---

Rescue Control Centres

3. Diana Organ (Forest of Dean) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the effect on (a) job numbers, (b) service standards and (c) response times arising from the proposed transfer of rescue control centres in the south-west to one regional control centre. [192478]

The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The establishment of nine regional fire and rescue control centres is prompted by the need to ensure more effective and efficient responses to the whole range of local, regional and national incidents, including significant or complex ones, such as a terrorist incident or severe flooding. The new centres will strengthen the capability of the fire and rescue service to deal with exceptional call volumes, will improve resilience, and will provide more effective fall-back arrangements.

The move to nine regional control centres in England will result in a reduction in the number of control room staff, but together with fire and rescue authorities, we will fully explore the opportunities for the redeployment of staff whose skills and experience are transferable.

Diana Organ: My right hon. Friend is aware that Gloucestershire has a relatively new rescue control centre in Quedgeley. Much has been invested in it and it works well and efficiently. It has knowledge of the local area and is in the public sector. Why then are all the proposed bidders for the new regional centre in the south-west coming from the private sector?

Mr. Raynsford: There have been a number of bids as part of the procurement process from both the public and the private sectors. Our aim is purely and simply to ensure that the premises of the site that is chosen for the regional control centre are the best in terms of resilience, efficiency and effectiveness as a centre for the region.

The estimates of the Gloucestershire fire and rescue authority show that its likely costs per incident of maintaining the current arrangements at Quedgeley, which is a good centre with a good reputation, is £112, which is more than double the estimated cost of dealing with incidents on the regional control basis. The
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 877
 
savings that will come from that can be ploughed back into life-saving measures such as fire prevention work, installing smoke alarms and so on. Our approach is all about improving safety and saving lives, which I hope my hon. Friend recognises.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Does the Minister accept, as the Deputy Prime Minister himself knows, that the recent severe flooding in Cornwall was well handled by our local rescue and emergency services? Why, then, is the region being picked on in the extraordinary experimental pilot that was imposed on the area without proper consultation?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right that the response of the emergency services to the flooding crisis in Boscastle was exemplary. I spoke to the regional resilience forum in Plymouth a few weeks ago, and all the services involved thought that it was an effective and well co-ordinated operation. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited the area very soon after the incident to congratulate everyone involved on the way in which they coped.

Logic therefore points in the direction of a regional control centre, as I suggested in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ). The estimate produced by Cornwall's fire and rescue services for the cost of responding to incidents under existing arrangements is more than double the cost of doing so under a regional control centre. Such savings, which can enable resources to be ploughed back into fire prevention and safety work and saving lives, will surely be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab): My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) highlighted her concern about the 21 fire control jobs at Quedgeley control centre. Quedgeley's bid for the south-west region failed, but is it still fair to say that Gloucester still has a good chance of operating the regional fire control room for the south-west?

Mr. Raynsford: Restrictions in the EU services directive make it impossible for me to reveal details of the outstanding bidders. However, my hon. Friend is right that the fact that Quedgeley has not been selected for the final shortlist does not mean that there is no possibility of the regional fire control centre being located in Gloucester.

Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con): Is the Minister aware of the difficulties that fire and rescue authorities expect to face in recruiting and retaining fire control staff in centres that are certain to close in 2007? In the south-west, those centres are located too far from the regional call centre for commuting to be a practical option. Can he tell the House what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure that the fire control service does not deteriorate, or even collapse, between now and 2007?

Mr. Raynsford: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed not just to maintaining but to improving the quality of the service delivered by fire and rescue authorities throughout the country. He will be
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 878
 
aware that when making a change of this nature the issues of staff confidence and recruitment and retention are important. We are paying attention to them, but there are exciting prospects under the new arrangements, and the skills of existing fire control staff are generally transferable, so there will be a premium on ensuring both that people who are not going to find jobs under the new arrangements are helped to relocate and secure other jobs and that the service will continue to operate in the most effective way.

Regional Government (North-East)

4. Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab): What assessment has been made of the potential benefits to Teesside from regional government in the north-east. [192479]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): Improving economic performance and the quality of life in Teesside and the north-east would be a key objective of the elected regional assembly, which would have general powers to enable it promote economic and social development and protect and improve the environment. It would also be responsible for developing an economic strategy for the whole region. The regional development agency would play a crucial role in delivering that strategy, as it did in the recent announcement of a £205 million investment in the Huntsman chemical plant in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency.

Vera Baird: Does my right hon. Friend agree, after meeting the vice-president of the Huntsman Corporation with me in Redcar this week, that he is clear that the RDA played a key role in getting the world's biggest polyethylene plant to be built in Redcar? Is it not clear that the RDA's arm will be stronger still if there is a boosted regional identity in the north-east brought about by a regional assembly?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I met the vice-president of Huntsman and he made it clear to me that he was investing in the north-east because he realised that the Government saw the north-east as an important area for economic help and development, and also that the regional development agency played an important part in achieving that. He noted that the Opposition have committed themselves in their manifesto to abolishing the regional development agency, and the Liberals have committed themselves to abolishing the Department responsible for the RDA. Nevertheless, he knows that people in the region want a strong regional voice. That is what the referendum is about.

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that a yes vote in the referendum will give more power to the people to Teesside to hold unelected bodies to account, so local taxpayers' money can be better spent on training for jobs, investment in housing and action to cut crime. But does he not find it odd that some people can reject more democracy for the people of Teesside, having called for more political accountability at the Tory party conference just a month ago?
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 879
 

The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree. I find it difficult to understand how the Opposition always demand more accountability but are against any form of democratic accountability. However, I am reassured by the fact that they opposed Scottish devolution, then accepted it, they opposed the Welsh Assembly, then accepted it, and they even opposed the Greater London authority, so there is a chance for them to do yet another U-turn, as I believe they are now saying they have done on the RDAs.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for the assemblies in the north-east? I am sure he looks forward to an affirmative vote next month. Several times recently I have been in Yorkshire and Humberside, where people also want a referendum on the issue. They are reassured by my right hon. Friend's commitment to hold one in the near future, and will be much reassured by the definition of the powers of the assemblies that he has just outlined, which will give them a real chance to redress the anomalies and imbalances of the northern regions against the prosperous southern English regions.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I am convinced that across the northern region people like to make their own decision about matters that affect them—economic, social and environmental. Hopefully such opportunities will be provided for them. In the meantime there is a referendum in the north-east, which gives a clear choice between northern people making their own choice about economic development, or relying on central Government—like Lord Hailsham in the 1960s going up with his bell and ringing for the north to have more jobs, or Mrs. Thatcher arriving with her handbag and saying, "I'm going to convert this brownfield site into jobs." Nothing happened, but in seven years of a Labour Government there have been more jobs, more business and more prosperity, and we intend to do more.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): We all know the Deputy Prime Minister is beginning to feel a bit desperate about his plans for a regional assembly in the north-east, but why has he resorted to the most astonishing and intemperate attacks on the business community in the north-east in his interview in the Financial Times today? Why does he not listen to business in the north-east, like the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that it would rather the money that he would spend on a toothless talking shop assembly in the north-east were spent on projects such as upgrading the A1? Will he confirm that the North East assembly will not have the power or the money to dual the A1?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman has not said that he would abolish the RDAs, but let me come to his question. My dispute with businesses, in response to the chamber of commerce letter sent to me, was to point out that they were the same people who were against regional development agencies. They have now changed their mind and want to keep the development agencies. That is why business is telling the Tories, "You'd better keep the regional development agencies." My dispute was about the fact that they are saying that RDAs would cost more. The
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 880
 
administration that will be set up after the referendum will cost the people of the north-east £12 million less than at present, there will be 600 fewer councillors and there will be 10 fewer councils—more efficient, more effective and the people making their own decisions. That is why I am convinced they will vote yes.

---