Chamber
Plenary, 18 Nov 2004
18 Nov 2004 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Fire (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
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 process. The committee has played a useful scrutiny role and, from the minister's comments, I think that he has understood that there is no acrimony around the bill and that there has been a genuine attempt to be constructive. However, as Mr MacAskill said, we have an obligation to test and probe when there is legitimate doubt about the Executive's ultimate intentions.
The Fire (Scotland) Bill is an important piece of legislation. Our fire service is professional and dedicated and I know that I am not alone in the chamber in being in a position to say that I have had occasion to rely on that professionalism and dedication. I pay tribute to the men and women throughout Scotland who demonstrate those qualities day in and day out.
In 2004, it is fitting that we should review the legislative framework as, in effect, that was last done in 1947. Since then, times have changed. We are in a different environment and there are new duties, challenges and threats, not the least of which is the unwelcome emergence of global terrorism. The Parliament owes it to the men and women of the Scottish fire service to scrutinise the bill carefully. We also owe it to the Scottish people to ensure that the legislation is clear and sufficient to meet the complexities of today's world.
Much of the new strategy and framework will be set out in the national framework document. Although my committee has seen a draft of that paper, it is private and consultation is to follow. It might have been more satisfactory if the production of the document had been accelerated so that the committee could have fully considered the framework at stage 1. Similarly, the bill depends heavily on secondary legislation and further consultations in relation to control rooms, the firelink project, integrated risk management plans, fire safety regulations, charging and the new advisory structure. Therefore, it is difficult to get a comprehensive or complete view of what the legislation will be like in practice. I simply ask whether that is fair to everyone who will be affected by it. Perhaps it is not. The lesson is that if what has been proposed is worth doing—and it is—more detail at the drafting stage and less haste might be beneficial.
Before I deal with my amendment, I will acknowledge what is positive in the bill. Part 1 contains a clear restatement of the structure of the fire and rescue service, which is clarifying and helpful, and part 2 gives a helpful redefinition of the principal functions of the service. The Executive's intention to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to include offshore firefighting is sensible and welcome. Nowadays, the provisions for emergency direction are—unhappily—necessary and the minister has sought to reassure the committee that they are last-resort powers. We accept that reassurance. The consolidation of fire safety legislation in part 3 is certainly complex and technical, but it is also welcome, as it represents a helpful attempt to codify the law and to achieve a degree of consistency throughout the United Kingdom. I would certainly underline the committee's caveats on aspects of all those provisions, but I welcome the minister's comments on chief fire officers and senior fire officers, for example.
As for my amendment, I supported the general principles of the bill in committee for the reasons to which I have referred, but I revert to the issue of clarity. The bill will be a powerful and influential measure. That is particularly demonstrated by the creation of a range of ministerial powers. In his evidence, the minister sought to reassure the committee that the exercise of those powers would be highly unusual. I do not impugn his integrity or doubt the sincerity of his remarks—indeed, he repeated them this morning—but I believe that legislation must stand clearly on its own merits.
Let me deal first with the powers that are contained in part 1, in particular the ministerial power to amalgamate fire boards. By any construction, that is a potentially centralising measure, the possible consequence of which could be to reduce the number of boards and brigades. Whatever the nuances in debates about the current situation and what is being proposed, the bill will change existing law. That the pendulum should swing in favour of the Executive is causing unease in Opposition parties.
The Fire (Scotland) Bill is an important piece of legislation. Our fire service is professional and dedicated and I know that I am not alone in the chamber in being in a position to say that I have had occasion to rely on that professionalism and dedication. I pay tribute to the men and women throughout Scotland who demonstrate those qualities day in and day out.
In 2004, it is fitting that we should review the legislative framework as, in effect, that was last done in 1947. Since then, times have changed. We are in a different environment and there are new duties, challenges and threats, not the least of which is the unwelcome emergence of global terrorism. The Parliament owes it to the men and women of the Scottish fire service to scrutinise the bill carefully. We also owe it to the Scottish people to ensure that the legislation is clear and sufficient to meet the complexities of today's world.
Much of the new strategy and framework will be set out in the national framework document. Although my committee has seen a draft of that paper, it is private and consultation is to follow. It might have been more satisfactory if the production of the document had been accelerated so that the committee could have fully considered the framework at stage 1. Similarly, the bill depends heavily on secondary legislation and further consultations in relation to control rooms, the firelink project, integrated risk management plans, fire safety regulations, charging and the new advisory structure. Therefore, it is difficult to get a comprehensive or complete view of what the legislation will be like in practice. I simply ask whether that is fair to everyone who will be affected by it. Perhaps it is not. The lesson is that if what has been proposed is worth doing—and it is—more detail at the drafting stage and less haste might be beneficial.
Before I deal with my amendment, I will acknowledge what is positive in the bill. Part 1 contains a clear restatement of the structure of the fire and rescue service, which is clarifying and helpful, and part 2 gives a helpful redefinition of the principal functions of the service. The Executive's intention to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to include offshore firefighting is sensible and welcome. Nowadays, the provisions for emergency direction are—unhappily—necessary and the minister has sought to reassure the committee that they are last-resort powers. We accept that reassurance. The consolidation of fire safety legislation in part 3 is certainly complex and technical, but it is also welcome, as it represents a helpful attempt to codify the law and to achieve a degree of consistency throughout the United Kingdom. I would certainly underline the committee's caveats on aspects of all those provisions, but I welcome the minister's comments on chief fire officers and senior fire officers, for example.
As for my amendment, I supported the general principles of the bill in committee for the reasons to which I have referred, but I revert to the issue of clarity. The bill will be a powerful and influential measure. That is particularly demonstrated by the creation of a range of ministerial powers. In his evidence, the minister sought to reassure the committee that the exercise of those powers would be highly unusual. I do not impugn his integrity or doubt the sincerity of his remarks—indeed, he repeated them this morning—but I believe that legislation must stand clearly on its own merits.
Let me deal first with the powers that are contained in part 1, in particular the ministerial power to amalgamate fire boards. By any construction, that is a potentially centralising measure, the possible consequence of which could be to reduce the number of boards and brigades. Whatever the nuances in debates about the current situation and what is being proposed, the bill will change existing law. That the pendulum should swing in favour of the Executive is causing unease in Opposition parties.
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?