Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
There are no amendments for stage 3, so this stage consists only of a debate on motion S1M-2379, in the name of Jim Wallace, that the Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill is a small but almost perfect piece of legislation. It is sensible and pragmatic and has benefited from some useful discussion at stage 1. Compromise from the generous Executive has moved us towards the position where we can all agree. At this last moment, I hesitate to rob the bill of its final virtue, which is brevity. I commend the bill to members.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill is a small but beautifully formed bill. I congratulate ministers on listening to the good sense of the members of the Local Government Committee, whose suggestions have contributed enormously to the bill. Like Iain Gray, I think that we have perhaps had a bit too much heat in the chamber this afternoon, so I shall sit down. However, let me first congratulate ministers on the bill and thank everyone else who has put so much work into it.
As at stage 2, it is difficult to think of anything to add to what Tricia Marwick has said. I welcome the fact that ministers took on board the reservations that we expressed at stage 1. I believe that the bill has been strengthened as a direct result of the hard work that was put in by the Local Government Committee.
This debate is very much like the Oscars ceremony. As I said at stage 2, I welcome the fact that ministers have agreed to amend the bill. The provisions are sensible and will allow the police and fire services to plan ahead and move into the sensible financial planning system that, thanks to three-year funding, is already available to local authorities. I welcome the amended bill. I thank the clerks and those involved in preparing the bill and the amendments.
The bill must be unique, in that the marshalled list at stage 2 was almost as long as the bill itself. That is because the amendments that have been agreed to will substitute most of what was in the bill. A much better version of the bill will now be available.
We move to the open debate. I call the convener of the Local Government Committee.
I do not know what it is that the Local Government Committee does but, whatever it is, it does it really well, because we always get what we want. I know that everyone has been brief but, having written a speech, I will read it. However, it is not the 90-minute speech that I promised the Deputy Minister for Finance and Local Government.
Last Tuesday, a fair-minded, sensitive and eloquent newspaper journalist criticised us for our failure to tackle the big issues, stating that we are obsessed by trivial matters. As convener of the Local Government Committee, I am proud of how members of that committee dealt with what I believe is an important bill about the management of our emergency services. That journalist may not think that those services are important, but I do.
I am pleased that the ministers have had the good sense to alter and improve the bill after reading the committee's recommendations. However, I emphasise that the recommendations that were made to the minister—most of which have been accepted—emerged from evidence that was given to us by representatives of the two services and other expert witnesses. As Tricia Marwick said at stage 2, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities still has reservations about the bill. That is no surprise. In some ways, that is COSLA's role. COSLA is unhappy about the limits that are applied to underspends and overspends because those limits do not apply to councils.
By and large, I think that the ministers and the committee have now got the bill right. Given COSLA's position, however, I ask the minister to consider reviewing the bill after two years. The Parliament has no system for such a review. Indeed, the Parliament has no system for reviewing any of the bills that we pass. For me, that is a matter of concern. We take time to engage in consultation before passing a bill, so we need to consider seriously whether we can develop a system by which we can check that the legislation is working.
The bill will enable police and fire service boards to enhance their operational management. It will also encourage good financial management, which should allow chief constables and chief fire officers to increase efficiency and morale. There is a clear need to provide a system that allows greater autonomy, flexibility and forward planning in the work of those important services in protecting the communities that they serve. Good financial management is the keystone to first-rate operational management. The two go together.
I have said in the chamber before, and I have no qualms about saying again, that we should extend the principle of subsidiarity to councils and to boards such as those of the police and fire services. Local decisions should improve services. Perhaps they could also reawaken communities to trust the political process and—dare I say it?—politicians.
When we talk of police and fire services, we talk of services whose personnel face real dangers in protecting the public. Those of us who are old enough to remember have never forgotten the brave firemen who lost their lives in the whisky bond fire in Glasgow some years ago. The monstrous events of 11 September showed graphically how much we owe to the personnel of the emergency services. Whether there has been a traffic accident or a house fire, we can trust the police and fire services to turn up. Let us hope that they are never privatised.
I turn now to the issue of pensions—a thorny problem that cannot be ducked. All the members of Local Government Committee, across the parties, are at one on the issue. The problem must be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for the members of the police and fire services and their families. They deserve no less. The matter is outwith the scope of the bill but, in highlighting the problem, MSPs are giving ministers an indication—indeed a warning—that they should not sidestep the issue. The Local Government Committee will keep its eye on ministers' deliberations with our colleagues in Westminster.
In conclusion, I thank the members of the Local Government Committee, the committee's staff and the official report for their positive and sustained commitment to improving the bill. I happily give them a vote of thanks. I also thank the minister and his officials for the sensible and responsible way in which they acted on our concerns and recommendations.
We also thank the police and fire boards—we hope that they think that MSPs have responded in a fair-minded and supportive manner to the concerns that they brought to us. The bill is important for the men and women who protect us through our emergency services. It is not, as a journalist would have it last Tuesday, an obsessive concentration on a trivial matter.
As all speakers have said, the contents and purpose of the bill are well-known. The bill is short but important and this has been a short but important debate as part of the process of getting the bill through Parliament and, I hope, approved today.
Trish Godman raised two points that I will answer. Will we keep the provisions of the bill under review? The answer is yes. The bill contains powers to allow matters to be reviewed if we find that the provisions are not working for any reason. We will keep the provisions under review.
I responded to the point about pensions during the stage 1 debate. We are acutely conscious of the matter and we know that the Home Office is keeping it under review. We will have an input into the review process.
I thank the committee and all those associated with promoting the bill, which I commend to Parliament.