Chamber
Plenary, 18 Nov 2004
18 Nov 2004 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Fire (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I thank the minister for his clarification of many points and for the tenor and tone of his speech. The fire service has served Scotland and her communities well over years past and present. I refer not only to the front-line firefighters, but to the backroom staff, because the success of the service is the sum of its parts. Disputes with management, Executive and Government have not deflected them from providing an excellent emergency service to one and all. They have changed with the times and adapted to new requirements. From an increased work load in vehicular accidents to a more varied work load involving chemicals, the nature and extent of the calls on their service have changed and increased, but, without fail, the fire service has addressed the safety of individuals and the security of communities.
The main purpose of the bill, as detailed in the policy memorandum, is ostensibly
"to deliver a modernised Fire and Rescue Service that responds to the particular demands of the 21st Century and contributes to building a ‘Safer Scotland'."
It is clear that times have changed and that the society in which we live has evolved, but, to its credit, so has the fire service that has served us well throughout the years. There is an adage that the minister and the Executive might care to bear in mind: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Reference is made to the need for national resilience. That can be viewed as weasel words. We need to adapt to changing times, but, although it is essential that we address the problems of global terrorism, that requirement must not be used to deliver Executive-desired change under the guise of the defence of freedom when, ofttimes, that is not the case. Our emergency services have coped admirably with incidents as major and varied as those at Lockerbie and Piper Alpha. Of course they need to prepare for other atrocities and tragedies, but that must not be an excuse to railroad through unwanted changes without proper discussion and debate.
The first policy objective of the bill is
"to define the role of the modern Fire and Rescue Service",
but that is an evolving concept. If the role has changed and adapted since the 1940s and 1950s, will it not, as the minister said, do likewise in the 21st century? If the service coped back then, why should it not cope with future developments?
The second objective is to ensure that the fire and rescue service has clearer national and local priorities and objectives. Who could disagree with that sentiment? However, if that is the case, why are we seeking to undermine the statutory basis that enables priorities and objectives to be discussed and debated rather than simply to be set according to the whim and fancy of a minister—I do not mean to imply anything about the current minister; I am thinking of some future minister—and to be the subject of diktat?
The third objective is to improve the protection offered to communities. We agree with that aim. However, in what way is it an improvement to reduce the input of communities and potentially to centralise the service? That proposal causes concern to members from all parties, not just the Opposition parties.
The fourth objective is to revise fire safety legislation. Clearly, there is unanimity on that and we support the Executive in that regard. Preventing fires from starting in the first place is as important a role and remit as putting them out. Ensuring that actions and steps are taken by responsible parties is part of that work.
We accept that, in a democracy, it is the right of the Executive to legislate. However, it remains the duty of the Opposition to challenge the intentions and the fine print of legislation. We are only at stage 1—and, of course, we have the benefit of being able to see a published bill—but I appreciate the fact that the minister has today further clarified matters, particularly with regard to the use of the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure for statutory instruments. However, even with the affirmative procedure, the difficulty is that we are left in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. We will find that, although the instrument contains points that are valid and welcome, the Parliament will be able only to say no to the entire instrument; we will not be able to delete particular parts. That is the difficulty that we have with the minister's concession, welcome though it is.
We cannot prevent the Executive from using its majority to force through its will. However, we can ensure that errors are pointed out and mistakes and pitfalls are avoided. Clearly, many provisions in the bill are perfectly acceptable, not only to the committee but to the Fire Brigades Union. Whether the implementation of such beneficial proposals required a bill to be drafted is open to debate, but the Executive has chosen to deal with the issues in that fashion. However, we are opposed to particular provisions, which we are flagging up at this juncture. We hope that the Executive will reflect on our concerns and ensure that the gains provided are not offset by losses.
We have three main areas of concern. The first is the proposed abolition of the Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is a statutory body that has worked well—it has adapted to changed times and has delivered to meet them. Replacing the council with a non-statutory body undermines the ethos of the organisation. The body might need to be improved and adapted and we can change its name and even some of its structures—the need for such changes is open to debate, as even the FBU accepts. What is not acceptable and what we will challenge is the decision to move the body to a non-statutory basis, which undermines not just its integrity, but its authority.
Secondly, we are concerned about the fact that, in conjunction with making the SCFBAC a non-statutory body, the bill will enhance ministerial powers. Ministers are entitled to govern; we accept that that is part of living in a democracy. However, in areas such as the one that we are discussing, in which we have operated as a community and with co-operation between all partners, action must not be taken by ministerial fiat or Executive whim. Certainly, no minister should be able to bind his successors. That is our fundamental difficulty with the direction in which the Executive is moving.
The main purpose of the bill, as detailed in the policy memorandum, is ostensibly
"to deliver a modernised Fire and Rescue Service that responds to the particular demands of the 21st Century and contributes to building a ‘Safer Scotland'."
It is clear that times have changed and that the society in which we live has evolved, but, to its credit, so has the fire service that has served us well throughout the years. There is an adage that the minister and the Executive might care to bear in mind: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Reference is made to the need for national resilience. That can be viewed as weasel words. We need to adapt to changing times, but, although it is essential that we address the problems of global terrorism, that requirement must not be used to deliver Executive-desired change under the guise of the defence of freedom when, ofttimes, that is not the case. Our emergency services have coped admirably with incidents as major and varied as those at Lockerbie and Piper Alpha. Of course they need to prepare for other atrocities and tragedies, but that must not be an excuse to railroad through unwanted changes without proper discussion and debate.
The first policy objective of the bill is
"to define the role of the modern Fire and Rescue Service",
but that is an evolving concept. If the role has changed and adapted since the 1940s and 1950s, will it not, as the minister said, do likewise in the 21st century? If the service coped back then, why should it not cope with future developments?
The second objective is to ensure that the fire and rescue service has clearer national and local priorities and objectives. Who could disagree with that sentiment? However, if that is the case, why are we seeking to undermine the statutory basis that enables priorities and objectives to be discussed and debated rather than simply to be set according to the whim and fancy of a minister—I do not mean to imply anything about the current minister; I am thinking of some future minister—and to be the subject of diktat?
The third objective is to improve the protection offered to communities. We agree with that aim. However, in what way is it an improvement to reduce the input of communities and potentially to centralise the service? That proposal causes concern to members from all parties, not just the Opposition parties.
The fourth objective is to revise fire safety legislation. Clearly, there is unanimity on that and we support the Executive in that regard. Preventing fires from starting in the first place is as important a role and remit as putting them out. Ensuring that actions and steps are taken by responsible parties is part of that work.
We accept that, in a democracy, it is the right of the Executive to legislate. However, it remains the duty of the Opposition to challenge the intentions and the fine print of legislation. We are only at stage 1—and, of course, we have the benefit of being able to see a published bill—but I appreciate the fact that the minister has today further clarified matters, particularly with regard to the use of the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure for statutory instruments. However, even with the affirmative procedure, the difficulty is that we are left in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. We will find that, although the instrument contains points that are valid and welcome, the Parliament will be able only to say no to the entire instrument; we will not be able to delete particular parts. That is the difficulty that we have with the minister's concession, welcome though it is.
We cannot prevent the Executive from using its majority to force through its will. However, we can ensure that errors are pointed out and mistakes and pitfalls are avoided. Clearly, many provisions in the bill are perfectly acceptable, not only to the committee but to the Fire Brigades Union. Whether the implementation of such beneficial proposals required a bill to be drafted is open to debate, but the Executive has chosen to deal with the issues in that fashion. However, we are opposed to particular provisions, which we are flagging up at this juncture. We hope that the Executive will reflect on our concerns and ensure that the gains provided are not offset by losses.
We have three main areas of concern. The first is the proposed abolition of the Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is a statutory body that has worked well—it has adapted to changed times and has delivered to meet them. Replacing the council with a non-statutory body undermines the ethos of the organisation. The body might need to be improved and adapted and we can change its name and even some of its structures—the need for such changes is open to debate, as even the FBU accepts. What is not acceptable and what we will challenge is the decision to move the body to a non-statutory basis, which undermines not just its integrity, but its authority.
Secondly, we are concerned about the fact that, in conjunction with making the SCFBAC a non-statutory body, the bill will enhance ministerial powers. Ministers are entitled to govern; we accept that that is part of living in a democracy. However, in areas such as the one that we are discussing, in which we have operated as a community and with co-operation between all partners, action must not be taken by ministerial fiat or Executive whim. Certainly, no minister should be able to bind his successors. That is our fundamental difficulty with the direction in which the Executive is moving.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1960, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the general principles of the Fire (Scotland) Bi...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Hugh Henry):
Lab
I am delighted to open the debate on the general principles of the Fire (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Executive. Our partnership agreement gave a commitme...
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):
SNP
Some of members' unease might be to do with the possibility of that power being used to reduce the number of fire control rooms around Scotland, a proposal t...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I will deal with the issue of fire control rooms in a minute; if I may, I will stick to amalgamation.The power to amalgamate fire authorities has existed sin...
Mr Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Does the minister understand that the unease that is shared by members of different parties and by many people outside the Parliament concerns the fact that ...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
There is no intention to rule by diktat. Any action that the Executive took on any such issues would follow thorough consultation and full discussion. We hav...
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
Lab
There has been a great deal of interest in, and some controversy about, the discussion on the future number of control rooms. I accept some of the assurances...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I would be happy to do that. It is my intention that, after we have reflected on the comments that have been made and done further work on the calculations, ...
Shona Robison (Dundee East) (SNP):
SNP
The minister mentioned that 23 of the 32 local authorities came down on the side of having three control rooms. The question that Mott MacDonald asked was wh...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
No, I do not, because a number of the responses argued for the status quo. The issue now is whether we are prepared to do further work and give the matter fu...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the minister for his clarification of many points and for the tenor and tone of his speech. The fire service has served Scotland and her communities ...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I hope that Mr MacAskill recognises that, as I explained to the committee, only one of the powers that he refers to—that of emergency direction—is exercisabl...
Mr MacAskill:
SNP
I accept that and welcome the tenor of the minister's words. However, the devil is in the detail and we must ask further questions about the use of ministeri...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
Kenny MacAskill has indicated that others in his party will comment on the issue of fire control rooms at some length, but I must point out that the bill is ...
Mr MacAskill:
SNP
The minister's words are factually correct, but many members of the public and many members in this chamber—not just those in my party—are concerned about th...
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members, the clerks to the Justice 2 Committee and the witnesses who gave evidence during the stage 1 pr...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I am baffled and would welcome further discussion with Annabel Goldie about exactly how the situation would change. The power has existed since 1947. All we ...
Miss Goldie:
Con
That is the nub of the disagreement between us. My reading of the bill is that it will provide for a ministerial power that could be instigated by the minist...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
I, too, welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on the stage 1 report on the Fire (Scotland) Bill.A considerable amount of evidence was given to ...
Miss Goldie:
Con
If that is the member's understanding of the situation, will he confirm that that is what section 2(1) says?
Mike Pringle:
LD
That is my interpretation of it. There was considerable discussion of the matter in the committee, and we must take a view. That is my view of the bill as it...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
The fire and rescue services—especially the local brigades—are held in high regard by the people of Scotland. The area that I represent has only one full-tim...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
Maureen Macmillan's point relates to an issue that was also raised by Kenny MacAskill. Section 45 clearly states that any negotiating body should include rep...
Maureen Macmillan:
Lab
I am glad of that assurance, as I hope others will be.The Mott MacDonald report has, as the minister knows, caused anxiety in most brigade areas. I ask the m...
Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I know that my colleagues will elaborate on this point, but listening to what the minister had to say about the reduction in the number of control rooms, I s...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
Will the member tell us how many local authorities are represented by those three brigades?
Ms White:
SNP
I was just about to say that the three fire brigades or authorities that indicated that three control rooms would be their preferred option represent 23 loca...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
Two years ago today, the first national fire strike in 25 years began. I was on the picket line at Liberton fire station in Edinburgh. Little did I realise t...
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
Lab
As a new member of the Justice 2 Committee, I did not have the opportunity to take part in any of the evidence sessions, but I nevertheless welcome the oppor...
Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I heard what the member said about having a single control room, but what is his view on the prospect of having three control rooms?