide them deserve, and have earned, better pay. The Assembly has already acknowledged the role of the firefighters by awarding the Fire Service its own official recognition. We must take that forward by demanding that the Government get real in their negotiations with the Fire Fighters' Union and come up with a pay formula that will satisfy and reward fairly the work of those people.

For that reason I am prepared to accept the amendment to my motion tabled in the name of the Rev Robert Coulter and Mr Tom Hamilton as it adds to the substance of the motion. I am rejecting the amendment tabled by Mr Ervine, the Member for East Belfast, because stating an actual amount will tie the hands of those engaged in negotiations. The motion is not prescriptive. It allows for the necessary flexibility to enable employees' representatives and employers to agree a pay and conditions formula that will work.

The Sinn Féin/IRA amendment adds nothing of substance to the motion. Rather, it reflects its earlier failure to get a motion similar to mine debated today. I hope that it will not use this debate to try to pose as champions of the Fire Service but will withdraw its amendment to my motion.

Given the history of the last 30 years, perhaps Members sitting under that Gallery could tell us about the actions of the IRA that put the lives of firefighters at risk and resulted in nine members of the Fire Service being killed while on duty. I hope that it is not the intention of Sinn Féin/IRA to sully and sour today's debate with a trite amendment - I hope that it will be withdrawn.

We read in the press daily about the bravery and professionalism of firefighters. While I was preparing for this debate last week, the 'News Letter' reported an injury sustained by a firefighter at a fire at Yolande's farming service yard at Wellington Road, Enniskillen. He was injured when he was hit by pieces of an exploding corrugated sheet of asbestos. We cannot get away from the routine of a firefighter's job, which is to risk his or her life on behalf of this society.

It is important that I take time to outline the negotiations on pay. They have been taking place between the national union and the national employers since June this year. The Fire Brigades Union was informed that it was the intention of the employers to make a substantive offer on pay and a new formula as far back as 9 July. It has proof that it was planned to offer the fighters an increase in pay from £21,500 to £25,000 for a trained officer with four years' service. However, it is believed that an intervention by a senior Government Minister meant that that offer was never formally tabled. Instead the Government started talking about making a substantial pay increase of 4% and proposed an independent inquiry into the entire service.

On 2 September the employers' spokesman, Phil White, conceded that there was a real case for a pay increase above the Government's so-called substantial 4% increase but argued that central Government funding was required. The Assembly must avoid being sucked into the Government speak of agreeing to a "substantial" pay increase that in real terms means 4%. The union has correctly rejected that as insulting and derisory. A typical firefighter, after four years of training, has a take-home pay of £280 a week. The hourly rate for part-timers, for whom the dangers are no different, is £6·20 before tax. Some 11% of their salary goes towards the occupational pension. That pay formula dates back to 1977, when firefighters' pay was linked to low-skilled manual workers. It is outdated and inappropriate.

By its actions today, the Assembly must determine that it believes firefighters to be highly skilled professionals. Therefore, the Assembly must endorse the call to give them professional levels of pay and conditions and a formula to reach those conditions. The motion is not about special treatment; it is about fair treatment for those professional officers.

Tony Blair's deceitful comments must also be highlighted. He claimed that an increase in pay and conditions would hurt the economy. That must be challenged and nailed as a lie. The total UK claim to increase pay to acceptable levels would amount to around £459 million. That is the equivalent of around 41p for each household every week. Surely that is not an unreasonable cost for the remarkable job that those officers do. I hope that the House unites behind the motion and accepts the amendment that I have advised.

I call Mr David Ervine to propose the first amendment on the Marshalled List.

Amendment No 1: In line 2 delete

and insert

I offer the amendment for a simple reason. The Fire Brigades Union itself decreed that a reasonable figure for firefighters to earn was £30,000 a year. I cannot imagine how, by including that figure in the amendment, I stultify the negotiators' position, when it was the union that introduced the figure of £30,000 to the negotiating table. That dismisses any foolish comment that my proposed amendment is flawed.

Ian Paisley Jnr has hit the nail on the head, but he has not been as definitive as we must be on what is happening. We are talking about a process of negotiation on pay and conditions that was stymied, not by those in management, but by the Government. We can see that there is clear political manipulation in trying to peg the wages and conditions of firefighters - people whom we value.

This year alone, the Fire Service has rescued 110 people from road traffic accidents. In many cases, those people's lives were saved. Some 147 people have been rescued from house fires, and more than 100 other rescues have taken place. We should think about that when we drive home, or when we turn out the lights and go to bed at night. We should think about who is at the end of the telephone, offering us help in our time of need. We should be aware that, in our society, those same people not only run a grave risk by having to speed to assist us, but they are attacked by recreational idiots as they do so. The Fire Service and the security services have had to put up with the nightmare that is the interfaces. It is not an easy job.

Would any of us easily come to terms with the rest of our working day, the rest of our working week or, indeed, the rest of our working life, if we had to carry a child of two, three or four years of age with lovely flowing hair, without a mark on her, who had asphyxiated in a fire? How would we live with that trauma when we went home?

What do we do to recognise the suffering of those who rush to the aid of victims? What would we do were we to face a road traffic accident that involved a decapitation and then had to go home to be offered a meal? What goes through firefighters' minds?

This is not only about the physical abilities that they undoubtedly show in their professionalism and training - they pay an unbelievable psychological price. If they are fathers, mothers or members of a family, they must relate to others after going through such difficulty. That is the job that we ask them to do, and then we pay them, in relative terms, a pittance for doing it.

Then we find out that we have a "Socialist" Government who try to control the management in order to make sure that it pegs the levels of pay to the workers. It used to be the other way round. Socialist Governments used to try to encourage management to look at the best interests of the workers and to look at the circumstances in which they might create a greater income rather than a lesser one. We live in a strange world.

My amendment is definitive and clear and would consolidate the concept of political support in our small society to stand as a bulwark against the Westminster Government. It is fair to say that neither the motion nor the amendments contain any opposition to a better deal for firefighters. Why not make it simple and clear and support the level of pay that the Fire Brigades Union is asking for? I did not pluck my figure out of the air. It is the figure that the Fire Brigades Union has tabled to management. In accepting and supporting that figure, Members would be saying that the shameful behaviour that has taken place in the six negotiations to date must end. In the words of my Colleague Mr Paisley Jnr, the Government must "get real" about dealing with this issue.

I was once a negotiator in the trade union movement. It is not unreasonable to ask for the sun, the moon and the stars. On the level playing surface that can be created in the negotiating process, one expects that a compromise will be found. I fear that what has happened to the Fire Brigades Union is nefarious. The involvement of the Government has created the conditions that not only polluted the negotiations that have taken place but potentially pollute the negotiations that the other amendments and the motion call for in the future. Would it not be better for the House to say - clearly and simply - that the firefighters say they are worth £600 per week and that, because of the behaviour of management and the Government, Members determine that that is what they should have. That would allow the firefighters to go into a proper negotiation with at least some sense of political support, as opposed to what they consider to be the manipulation by politicians in the background.

Amendment No 2: In line 2 delete

and insert

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the firemen's union, I must say that the comments of Paisley Jnr do not help the Assembly to have a unified approach to trying to put a sympathetic face on what the firemen's union is looking for. My Colleague Sue Ramsey and I have met the firemen's union on a number of occasions and have a fruitful and constructive relationship with it. It is out of place for the proposer of the motion to indulge in a diatribe against those in the Assembly who are attempting to support the firemen's union. [Interruption].

You may snigger and laugh, you are good at that; that is all you are good at.

Nick Raynsford said:

He also said that the new formula worked out by the Government equated the firemen with the top 50% of manual workers.

I am not deriding manual workers, but can anyone tell me how you can evaluate the work of the Fire Service on the criteria of manual workers? From the very outset, the Government have done the Fire Service a disservice. I speak as an Assembly Member and as a longstanding and current member of the AMICUS trade union, which was the old engineering and boilermakers' union. Therefore, I have some knowledge of trade unions and negotiations and how we evaluate the work of trade unions in the workplace and in society. Those who have never had to put their hand to manual work perhaps do not understand what it is to work in the workplace and do not understand what it is to attempt to earn their crust of bread there. You have got your money from the backs of an electorate that you have seduced for the past 50 years.

Will the Member address his remarks through the Chair?

Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would exert some influence over the rabble here on the left -

Order. Will the Member address his remarks through the Chair?

I will, yes - [Interruption].

Order.

Again we see the hypocrisy of a group that introduces a motion for firemen and tries to disrupt the debate on that motion: it is a disgrace. They talk about withdrawing - they should withdraw their motion and leave it to the rest of us to consider how we approach this serious matter - [Interruption].

Order.

The Secretary of State said that it is nothing short of a disgrace that people such as firemen who come into public service and the protection of life - the mouse Morrow is indulging in his squeaks - are subjected to an increasing number of attacks as they try to carry out their jobs. He goes on to say that we should all be proud of emergency workers such as firefighters who put their lives on the line to save others.

As Davy Ervine said, it is a Socialist Government. However, the Secretary of State cannot stand up and say that he supports the claim of the firefighters. He cannot say that he supports this trade union as a member of a party that comes from a trade unionist background - a party that the trade unions keep in office by their contributions. The Government are treating the representatives of that union, and their attempts to achieve a decent wage comparable to the professionalism that their members bring to the job, in a shabby manner.

I support the firefighters, my party supports the firefighters and my Colleague Sue Ramsey, who is a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public safety, supports the firefighters in their attempts to achieve their just rewards and recognition not through fine words but through take-home pay. That is what counts at the end of the day, week, month and year - that is what puts the bread on their tables. In order to have unified support, I will not be moving our amendment.

I beg to move amendment No 3:

In line 2 delete

and insert

In proposing the amendment my intention is to make the motion being debated before the Assembly today more specific as to the real problem and the remedy required for the firefighters' situation. The heart of the problem lies within the present pay formula for firefighters. Only two substantive grades exist in current pay scales for ordinary firefighters - that of firefighter and that of leading firefighter.

The second grade relates to those who have over 15 years' service. In short, the pay scales provide no real possibility for promotion, except for the few firefighters promoted to management grades. The pay scales should contain promotion possibilities for ordinary firefighters, which recognise skill and experience as well as experience, but which do not reserve pay and promotion for purely managerial functions.

There is deserved, widespread public support for the firefighters. I support them too. They deserve a decent pay scale and expressions of public support. We should not be niggardly in that matter. We should be open and generous to those brave people who regularly risk their lives.

No one could fail to be moved by the scenes of last 11 September in New York, when 350 firefighters lost their lives while trying to evacuate the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. The whole world admired the courage and heroism of the firefighters of that great city.

Our firefighters are no less courageous. They are in the same league, because, during the 30 years of the troubles, they were at their posts in impossible and horrendous situations, and many people owe their lives to them. Let the House record our deep appreciation to them in this debate.

A recent poll showed that 82% of all voters believe that ordinary firefighters should be paid in excess of £25,000 a year, as opposed to the existing maximum of only £20,694, which can only be achieved after 15 years' service. The same poll showed that 47% of all voters support a national Fire Service strike over pay.

The Prime Minister's statement that giving the firefighters what they are asking for will somehow put up mortgages is totally unacceptable. The link between the two issues escapes me entirely.

It is a shame that brave people have been reduced to taking strike action. It is an indictment of our society that they need to go on strike after having done so much for that society. We know that it goes against the grain of their profession. I want to sound a note of warning to Her Majesty's Government; their treatment of the firefighters should be fair and generous, not penny-pinching.

The pay of part-time firemen must also be mentioned. They are no less at risk in perilous situations, but their rates of pay are worse than those of the full-time firefighters, and that situation must be properly addressed also.

For all those reasons, I deliberately worded the amendment to include a pay formula, as opposed to simply calling for a pay increase. The Fire Service, with all its skill and expertise, needs a proper pay structure that adequately reflects the high level of training, skill and expertise required of ordinary firefighters. I welcome the fact that the Members who proposed the motion have accepted my amendment. That alone reflects the widespread community support for the firefighters.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>