Auxiliary Fire Units (Highlands)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-291, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on auxiliary fire units in the Highlands. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that auxiliary fire units play a vital role in many rural communities in fighting fires and do so in conjunction with the retained fire brigades; notes with concern that, following a report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire Services (HMI), 32 auxiliary units face possible closure; further notes that the new approach of integrated risk assessment should permit the preservation of as many as possible of these auxiliary units; considers that the Scottish Executive should explicitly endorse the need for such units and acknowledge the essential role that they play in protecting human life and property; believes that, if the recommendations of the HMI report are not carefully considered and auxiliary units are forced to close because of the proposed introduction of compulsory access to breathing apparatus within a short timescale, then human life and property may be placed at risk; believes that all involved, including Highland Council, the Firemaster, HMI and the Health and Safety Executive, should continue to discuss the implications of the HMI report in the context of integrated risk assessment and find an outcome that prevents the closure of so many of the auxiliary units.
Last October, Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate for Scotland reported on Highlands and Islands fire brigade. That report recognised the excellent work that has been done by firefighters throughout the area, which is about the size of Belgium, covers 40 per cent of the land mass of Scotland and one sixth of the area of the whole of Britain.
There are three types of firefighters: full-time professionals, retained firefighters and auxiliary firefighters. I understand that there are about 150 full-time firefighters and no fewer than 1,400 retained or auxiliary firefighters in the Highlands and Islands. There are presently about 128 fire units in the Highlands and Islands, which covers the four council areas of Highland, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland.
Auxiliaries work mostly from small communities such as Ardgour, Carrbridge, Eriskay, Glenborrodale, Knoydart, Nethy Bridge, Hamnavoe and Kyleakin. They are all volunteers who have other jobs and responsibilities—they are not in it for the money. Their pay is restricted to the work that they do and the time that they spend in training. The volunteer ethos of the people of rural Scotland is something that we should cherish.
The Highland brigade said to the Scottish Executive more than a year ago that auxiliaries should be upgraded to retained status. While that would obviously impact on other areas in Scotland, I would like the minister to tell us what his answer is to that request. That measure would go a long way towards mitigating the difficulties and financial constraints that are faced.
The inspectorate report considered the role of auxiliaries. It divided the units into two groups: the 95 strategic emergency cover locations that are to be kept; and the 32 stations that are said to be under further scrutiny, which has been widely interpreted as meaning that they are possibly for the chop.
What role do auxiliaries play? They ensure that in rural and remote parts of Scotland, there is a professional group of men and women who are trained to a high standard and who can attend and tackle certain types of fires. They are not permitted to tackle fires that occur indoors, but they tackle forest fires, muirburn and road-traffic incidents. They are an integral part of their communities but attend other communities when requested to do so.
The number of incidents that they have attended has increased in recent years; this summer has seen some of the most ferocious forest and moor fires ever, such as those in Glenborrodale, Knoydart, Lochindorb, and Strathspey. Some fires raged for days and were tackled not only by auxiliaries but by estate workers and visitors.
I have written to a number of individuals and groups to canvass their views, including the Badenoch and Strathspey fire protection group, various estates, Scottish Environment LINK, forestry interests and the interim convener of the Cairngorms national park. I add that my Westminster counterpart, David Stewart, has also canvassed opinion. The responses that he and I have received have, but for one, been wholly supportive of the role that auxiliaries play.
I will read a few of the comments. Jamie Williamson, of the Badenoch and Strathspey fire protection group, said that more than £1 million-worth of damage was caused to a moor in the Lochindorb area and that
"the knowledge that auxiliaries have of a local area can be vital—and unique. There is no way that such a wealth of knowledge can be had by wholetime officers covering such a huge area."
An auxiliary firefighter wrote:
"in responding to a fire, every minute can be vital to save life or limit the damage to property and we are often first on the scene"
Another auxiliary wrote:
"I attended a fatal road accident and helped shield a child from the sight of her parents who were fatally injured trapped in their car."
What auxiliaries do is not always appreciated, even by the inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive. Their role is much wider than we might expect when we think about the matter in conventional terms.
A trade association that represents the forestry industry has argued that Government policy to encourage reductions in grazing on hill farms through having fewer sheep, cattle and deer might be contributing to the ferocity of fires because fire spreads more quickly and burns with more intense heat on ground that has not been grazed.
It was disappointing that the response from Scottish Natural Heritage said that it could not lend its explicit and whole-hearted support to the issue. Its response, however, contrasted with the excellent response from Councillor Stuart Black, a member of the Cairngorms national park board, who said:
"There is not much point in encouraging regeneration of moorland and the Caledonian Pine forest if it's all going to go up in flames."
Why are the men and women who help to provide a fire service in the north of Scotland now under threat? That the inspectorate report fails to give specific reasons is unacceptable. In each case, the reasons why each particular unit should not continue must be spelled out.
The crux of the issue relates to the provision of breathing apparatus. That is what is driving the report and is what has been focused on by the Health and Safety Executive. Some people argue that the capital costs of £400,000 for building a new model station are necessary, but I do not share that view. A solution can be found; not a Rolls-Royce solution, but a practical and commonsense solution that takes account of local needs and provides access to breathing apparatus, perhaps in the nearest retained unit. We do not need a Rolls-Royce—a family saloon would do just fine.
Breathing apparatus is essential for fighting fires indoors, but not always—usually not—outdoors. One auxiliary, Rod Coltart, has said that, 99 times out of 100, his unit does not need breathing apparatus. It attends 18 incidents a year. Therefore, only once in five years might the unit be in a situation where BA is required. Surely we are not going to threaten 32 auxiliary fire services in the most remote areas of Scotland because of a one-in-100 risk, especially bearing it in mind that auxiliaries are legally prohibited from fighting fires indoors. The argument against their doing do is that those who fight fires do so from an heroic impulse—the desire to save lives—and would put their own lives at risk by entering a building, even though they were breaking the rules. That has happened on at least one occasion, but if that is the Executive's view—it is a legalistic view—surely such people would do exactly the same thing even if they were no longer working as auxiliaries. They do it because they are human beings, not because they happen to be officially called auxiliary firefighters.
I see that I am getting the eye from the Presiding Officer.
You are getting it all the time.
I will therefore move swiftly on and cut out vast thickets of prose that I had composed earlier.
It is spontaneous combustion.
My speeches are never inflammatory, as Mr Monteith knows.
The purpose of the debate is to win cross-party support for the auxiliaries, many of whom have come to Parliament this evening, as have the local fire-master and Councillor Drew Slack of the Highlands and Islands fire board. I welcome that and I hope that all the parties can give support. I welcome the support of 32 members from the Conservatives, the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Greens. I am sorry that the Labour and Liberal Democrat members have not signed my motion, but I look forward with interest to hearing why that is the case. I hope that they will lend support to the motion this evening.
I apologise to Fergus Ewing for not signing his motion. I dithered about whether to lodge an amendment that mentioned the dangers of forest fires and muirburn. I am afraid that I took so long to make up my mind whether to do that that the motion came up for debate before I had got round to signing it. However, I support what he says and welcome the debate on auxiliary fire units in the Highlands.
Members made good speeches in the earlier Executive debate. I wanted to speak about the auxiliary fire service in that debate to mainstream it within the proposed legislation.
I will not go over everything that Fergus Ewing has said. Instead, I will concentrate on what has been missed out of the Executive's proposals, which is the role of the auxiliary fire service—and, indeed, of the retained and full-time fire service—in the Highlands in dealing with environmental fires, such as forest fires and muirburn. It seems that such fires are on the increase, but I do not think that that has been taken into consideration. The Macaulay Institute has pointed out that the likely reasons for the greater incidence of fire are the changes in land use and management practices and the fact that fewer people are working on the estates, which means that it is easier for muirburn to get out of control. It is therefore crucial that the auxiliary fire services be there to lend a hand when disaster threatens.
The changes in burning management over the past two decades have been well documented. SNH has carried out research work on that. The results of that research should perhaps be looked into with regard to fire prevention. There is a predicted increase in the level of access to the countryside, which will inevitably lead to people starting fires through carelessness. As I said during the debate earlier today, the Forestry and Timber Association supports the retention of auxiliary fire units because when a large wildfire develops in a rugged and remote area, it is often impossible or too dangerous for a unit to use its vehicles, even specialised all-terrain vehicles—ATVs. The only tools that are left are therefore helicopters and people using traditional fire beaters. Often, helicopters are not available, so the auxiliary units are first on the scene.
Most wildfires are caused by humans, although lightning does sometimes cause fires. Some wildfires are caused by muirburn fires escaping; some are caused by wilful and malicious fire-raising, discarded cigarettes, sparks from trains, bonfires or campfires. One possible key to prevention is, I believe, a new fire-danger rating service for the United Kingdom, which would be based on data. The Met Office is contracted by the Countryside Agency to carry out evaluation of some systems in England. Without basic research, however, any system will have problems. We need such a system to be extended to Scotland.
There are significant conservation interests in Badenoch and Strathspey, with native pine woods and substantial areas of grass and heather. There is a greater need for a robust fire-danger rating system there than there is in many other parts of the UK; I would like that need to be addressed.
The Forestry Commission's expert group on research and development is currently researching the effects of global warming on forest ecology and on timber production; further research needs to be done as soon as possible on the impact of global warming.
I have to hurry you, as you are a minute over your time.
My goodness—I have pages and pages of my speech to go. I end by urging the Executive to acknowledge the vital role of the auxiliary fire service and ensure that research is done on the possibly increasing incidence of forest and muirburn fires, so that the fire service can be matched to need.
I rise with some trepidation, as a member whose constituency is in the Highlands, but which is not served by the Highlands and Islands fire brigade—we are served by Grampian fire brigade.
The principles of the debate are important. The role of the auxiliary fire service throughout the Highlands is well known, and has been well described in the first two speeches. All of us who have stayed behind for the debate or who have signed the motion support the principle that the auxiliary fire stations should be kept open. Some of them might operate from garden sheds, but they are vital in fire protection and fire prevention, which we have been discussing all day.
The principle that is embodied in the motion is that we should recognise that volunteers in the Highlands and Islands bring with them a sense of commitment and dedication that cannot always be fully appreciated by ministers. In the debate earlier today, much reference was rightly made to the geographical diversity of Scotland. Other factors include transport and auxiliaries' local knowledge. It is often thanks to that knowledge that they are first on the scene during a crisis—they know the highways and byways of their areas and it might sometimes be difficult to relay information from a central control system to people who do not have that local knowledge. The contact of auxiliaries is therefore important in backing up the professional services, thus ensuring that the earliest possible assistance is given.
If 32 auxiliary fire units are to be closed, I have not yet heard the rationale for doing so. The argument about breathing apparatus has been propounded by various people, but Fergus Ewing, in his capacity as MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, discussed that in his opening speech. When decisions that will affect our areas are taken we, as elected members, always want logical explanations and, if necessary, justifications. I hope that we will hear those from the Deputy Minister for Justice when he winds up the debate.
I thank Fergus Ewing for giving us the opportunity to debate the fire service in the Highlands and Islands. We certainly hope that a flexible approach will be taken, so that as many of the Highlands and Islands units can be retained as possible.
As Fergus Ewing indicated, supporting safety in the local community is the byword of auxiliary fire units. No one can measure or cost the commitment of volunteers in the Highlands and the value that they add. That commitment should be recognised by the Executive, as it is by the fire service locally. It has brought us doughty campaigners, such as Bunty MacDonald from Carrbridge, who are fighting to maintain the safety of their community and its people.
Today, I spoke to a member of the Glenborrodale auxiliary crew, who confirmed that the crew was first on the scene—in 12 minutes—at an 18,000-acre fire in Ardnamurchan earlier this year. That fire lasted almost nine days. The Glenborrodale crew was not called first, but it arrived first on the scene with water and ensured that the property was safe even before the other crews arrived. In this instance, crews came from Grantown, Nairn, Inverness, Fort William, Spean Bridge, Acharacle, Strontian, Lochaline and Kilchoan. I hope that, in making the risk assessment, the minister will take into account the length of time that fires last and the fact that units are taken from hundreds of miles across the Highlands.
It is said that auxiliaries are not allowed into houses to deal with fires. However, as Fergus Ewing indicated, they can do much to put out fires from outside houses. In many areas, auxiliaries are first on the scene when a car crash takes place. They can put out the fire, secure the vehicle by ropes to prevent it from sliding or falling over, disconnect the battery to ensure that there are no sparks and make safe the road. They may not have or need breathing apparatus for that type of call-out, but they can do invaluable work at the scene to make things safe.
The same point applies to Lybster auxiliary fire unit, with 21 volunteers, and to the Carrbridge unit. Bearing in mind the huge geographical area of the Highlands and the three examples that I have given—property fires, house fires and car crashes—surely we should consider having more units such as those in Glenborrodale, Lybster and Carrbridge, rather than fewer.
I am aware that my time is limited, but I would like to make a couple of further points. We should examine how best to use in future the good will and contribution of volunteers in the 32 units that are under threat. I hope that in the risk assessment the minister will take into account what would have happened had auxiliary units not been first on the scene at fires such as the one that I mentioned.
Today, the issue of funding was raised in the crossfire between Fergus Ewing and Hugh Henry. I understand that there is a public-private partnership bid for more than £30 million to bring the 95 units up to the capital standards that are required. It would be helpful if the minister told us today whether that bid is meeting with favour.
Already there is ample evidence of cross-party and community support for auxiliary fire units in the Highlands and Islands. Equally, there is no shortage of evidence of the essential role that the units have played and continue to play in saving lives and protecting property. However, as we have heard, 32 of those units are under threat because of a lack of breathing equipment.
We contend that there is a case for pragmatism. We support the view of the convener of the Highlands and Islands fire board, Drew McFarlane Slack, who said:
"We accept and agree that breathing apparatus is both necessary and desirable for the safety of all firefighters and that upgraded units will be more effective in saving life and property".
We agree that provision of such apparatus should be made gradually, in as inexpensive a way as possible, so that auxiliary units are retrained and re-equipped to new standards.
Like Councillor MacFarlane Slack, we want the valuable blend of local auxiliary, retained and full-time firemen to continue to provide the level of service that is needed in the Highlands and Islands. That means retaining all the existing auxiliary fire units. Any closure would be a major retrograde step and would be totally unacceptable to local communities, as it would turn back the clock and result in the loss of a valuable service that would be difficult to regain. I believe that we would lose much more than local responsiveness and accident cover.
In straightforward economic and cost terms, the proposed closures could deliver financial blows, such as increases in insurance premiums, reduced cover, higher fire prevention costs, the possibility of more severe damage and the tying up of full-time firemen, so surely some flexibility is a necessity.
Fergus Ewing has eloquently made the point that HM fire service inspectorate for Scotland's report has failed to give specific reasons why each of the 32 auxiliary units on the danger list is to remain under further scrutiny. As he said, that failure and the resulting uncertainty are unacceptable.
The "small garden sheds" that the inspectorate bemoans house the equipment of competent and motivated men, who repeatedly meet training and inspection targets and frequently earn the grateful praise of local people and visitors.
I draw comfort from the fact that, when confronted with the alternative, most people can see that closure would mean throwing out the baby with the bath water and doing a real disservice to auxiliary firemen and their communities. As Fergus Ewing said, there must be cheaper practicable means of providing the auxiliaries with breathing equipment. Surely we can adopt an implementation plan that allows that to happen without necessitating closures, which would undoubtedly continue to cause genuine disquiet, put lives at risk and damage local economies.
I appeal to the Parliament to provide our auxiliaries with cross-party support for the work that they do and to put a marker down with the inspectorate and the HSE to help to develop a commonsense, affordable plan that upgrades the equipment available and protects current coverage.
According to Douglas Macdonald, an auxiliary from Carrbridge, we face four options. We can train the auxiliaries in the use of new breathing apparatus; we can train them to use breathing apparatus from their parent unit; we can retrain them for other duties; or we can close down the auxiliary units. That final option is unacceptable. We want realistic measures that allow for an ability to comply, but retain what is needed to meet local needs and expectations.
I am sure that all members will agree that we have already had a fairly extensive debate on the fire service and fire cover. It is appropriate that Fergus Ewing has secured a debate on auxiliary fire units, because that is an important issue in rural Scotland, particularly in the area that is covered by the Highlands and Islands fire brigade, which I discussed in the previous debate.
I have visited many of the rural places where the auxiliary fire units are located. As we have heard, many of those units are based in a garden shed or a Marley building of some sort. For me, the amazing thing has been that, in those remote villages, the auxiliary fire unit's shed was probably the only shed in the place whose door opened on its hinges. Members who have been to a crofting community will have seen shed doors that have a 6in nail for a hinge and are tied up with a bit of baler wire.
My experience of the auxiliary fire units occurred many years ago. I am sure that many members have driven around the Highlands in a Mini. I had a Mini Cooper S at one time; it was a flying machine and I was very proud of it. As I was going to work one morning, I went over a bump and a spanner in the back jumped up and hit the battery, which started a blaze. I had gone about half a mile down the road before I realised that I had a blaze behind me. I stopped, jumped out and grabbed as many divots as I could out of the burn to shove inside to try to get the fire out. I was beaten. What came along? At that stage, I was 65 miles from Inverness and 20 miles from Kyle of Lochalsh. The first vehicle that came along was a fire brigade Morris 1000, which was full of every fire extinguisher that one could imagine. The driver had been training the auxiliary fire unit out in Skye the night before. He jumped out of his van, the fire was out just like that and Munro was back on the road again.
I was going to mention the volunteer staff in the remote stations, who are enthusiastic and dedicated. We must try to retain that commitment. Although the equipment that they have been using is obsolete, it is appropriate—it does the job. If that were taken away, there would be nothing. A unit that is able to pump water in such places is better than nothing at all. Until the Executive finds additional resources to upgrade those remote facilities, it must at least retain them in their current form and at their current locations.
The alternative arrangements that are put in place must be acceptable to the communities that they serve. However, we have not heard much about the alternative arrangements or funding for such arrangements. If other arrangements are put in place, the existing staff must have the opportunity to develop new skills and undertake regular training to equip them in the use and application of the improved facilities. That would sustain the skills and professionalism of the staff and provide an enhanced level of fire cover in these remote and isolated situations. Simply said, the auxiliary fire units should be left alone unless the Executive is prepared to provide better and improved facilities.
In the main, my remarks will address the conclusions of the "Report of the Principal Inspection of Highland and Islands Fire Brigade 2002". Paragraph 4 states:
"Overall, it is assessed that the service provided is, with the exception of fire cover in some areas, satisfactory".
That is a pretty good start, but some things in the report need to be examined slightly more deeply.
Page 5 shows that the number of incidents per firefighter in the Highlands and Islands seems to be about four, whereas for the busiest Scottish brigade, the number is running at more than 20 per firefighter. However, as the majority of firemen in the Highlands and Islands are part-time auxiliaries, the number that should be considered is the number of fire incidents per hour of duty. I suspect that if the issue was examined in that way and on a comparable basis, the answer would be very different.
If we turn to page 12 of the report, we see that
"Overall performance by part-time staff remains high, with the availability being indicated at 99.1%."
If we translate that into what it would mean for a full-time person, we find that it is equivalent to their having no more than two days off per year. What is the Scottish Executive's performance in that regard? I can tell the minister that the average amount of sickness per employee in the Scottish Executive is at least twice that figure. Part-time firemen in the Highlands and Islands are in fact doing better than the people who service the Executive directly here in Edinburgh. That bespeaks the commitment and determination of part-time firemen in the Highlands and Islands.
On page 15, the inspectorate talks about "small garden sheds". Those sheds often offer good strategic locations within the board's operational area. When the inspector comes up with the list of locations that should be retained, he points out that cover in the Highlands and Islands is 10 times as great as that for the UK as a whole and just under five times as great as that for Scotland. Of course, population density in the Highlands and Islands is substantially less than the figure for Scotland. More to the point, the Highlands and Islands fire brigade area has a fluctuating population. The area rightly continues to be popular with visitors from across the world and across Scotland. In summer, the population rises dramatically, thus shrinking the comparator that is used by the inspector.
Page 35 of the Executive's document on proposals for legislation states:
"The primary objective … is to create a fire service more responsive to locally identified needs".
Fergus Ewing said in his opening remarks that Highlands and Islands is the size of Belgium. If the minister closes 32 stations, we might have to send for Tintin to help the communities thus deprived of their fire service.
I offer my personal congratulations to Fergus Ewing on securing tonight's debate and, indeed, compliment him on his speech.
This may come as a slight shock to some members but, in my younger years, when I worked at Kishorn—where we built the Ninian central platform—I was for a short time a volunteer fireman, so I know a wee bit about the subject, although I admit that that was a long time ago.
Mary Scanlon was quite correct to mention the Lybster auxiliary unit. In the short time available, I will, if I may, dwell particularly on Lybster. The issue was raised with all of us who were candidates during the election and many people came to speak to me about it. The issue is as simple as this: we have an auxiliary unit at Lybster, a unit at Dunbeath and the fire station at Wick. This is a parallel argument to the one I always put forward about maternity services in the north. We cannot change distance and geography in the Highlands. If there was a fire somewhere at the back of Lybster, such as on Mrs Gunn's croft at Camster, the local boys would know where they were going, but if the Lybster service was taken out, the Dunbeath or Wick services might not be able to reach the fire in time.
I give my personal thanks to the fire-master of Highland Council and councillor Drew McFarlane Slack. John Farquhar Munro and I met them during the summer and we have since had a civil and constructive correspondence that led to my question to the minister earlier in the session.
I am particularly intrigued by what Fergus Ewing said about nearby breathing apparatus. I do not have time to talk about it at the moment but perhaps he and I could discuss it later; perhaps we have some constructive thoughts to share.
I am glad that we have a cross-party consensus because that is hugely important. We have heard about forest fires and road accidents. I know how twisty the A9 can be and I have a question about the Berriedale braes to ask at question time tomorrow.
I support Fergus Ewing's motion. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say and to working with the ministers, the fire-master and others to address the problem. Flexibility is the right approach.
Finally, I have a story for the amusement of the chamber. After John Farquhar Munro and I met the fire-master, we met the chief constable and others at the police headquarters in Inverness. Over the customary cup of coffee and a biscuit, before we got down to business, John Farquhar Munro regaled the police top brass with a tale of how he had been fishing recently in the west Highlands. As he was about to make his second cast, a helicopter clattered towards him, so he dived into the whins under the assumption that it was the laird.
I hope that there is no danger that my microphone will be switched off this time. I also hope that this debate is being conducted in a more friendly spirit than the debate earlier today. I send my best wishes to the auxiliary firefighters and members of the Fire Brigades Union who are sitting in the gallery.
It strikes me that the debate is a bit funny because instead of Opposition parties arguing that the Executive should put its hands in its pockets and fund new capital projects and have 24-hour fire cover in the Highlands and Islands, members are saying that it is okay to rely on voluntary, unpaid services and that it would be short-sighted to cast that aside. If those services were cast aside, massive expenditure would be involved in providing the sort of service and 24-hour back-up that would be required. The situation is ironic and I would welcome the minister's comments on that.
We have the consultation on the proposed fire services bill and some points were raised in the earlier debate that I did not have time to address. I am puzzled about why the Executive wants to keep control over equipment, but does not want to maintain control over minimum staffing. That fits with the question about breathing apparatus, because under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 and the proposals in the Executive's document, it strikes me that the Executive has a say over equipment and the role that it plays in the provision of services. That also shows that the Executive is in a position to make adjustments if they are necessary, are agreed by the firefighters and their various organisations and have cross-party support. Perhaps we require guidelines on what can and cannot be tackled in the absence of breathing apparatus.
The geographical diversity of Scotland has been referred to and we should come back to some of the issues that have been raised on auxiliary firefighter units in the wider consultation. Given some of the specific and local problems of auxiliary fire units, I am not reassured that the proposals in the consultation document will allow us to reach the standards of consistency in rural areas that we aspire to. Will the minister address how the Executive will ensure consistency across all rural areas, and not just within fire board areas? How will consistency be ensured between the Highlands and Islands and south Scotland, for example? How will the Executive ensure that standards are the same across the board?
On a more light-hearted note, there have been references to fire-masters and firemen throughout the debate. I notice that there is at least one woman up in the public gallery with her uniform on. I want to ensure that in future we all refer to firefighters, and recognise that many women are involved in the fire service. Actually, some of the Executive's proposals seek to increase the representation of women in the service.
Perhaps the minister can tell us the bit that he missed out in his speech in the previous debate: is there a commitment and a guarantee not to close fire stations and reduce the number of fire service personnel?
First, I put on record the value that the Scottish Executive places on the contribution that is made by retained auxiliary and volunteer firefighters in protecting their communities. We made that clear in our document "The Scottish Fire Service of The Future". At the same time, we acknowledged that the issue of fire cover in sparsely populated areas had not been fully addressed. We will examine that as part of our proposals for the Scottish fire and rescue service.
Those proposals will shape the future of the service, and I will return to them in a minute, but I draw members' attention to the existing support that the Executive provides to the Highlands and Islands fire board. The Executive has been supportive of the brigade's efforts to upgrade its estate. Since 2000-01, Highlands and Islands fire brigade has received £8 million in capital consent, of which 40 per cent was to assist its upgrade programme. In grant-aided expenditure terms, Highlands and Islands has seen its share increase from £9.9 million in 2000-01 to £12.2 million in 2003-04, which is an increase of 22.4 per cent.
Does the minister recognise that although that seems like a generous GAE allocation, Highlands and Islands fire service regularly spends 10 per cent more than the GAE allocation?
Of course, the whole question of GAE distribution is not simply a question for firefighting; it is one that the Executive discusses regularly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I know from my time as the leader of a council that there have been many debates within local government about the fairest way to distribute GAE throughout Scotland. We will continue to recognise the arguments that are made by local government as a whole. I am sure that Mary Scanlon understands that any redistribution of GAE in one direction will cause problems in another. One factor in the distribution of GAE is recognition of problems of sparsity and rurality—that will continue. In addition, on funding, ministers have agreed a further £1 million in 2003-04 to assist the Highlands and Islands upgrade programme.
Mary Scanlon asked about the public-private partnership. It is still being considered by the fire branch—there is still a meeting to be had between the local brigade representatives and the fire branch, but I cannot give any commitment or any guarantee on the outcome of that consideration.
I turn to points that were raised by Fergus Ewing and others. The Executive's view on the report of Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate for Scotland—which was published in October 2002 and which Fergus Ewing said recommends the closure of 32 auxiliary units in the area—is, I stress, that the report is a reflection of the inspector's view. The provision of emergency cover is rightly a matter for determination by the fire authority, not the inspector. Ultimately, local brigades will make decisions about what is best in their communities.
Members will be aware that we had some debate this afternoon about section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Without prejudicing or prejudging what might happen as a result of any consultation, ministers must be guided by that act, which obtains at the moment. The Executive has received no application from Highlands and Islands fire brigade about the closure of any station.
I think that Councillor McFarlane Slack and his colleagues would like to retain all 32 units if that is possible, but the concern was that the Health and Safety Executive might serve an improvement notice that required breathing apparatus to be provided within two years. I sincerely hope that that will not happen. Will the minister give the Executive's views on the issues in relation to breathing apparatus that I and my colleagues raised? That topic was the meat of the debate.
Any determination by the Health and Safety Executive would be for that agency and not for ministers. However, I understand that the Health and Safety Executive recently clarified the requirements so that they apply only to firefighters who deal with fires in buildings. I am sure that members agree that an inspector must give a considered view on what he or she thinks is best for a service, whether it be a fire, police or education service. We must take note of that.
Nevertheless, the final decision lies with the local board, which will have to reflect on what the Health and Safety Executive said and on what it believes to be the best use of resources in its area. Notwithstanding any health and safety considerations, if and when any application is made, we will consider it in accordance with present law in due course. As the law gives ministers the decision over any application that is made, it would not be appropriate or right for me to comment on a particular case. We will wait to see whether the local brigade or board makes any such application.
This afternoon, we debated section 19 of the 1947 act and integrated risk management. I am sure that, like other brigades and boards, Highlands and Islands fire brigade will examine closely what is necessary for its area. I acknowledge some of the difficulties in the Highlands and Islands. In the earlier debate and in this debate, several members described the specific problems of communities with which I am unfamiliar but which clearly need a fire service every bit as much as the communities with which I am more familiar. The democratically accountable members of the relevant local fire authority will consider those issues.
Will the minister give way?
Sure.
I call Stewart Stevenson.
I am Stewart Maxwell.
Sorry. Your microphone is on anyway, so on you go.
Does the minister agree that it would not be sensible for any auxiliary units to face closure before integrated risk management plans are completed? If so, it would be sensible to hold off plans for those units until integrated risk management plans have been developed.
Deciding on the best way to proceed is entirely a matter for local decision makers. It would be wrong for a minister to try to tell local decision makers how best to use their budgets and run their services.
We value the retained auxiliary service. We value the role of the volunteers and we know that they make a significant contribution. Without their sterling efforts, nothing would be possible in many communities throughout Scotland.
Some would argue that there might be an element of scaremongering in the debate, but, nevertheless, it has highlighted a part of the fire service in Scotland that is often overlooked and undervalued by those of us who are not familiar with that area. As such, the debate has been a useful opportunity for us all to put on record our appreciation for everything that the people involved do in their local communities.
Meeting closed at 17:55.