Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 10 Sep 2009

10 Sep 2009 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Fire and Rescue Framework

Butler, Bill Lab Glasgow Anniesland Watch on SPTV

I express my sincere condolences to the family of Ewan Williamson for their grievous loss. I also state my admiration for the bravery of my fellow trade unionists in the fire service.

Some members will recall that, when we passed the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 on 23 February 2005, there was general agreement that the then current legislation required to be updated to mirror the breadth of the role of the modern fire service's multifarious functions and to deliver a clear framework of responsibility for fire safety. No political party that is still represented in the Parliament dissented from that, which was right. Indeed, the previous Executive should be given credit for its recognition that the extant legislation of 1947 did not and could not possibly take proper account of the evolution of the fire service over more than half a century.

Section 40 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 placed a duty on ministers to produce a fire and rescue framework for Scotland. It is four years since the first fire framework document was produced; now seems to be an opportune time to revise it where necessary in the light of experience of its operation. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward a draft framework for consultation.

Given that few subjects are more serious than the safety of our constituents and the firefighters who are entrusted with that task, I welcome the opportunity to speak about a number of matters that seem to me to need revision. We need to ensure that the fire and rescue framework, which is key to the delivery of public safety, is regularly updated in order to maintain its effectiveness.

I will focus on governance and structures. In its comprehensive briefing, the FBU contends that governance and structures are the central issue in improving the existing framework. I tend to agree. The main purpose of the former statutory body, the Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, was to establish common standards that would ensure that all fire services in Scotland would take a consistent approach. That was a sensible and necessary prerequisite for the maintenance of public safety. However, as a result of the 2005 act, that statutory body was abolished and replaced by an informal structure. The result was a loss of common standards and of the consistent approach that is essential to delivery of a coherent and resilient fire and rescue service.

No one is arguing that there should not be flexibility that will allow each fire and rescue service to meet special challenges in its area—Grangemouth springs to mind in that regard. However, as the FBU has said, that necessary flexibility needs

"to be within a set of national parameters that ensures the essential consistency throughout the country."

The problem is that a gap has, with the abolition of the previous statutory body, become evident in the structure. That gap needs to be filled.

The ministerial advisory unit has become the central body, but the experience of those at the front line is that there is an inherent conflict, the genesis of which lies in the terms of the concordat that was agreed between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The commitment by ministers not to micromanage public services does not sit well with the 2005 act's requirement that the minister produce a framework document that gives direction to fire and rescue authorities. In the union's view, that has led to

"a fragmentation of service delivery across the 8 FRAs which compromises national resilience".

I hope that all colleagues agree that that is a worrying and wholly unacceptable development. The Government must take action to meet firefighters' profound concerns about that aspect of how the 2005 framework has evolved.

The FBU is correct to argue that, although it is helpful, chapter 1 of the draft framework, which details the roles and responsibilities of partners and stakeholders, needs to be set

"within the context of a recognised, workable and agreed central structure."

We cannot allow the situation to continue in which eight fire and rescue authorities take eight different approaches. That can cause, and has caused, severe and unnecessary difficulties in respect of cross-border assistance and co-ordination at major incidents. Potentially, it could lead to an unacceptable inconsistency of approach in the development of integrated risk management planning.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 10 Sep 2009

In the same item of business