| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab):
I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about Yorkshire and Humber. I accept that it was not an easy announcement to make but, in the circumstances, it was the right one. Sadly, at this stage there is no great
22 Jul 2004 : Column 514
enthusiasm in my constituency for a directly elected regional assembly. If my right hon. Friend is putting the issue on the back burner, will he leave it on a low light for the time being? We do not want the prospect of a referendum hanging over us for up to 12 months. If the delay is to be for at least a year, we can look at the proposals for a regional assembly and, I hope, build up more support for them.
Mr. Raynsford: In September, we will set out our proposals for the timetable. It would be premature for me to indicate what our thinking on that is at this stage.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Did the Minister know yesterday afternoon that this issue was going to be discussed in Cabinet today and that he was likely to have to make this U-turn? None of this makes any sense. Has some polling been done in the north-west and Yorkshire, where the Government know that there is little likelihood of their winning a referendum? They think that they have a chance in the north-east, so perhaps they are going to try one of those bouncing exercises, like the one that they tried in Wales, where the referendum was held a week later than the one in Scotland. The fact is that the people of Ribble Valley do not want this assembly, and the people of the north-west do not want it. It is about time the Government junked this dreadful idea completely.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has consistently backed the losing side in referendums—his party was wrong about Scotland, Wales and London—and I would not take his judgment as the right basis on which to move forward. It is sad and surprising that he takes that view, rather than recognising that it is appropriate for Governments to listen to the views expressed in the House and, in certain circumstances, to change their view. We have done that, and I would have thought that most sensible Members would regard it as a sign of intelligent government, in contrast to the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has put on it.
ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004
Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004
Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004
Health Protection Agency Act 2004
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
22 Jul 2004 : Column 515
2.8 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, in business questions, I asked for an oral statement about the ombudsman's request to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) to extend her jurisdiction to include the role of the Government Actuary's Department in relation to Equitable Life. A written ministerial statement has now appeared in the Library, which says that the Cabinet Office Minister will extend the jurisdiction to include the Government Actuary's Department. However, it does not say when the necessary order will be laid. This is a matter of great urgency that affects hundreds of thousands of the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Have you had any indication that the Minister will be giving further information to the House today about when that order is to be laid, so that there will be no further delay in this regard?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no information about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has just raised, but he has raised it in the House today and put it clearly on the record. No doubt the people responsible for these matters will respond to it.
22 Jul 2004 : Column 516
Summer Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.10 pm
Tom Cox (Tooting): I wish to refer to the issues covered in early-day motion 1466, on the fire service national procurement strategy, which has been signed by 63 Members from all political parties in the House and which, in my view, cannot be regarded as a political issue. It is causing deep concern among highly respected companies that manufacture safety equipment for fire services in this country and for export. More than 200 UK companies are involved in the industry, which employs many thousands of people.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox), but I have not noticed the clock moving. Normally, when there is a 10-minute rule, the clock shows the time running down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I thank the hon. Gentleman most sincerely for drawing that matter to the attention of the Chair and the House—clearly, the end of term is creeping in. That matter will be corrected—immediately. [Laughter.]
Tom Cox: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is deep concern about the block on major procurement that the Government have imposed. This has gone on for more than nine months, and despite repeated requests to meet Ministers to discuss Government policy on the purchase of equipment, regrettably, no such meeting has taken place. As a result of this lack of consultation and involvement, business has been lost in this country and abroad, and deep concern has been expressed about the future of the industry.
I understand that there could be a new national procurement strategy, under which, I suspect, there could be advantages. However, no Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has met representatives of the Federation of British Fire Organisations to discuss the issue. That has not been for the want of trying to arrange such a meeting. In April, the all-party fire safety group, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), and of which I and many other Members are members, organised a seminar in the House to discuss the concerns that exist. Sadly, no Minister attended the seminar, and neither did any senior civil servant attend who could have informed the Minister of the deep concerns that existed then and that still exist. We have a right to ask why that has been allowed to happen. The Government set up two forums last year to consult those who work in fire safety. Neither of the groups was asked to consider the issue of procurement strategy, and nor has anyone involved in the manufacturing of safety equipment been involved, or had their view sought.
I have referred not only to the home market but to the export market, which is suffering because of this uncertainty. We all know, however, that there has been
22 Jul 2004 : Column 517
a joint CBI-TUC productivity group, which has clearly said that the export capabilities of companies should be taken into account when placing tenders for public spending work. We welcome that. We cannot, however, allow this lack of real involvement and consultation by the Government to continue, for the reasons that I have given. There is a very real need for consultation to take place as soon as possible.
Some very well known people in the fire safety industry are highly respected and trusted to listen to concerns and clearly to express them at the highest level—to Ministers. I refer to two people in particular: Mrs. Pamela Castle, and chief fire officer Alan Doig. They are knowledgeable and command great confidence within the industry. They could start to rebuild the trust and confidence of all who are involved in the industry.
I accept that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who will reply to the debate, cannot fully answer the points that I have made, but I am sure that he fully understands the importance and the urgency of this matter. Therefore, I request that tomorrow he clearly informs the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of my remarks and requests that an urgent meeting be arranged. The fire safety industry would welcome that and, as I have clearly stated, both Mrs. Pamela Castle and chief fire officer lan Doig should be fully involved in discussions. I ask my hon. Friend to assure me when he winds up that my views will be conveyed to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow.
2.17 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |