Hansard

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.