| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to take sides in this argument. [Hon. Members: "Go on."] No, I really do not want to get involved. However, for six years I was a member of the Council of Europe. The rule
was always that we were allowed only one return ticket to Strasbourg for the plenary session. I do not think that anything has changed.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that the House, mistakenly in my view, voted for Members to be able to travel to a continental destination twice a year.
Mr. Forth: It is getting worse. They could make those journeys at the taxpayer's expense and, importantly, they were authorised by the House, not the Government. If Members are under threat from the Government could they not use their parliamentary allowance to travel back and forth and say "Up yours" to the Government?
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before they do that, could you invite either the Solicitor-General, as the only Law Officer in the Commons or, through the usual channels, the Attorney-General, to investigate whether this is not only contempt of the House but a breach of the criminal law?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we need lawyers. Like the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), I definitely do not want to take sides. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for giving notice of this matter. Any Members attending the current meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg are able to return to the House tomorrow if they so wish. The arrangements for the reimbursement of expenses for Members attending the Council of Europe are laid down in the administrative guide approved by the House of Commons Commission. If it appears that the rules do not meet the complexities of the position relating to Members in Strasbourg this week, I shall ensure that they are reviewed urgently and that they operate fairly for all Members. I repeat, however, that any Member is entitled to return to Westminster to vote tomorrow if they so wish.
Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your consideration, would you ensure that the ambit of inquiry includes a retrospective look at the matter so that nobody will be disadvantaged in any way? It would be sad if improper pressure was applied to a Member and we could only rectify the position for the future.
Mr. Speaker: The matter will be looked at by the House of Commons Commission, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, so perhaps he can put that case if we have a look at it.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am listening very carefully to your statement. I understand that you are saying to the House that no distinction should be made between hon. Members
depending upon how they propose to vote in any one Division. Can you confirm that I have correctly understood your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly understood my ruling that every hon. Member must be treated fairly, but I stress that no hon. Member in Strasbourg will be denied the right to return to the House tomorrow.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that item 7 on the list of written ministerial statements in today's Order Paper is a statement on an independent review of the effect of the introduction of variable tuition fees in higher education. You may not be aware that although all the other written ministerial statements for today have been delivered to the Library, that particular one has not, which clearly symbolises the chaos in the Government in the run-up to tomorrow's vote. Will you tell the House whether you have information on when we can expect that urgent statement and use your good offices to ensure that it arrives sooner rather than later?
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct. Notice has been given on the Order Paper and therefore it is not a matter for me as to when the statement will arrive in the Library. The appropriate Minister is acting within the rules of the House.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not in your purview to know that over this weekend I have been asked many questions about that issue. I hope that you will make it known in the right quarters that many of us want to try to understand exactly what the Government are proposing. If we do not have that document early enough, it will be very difficult to do our jobs as Back-Bench Members of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: The appropriate Minister will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
BILL PRESENTED
Telecommunications Masts (Registration)
Keith Vaz, supported by Tony Lloyd, David Taylor, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. David Drew, Dr. Vincent Cable and Dr. Rudi Vis, presented a Bill to make provision about the registration of telecommunications masts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed [Bill 44].
Orders of the DayFire and Rescue Services Bill
[Relevant document: The Third Report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2003–04, HC43-I, on the Fire Service.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.32 pm
The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is important and historic. It is the first substantive legislation concerning the operation of the fire and rescue service in more than 50 years. The Fire Services Act 1947, which it replaces, encapsulated immediate post-war thinking on the role of the fire service and set in place a framework that lasted for a substantial time. It placed a strong emphasis on rapid and effective responses to fires, for which the fire service has justifiably earned a very good reputation.
Firefighters are rightly held in high esteem for their professionalism and bravery. The service has historically performed to a very high standard in responding to and dealing with fires. Despite that success, too many lives continue to be lost, with around 350 deaths and more than 11,000 injuries estimated in dwelling fires in 2002. It is the vulnerable in society who are most likely to be affected: people aged 80 or over are six times more likely to die in a house fire than those aged between 30 and 59.
As the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions pointed out in its recent report on the subject, which we warmly welcome, in 50 per cent. of cases involving fatalities, the victims were dead before the fire service was called. There could be no more telling illustration of the importance of focusing the service on the prevention of fire, which is one of the main themes of the Bill.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that not a single life has been lost in a domestic fire in this country, or elsewhere as far as records show, in a building fitted with sprinklers? Is not that the real answer?
Mr. Raynsford: I will be dealing with the question of sprinklers later. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sprinklers is a complex matter that has been the subject of detailed research. I shall refer to that.
The greater focus on prevention was one of the key recommendations of the independent review of the fire service led by Sir George Bain. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that the Bain report, which was discussed extensively in the House and more widely a year ago, was a thorough piece of work that did not pull its punches. I believe that we owe a real debt to Sir George and his two colleagues, Sir Michael Lyons and
Sir Anthony Young. They reminded us that despite many previous reports advocating reform, the fire service had been very slow to change. As the Select Committee has pointed out, a number of far-reaching reviews—seven in the past 30 years—have been left to gather dust on the shelf.The Bain report made it clear that the time for action was overdue and that there was a heavy responsibility on all involved with the fire and rescue service not only to recognise the need for modernisation but to ensure that this time it happened. Fire and rescue authorities, chief fire officers, managers, staff and the Government were all under the spotlight. The Bain report recommended more strategic direction and engagement by the Government. It made a persuasive case for greater collaboration and joint working between fire and rescue authorities to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the service. It proposed giving managers the clear responsibility and the tools to make and carry through decisions that they are best placed to make. Bain held out the prospect and the opportunity of a more rewarding and diverse career for firefighters.
The uniformed fire and rescue service has for too long been seen as overwhelmingly white and male, even in areas with large ethnic minority populations. The challenge to the service is to become more representative of the communities that it serves.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |