Hansard

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 opportunity to make a number of general observations about the stage 1 report on the bill.

The committee found that a general welcome had been extended to the principal objective of the bill: the delivery of modernised fire and rescue services that respond to the particular demands of 21st century Scotland. There was general agreement that the current legislation required to be updated to mirror the breadth of the role of the modern fire service, which now has multifarious functions, and to deliver a clear framework of responsibility for fire safety. The Executive should be given credit for recognising that the current legislation that governs the fire service, which dates back to 1947, does not and cannot possibly take proper account of the evolution of the fire service over more than half a century.

Of course, the primary purpose of the fire service is still to tackle fires, but the bill seeks to reflect properly the variety of roles that the fire service now carries out, in particular fire prevention, attending road traffic accidents and undertaking other rescue work.

The FBU's submission to the Justice 2 Committee welcomes

"The inclusion in Sections 7 & 9 of Fire Safety Duties and Road Traffic Accidents as a Statutory Obligation".

The FBU is correct in its assertion that

"These functions have been carried out for many years by Firefighters and it is right & proper that they are finally acknowledged and enshrined in statute."

The inclusion of road traffic accidents as a statutory obligation is a welcome recognition that the number of calls to assist with the rescue of people from wreckage and to protect people from harm from the spillage of hazardous substances has increased dramatically. It is right and fitting that a relevant authority will now be statutorily obliged to make provision for rescuing persons from road traffic accidents and for dealing with the aftermath of such accidents.

Despite the general welcome afforded to the policy intentions of the bill, especially the commonsense reforms to which I have referred, specific concerns have been expressed. Some witnesses also expressed broad concerns about the overall approach taken in the bill. I will touch on a few of those concerns.

First, the balance between central, strategic direction and local accountability, the extent of ministerial powers and the clarity of the provisions on fire service governance were questioned. Among other things, the CFOA wants to see in statute a direct line of reporting responsibility from the firemaster to the fire authority, as pertains in the Fire Services Act 1947. The FBU, along with COSLA, has expressed concern that the proposed legislation does not set out explicitly enough the local democratic and operational control that is seen, rightly, as being central to an effective fire service.

Those are crucial concerns, and I was glad to see that the minister, when attempting to reassure the committee, stressed that

"the fire and rescue service will remain a local government service and that its day-to-day operation and management will take place at local level."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 28 September 2004; c 1057.]

I also note that he was confident that the firemaster's role could be made clear through either contractual arrangements or a fire board's standing orders, given that the board is the accountable body for the fire service. I was pleased that the minister offered further clarification this morning and reiterated his assurances on those matters, in particular on the CFOA's position. That is to be welcomed.

Many members have spoken about the number of control rooms, which is perhaps one of the more contentious issues and has generated a great deal of interest, not to say controversy. Although the proposal does not require legislation, it appears to be seen by some as an important part of the modernisation programme. Many witnesses, though not all, did not accept that a case for change had been made. A concern expressed by the CFOA, for example, was that the consultant's report is flawed in that it overstates the scope for savings. Other concerns centred on resilience and the potential loss of local knowledge.

I know that the Executive has not yet reached a conclusion, and I note that the minister has reiterated that there will be further consultation with all interested parties before a final decision is made. That is very welcome. I hope that the minister will take careful note of the committee's view that a single control room would be absolutely "undesirable", to quote the report.