Fire and Rescue Framework
Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-4810, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the fire and rescue framework.
We have a little leeway in the debate, but members should stick broadly to the times that they are given. Thirteen minutes is your guideline, minister.
The Scottish Government requested this debate to give the Parliament an opportunity to discuss our continued commitment to ensuring that Scotland has an efficient and effective fire and rescue service during the period of public consultation on a new fire and rescue framework.
Before proceeding, I will take this opportunity to note on the floor of the chamber the tragic death of firefighter Ewan Williamson while he was attending the incident at the Balmoral bar in Edinburgh on Sunday 12 July. That sad event was a salient reminder of the debt that each of us owes to front-line firefighters. It is also a reminder of why all the partners who are involved in the fire service must work together to ensure that firefighters and the public have a service that is fit for purpose. As you will appreciate, Presiding Officer, the incident is still the subject of a police investigation, so it is neither appropriate nor possible for me to discuss any issues in relation to it today.
I am aware of the public support for the bravery and commitment of firefighters to be formally recognised. Whereas the awarding of the Queen's gallantry medal is a decision for other bodies, I and the Scottish Government support an appropriate form of lasting recognition. I ask members to join me in extending our condolences to Ewan's family and to his colleagues.
In October 2005, the previous Administration published the first "Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland", as required by the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005. That framework set out a new vision for Scotland's fire and rescue services and placed expectations on the service and on the Government. It reflected the historic shift of putting fire prevention on a par with intervention, and it gave individual services more freedom to manage their local risks.
A huge amount has been achieved in the past four years, and it would be impossible to mention everything, but I would like to pay particular tribute to the commitment of everybody who works in Scotland's fire service and of all others who support them in the cause of making our communities safer. We have seen the commitment of our firefighters throughout Scotland in recent days, particularly in the parts of Moray that have been affected by the most serious recent flooding.
Here are just some of the highlights of what has been achieved over the past four years. Integrated risk management planning has been introduced, and so has a new £37 million firelink communications system. A community fire safety regime has been introduced. There are now additional duties in relation to road traffic incidents and flooding, with an enforcement role for commercial fire safety. More than £25 million has been invested in resilience capability to enable the services to deal with the consequences of terrorism and extreme weather—and that capability has been formalised. We moved quickly to resolve uncertainty for staff and fire and rescue services about the number of control rooms in Scotland, and we moved to address anomalies around firefighter ill-health retirement. Today, I am pleased to announce to Parliament an additional £6 million of funding to support the backdating to 2006 of firefighter pension commutations.
Earlier this year, I visited each fire and rescue service in Scotland, because I wanted to see for myself how much the service had changed. I saw some excellent examples of innovation, investment and collaborative working. In Tayside I saw investment in information technology systems, and in Dumfries and Galloway I visited a shared maintenance facility. Strathclyde Fire and Rescue is working on a state-of-the-art training centre in collaboration with the Scottish Government; Fife Fire and Rescue Service is a key part of a strong community planning partnership, which includes youth engagement; Central Scotland Fire and Rescue Service has established strong collaborative working with the Scottish Ambulance Service—and I could go on. Most important, the key indicators are generally heading in the right direction. The number of primary fires is continuing to fall, as are the long-term trends in fire fatalities and injuries.
A great deal still needs to be done. In spite of the long-term downward trend, Scotland continues to have the unenviable record of having more fire-related deaths per million population than any other part of the United Kingdom. Too many Scottish businesses and homes are devastated by fire, which brings personal tragedy as well as economic damage. The fire and rescue services need to stay focused on reducing the figures. Audit Scotland and others have highlighted key areas of concern, which need to be addressed. For example, the removal of national standards of fire cover in 2005 and their replacement with the integrated risk management plan—the IRMP—has been helpful, but concerns are being raised regarding the disbandment of the Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council and the perceived lack of consistency in the way in which IRMP is applied across Scotland. We want to see local solutions to local risks, but we do not want a postcode lottery in fire cover.
We need to address unnecessary duplication in non-front-line areas, such as human resources, training facilities and IT systems. I am sure that none of us wants scarce resources to be diverted away from the front line unless it is strictly necessary. There is no point in doing something eight times if desired results can be achieved by collaboration. More could be done by fire and rescue services and their police and ambulance colleagues to encourage collaborative working. That could help to reduce costs while sharing knowledge, infrastructure and capabilities. More needs to be done to exploit the enormous potential of the 3,600 retained duty service and volunteer staff and to ensure that those personnel are trained effectively and deployed more creatively.
The biggest challenge over the next few years will be financial. Our fire and rescue services cost some 30 per cent more per head of population than their equivalents in England. Some of that difference can plainly be justified by our geography and other factors, but we are now facing public expenditure cuts on a scale that has not been experienced for decades. All areas of the public sector will have less money to spend, not just next year but probably for several years to come. Fire and rescue services will be competing within the local government settlement with services such as housing and education, and local government generally will be competing with health. The need for further efficiency across the services is inescapable, but I would urge those who will have to decide how to make those efficiencies to do so with care. As I have already said, I and many others believe that there is scope to make significant savings while protecting the front line.
I do not want to get diverted at this point into speculation about the structure of the service in the future. I am well aware that many people have questioned whether having eight services is too many. As far as the Scottish Government is concerned, that is a second-order question; the main priority is to ensure that the desired outcomes can be delivered in a manner that is consistent with best value. If a structure or a process gets in the way of the desired outcomes, it should be regarded as expendable—it cannot become an end in itself.
There are opportunities. Against the background that I have set out, the Scottish Government—working with our partners in local government, particularly colleagues in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—believes that a new fire and rescue framework represents an opportunity to give the fire and rescue services a new vision and direction for the future. The "Draft Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2009", which was published for consultation in June, reflected constructive discussions over many months among the Scottish Government, local government and unions. I am delighted that the draft was endorsed by all stakeholders. It sets out our collective expectations of the services and the outcomes that we want to be achieved. I commend our collective desire for
"A Scotland which is free of all preventable fire-related deaths, injuries and damage."
That is at the heart of what we are all about.
The draft framework sets out the roles and responsibilities of all the key players. We all need to be clear about what we are doing to help to deliver the desired outcomes. Most of the delivery is the responsibility of local government, but the Scottish Government plays an important role in developing and setting national standards and in running national facilities for the benefit of local government, such as the new firelink radio system and the Scottish Fire Services College in Gullane.
Of course, I am ultimately accountable to the Parliament for the performance of the services and their contribution to national resilience. That is why members will see that a common theme runs through the new draft framework: partnership. It is also why we have placed the ministerial advisory group, which is our principal forum for matters of strategic importance, at the heart of the new arrangements. The group, which I chair, provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to be involved in regular dialogue about progress towards desired outcomes.
The draft sets out plans for specific projects that will help to flesh out the principles. I will touch on four areas of activity in which we are making progress. First, since the introduction of the first framework we have moved our focus from rescue and firefighting to a more risk-based approach. We have supported such risk reduction through the introduction of integrated risk management plans, which are underpinned by a focus on the protection of people rather than property. IRMP has allowed individual fire and rescue services more effectively and efficiently to allocate resources to meet specific risks.
Although the approach has worked well, it is only right that after three years we should review it, to ensure that it will continue to meet its objectives and that there has not been too great a shift away from national standards.
As part of the review, will the minister ensure that IRMP is not just about cost cutting, but does what it is supposed to do?
During the past three years there has been an increase of 12 per cent in revenue funding, which I think we all welcome. I assure the member that cost cutting will not be the aim of the review of IRMP, which we have just initiated, and I hope that all members will contribute to the review.
As Minister for Community Safety, I want to convey the Scottish Government's recognition of the important community safety work that is undertaken by the 9,000 people who are employed in Scotland's fire and rescue services. During the past year alone, the services have registered almost 50,000 home fire safety visits. However, much more needs to be done. As part of our commitment to reducing fires and fire deaths, I have asked Brian Sweeney to report on what more can be done to reduce such instances. His report will be published shortly, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
In the Scottish Fire Services College we have an enviable national approach to the workforce. The Scottish Government's commitment is represented by a £6 million annual investment in core and specialist training. Following initial training, the development and maintenance of a firefighter's skills is managed by the FRS, which, at watch or station manager level, is best placed to monitor and address the training needs of firefighters. As is outlined in the new framework, we are assessing the training needs analysis that is submitted by each FRS. In partnership with COSLA and the services, we will agree future training—including realistic fire training—strategies for all firefighters in Scotland.
I focus for a moment on our retained, volunteer and community support firefighters. Some 3,600 individuals serve our rural and island communities and many other parts of Scotland. They crew 75 per cent of all fire appliances in Scotland, and they attended 34,000 incidents last year alone. Without them we would not have an effective fire service in many of our rural and island communities. I pay tribute to them. Our commitment to the retained service was highlighted when we worked with colleagues in Westminster to defeat proposed changes to the European working time directive. That legislative issue highlighted why we must continue to work with partners to deliver fire cover that is designed to meet local risks and is flexible enough to ensure that we are ready to meet challenges, wherever they arise.
The draft framework underlines our commitment to working in partnership with local government. Our firefighters are among the best in the world. They serve the people of Scotland with skill and professionalism, they display a tremendous enthusiasm for their work, and they help many youngsters to develop and grow in confidence. The new framework is designed to ensure that our fire and rescue services focus on what they are best placed to deliver: reducing risk, responding effectively to incidents, supporting national resilience and improving the safety of our local communities.
I am happy to move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to a fire and rescue service that is modern and effective, with the principal aim of reducing risk, effectively responding to incidents and improving the safety of local communities; notes that the consultation document, Draft Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2009, has been developed in a spirit of partnership with COSLA and all key stakeholders, and notes that the Scottish Government is committed to working with local government to protect the public from fire and to reduce Scotland's poor record of fire fatalities.
I concur with the minister's remarks in respect of the late Ewan Williamson, and on behalf of my party I send our condolences to his family during this difficult time.
The Scottish Labour Party welcomes the debate and the opportunity to recognise the crucial role that fire and rescue services play in our communities. I can think of many examples in my constituency of the integration of the fire service into the local community—I am sure that members can think of examples in their areas. I was delighted to attend the Springburn fire station open day a couple of weeks ago, and I commend the service for giving the community access to its local fire station and for providing the all-important home safety advice to which the minister referred.
We are debating the draft fire and rescue framework because the Government has a legal requirement under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 to report to the Parliament and to advise on relevant authorities who are acting in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1). We will support the motion. We have lodged an amendment to the motion, and we will also support the amendment in the name of Robert Brown.
It is of fundamental importance that the Government has an open mind on issues that have been raised by stakeholders who have an interest in the framework. The Fire Brigades Union provided a helpful briefing, which sets out a number of issues. First, on governance and structures, many words have been said over the years about the need for local fire services whose priorities are set locally. We should embrace that principle, but we should acknowledge that on occasions the setting of national priorities will have an effect on our ability to deliver local services. The FBU made a fair point when it said that ministers must be in a position to set national standards when that is required. It would be helpful if we could hear feedback from the minister on that point.
The 2005 act requires community planning partnerships to establish local single outcome agreements. It has been refreshing to witness the enthusiastic way in which my local fire service has engaged with community planning. In the past we failed to realise how important it is that the fire services should be key stakeholders in our local communities. We need to recognise that partnerships are key to providing benefits for our communities. I hope that the minister will continue to encourage such partnerships.
People who attack our firefighters while they carry out their important duties are a blight on our communities. The Parliament was right to deliver the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which gave our firefighters more legal protection. The minister mentioned the work that is done with young people in particular, which I welcome—although it is not only young people who attack firefighters. Visits to local schools, for example, promote positive links with young people and are welcome.
In my and many other members' experience, the vast majority of people support firefighters and have done so for many years, and only a tiny minority view firefighters as a target for antisocial activities. We need to ensure that the 2005 act is doing what it is meant to do, by providing our prosecutors with a sentencing tariff that sends a clear message to people who will not listen to reason. We also need to be convinced that firefighters are reporting attacks and that they feel that the authorities are willing to act on those complaints.
I also welcome the fact that the key stakeholders document refers to supporting our local economies. During difficult economic times some businesses may feel under pressure to cut corners. The fire service can play a crucial role in providing advice on issues related to fire safety. We all recognise that fire safety legislation can sometimes be complex and bureaucratic, and it is a benefit to any business to have the fire service on its side with helpful and valuable advice.
It is widely acclaimed that our firefighters are trained to a very high level. The Scottish Fire Services College provides that training, and I am sure that we all agree that it is of high importance to ensure that the safety of our firefighters is given priority. It is important that resources and time are spent on ensuring that that high standard of training is provided throughout Scotland. Labour believes that it is important that we get best value from the training that is delivered across Scotland and that standards are consistent.
It is important to highlight the concerns that have been raised by the FBU. Although it recognises that the Scottish Fire Services College provides a high standard of training, it is concerned that there appears to be less consistency in the training provided by local fire service authorities on what are identical training modules.
We all respect the fact that there will be different training requirements throughout the country, and of course there should be local flexibility in what is provided on many of those courses, but there is a need for the courses to be consistent throughout Scotland. It would be welcome if the minister, perhaps through an intervention or a comment in his closing speech, could advise us on how he wishes to take forward this issue that the FBU has raised.
When we passed the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, we did so with the support of all the main political parties and based on the principle that we wanted to improve the way that fire services are delivered throughout Scotland. At the same time, we wanted to promote equality and fairness. I believe that all of us would have signed up to that principle, so I was surprised to learn that there appears to be a fragmented approach towards discipline, grievance and dispute procedures. In particular, I note that only one fire authority provides employees with the right of appeal. The basic right to fairness in the workplace should always include the right of appeal.
I would be grateful for clarification of the Government's position on the issue. I hope that the minister agrees that when we passed the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 it was certainly not with a remit to remove the right of an employee to an appeal during a grievance procedure. It is important that we consider that issue in the context of fairness.
A number of wide-ranging and important issues will be raised in today's debate, and many key stakeholders have a number of views on them. We all recognise the important role that our fire and rescue services play in our local communities and their professionalism, which I would argue is recognised throughout the world. It is important—I have made this point throughout my speech—that the Government shows a willingness to have an open mind on how we shape the document that is before us and how we take forward many of the issues that members who contribute to the debate will have to consider.
I hope that the Government can show leadership in that respect by recognising that, as the minister said, some difficult decisions will have to be taken. Those decisions must be taken for the right reasons, and in doing so we must embrace the principle that we will work together. I hope that members in other parties will be minded to support my amendment and Robert Brown's amendment.
I move amendment S3M-4810.1, to insert at end:
"and recognises the tremendous contribution and crucial role played by firefighters in Scotland and the need for consistent and rigorous enforcement of health and safety standards in fire and rescue services right across Scotland."
We will support both the motion and Labour's amendment.
I listened carefully to the minister's comments, and I am grateful for the insight that he gave the Parliament into the developments in the service over the past year or two. I also endorse many of Paul Martin's comments on the training college, on the appeal issue in particular and on the principle that attacks on firefighters be taken very seriously.
Let me begin, as the minister did, by paying tribute to the work of the fire and rescue service right across Scotland. I pay tribute to Ewan Williamson and to other firefighters who over the years have fallen or been injured in the line of duty.
For most of us, most of the time, the fire service and fire officers are there in the background; the fire service is an accepted and reliable service for emergencies that we hope do not affect us. We see fire engines racing by or we are curious spectators at a fire or other emergency. As an elected member I have—like other MSPs—occasionally seen the fire brigade operate at closer quarters. I saw their dedication and heroism at the time of the Stockline tragedy, when Strathclyde fire chief Brian Sweeney—I think that he was the depute at that time—became something of a media star but, more particularly, gave a public face to the fire service's image of compassionate competence. I have been to a number of open days at Cowcaddens and elsewhere and to events at schools where the fire service has put on a display or allowed children to look over a fire engine. Those are all important aspects of the new face of the fire service.
I have also engaged in another way with the fire service over the perennial issue of falling water pressures due to vandalised fire hydrants, and I have wrestled with the question of how to secure those vital hydrants against damage while keeping them operational and accessible for fire crews.
As has been said, behind the scenes there have been substantial changes and great challenges. The high number of fire-related fatalities, which the minister mentioned, is an extremely important issue. Among the challenges has been the effect of the European Union working hours directive on Scotland's retained firefighters, to whom the minister rightly paid tribute.
I appreciate that the member acknowledges the importance of the work that retained firefighters do. In that light, can he explain why the only Lib Dem member of the European Parliament from Scotland voted to end the flexibility available to retained firefighters?
I think that I am right in saying that my colleague, the former member of the European Parliament for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, took a particular view about the effect of the matter rather than the principle of it, which was strongly pushed by the Liberal Democrats throughout Scotland in a very significant campaign to retain the right of the retained firefighters to operate and to carry out essential services. In April the potential problems fell away for the time being, but it would be helpful if the minister could update the Parliament if any issues continue to arise from that matter.
The changes have centred on the more local arrangements for managing the fire and rescue service that resulted from the 2005 act. It is right that the needs of different areas should be recognised, but there is a balance to be struck between local control and sensitivity and the need for certain national standards throughout Scotland.
The briefing from the Fire Brigades Union suggests first that there is a gap in the structure as the ministerial advisory group does not in practice establish and enforce national standards and strategies under the 2005 act. Secondly, the briefing suggests that the lack of common national standards can make it more difficult for brigades to operate together if they have their own equipment, policies, procedures and response standards. One can certainly see the point in that regard.
The issue has existed under Governments of different political hues, but I would appreciate the minister's views on where the divide lies between local control and national standards. I know that there is a section on that in the Government's draft document, which lists the roles that are given to central Government and to local brigades respectively, but I am not sure that that really identifies the principles involved as adequately as it might, or gives us insight into what happens in practice, which is necessary for clarity on those important matters.
The FBU raises a third issue on which I would particularly like clarity. It says that, under the 2005 act, fire and rescue authorities require to be inspected by Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate for Scotland, but that that has not happened since 2005. The body was renamed as the Scottish fire and rescue advisory unit in January 2008 by the present Government. The 2005 act empowers ministers to appoint fire inspectors, but there appears to be no obvious requirement for inspections on any particular timescale. We need to know exactly how the minister envisages the 2005 duty being carried out and what inspection of local brigades is planned by the advisory unit.
My final point is on community protection, which the minister rightly touched on. We have all noticed the change in the fire service's approach in that regard. In 2007, 4,925 primary fires were deliberately set—a stark figure—and those fires resulted in 10 fatalities and 377 non-fatal casualties, to say nothing of the property damage that was caused and the fire service time that was used up. That is a staggering fact, and one that is worthy of closer study. Indeed, it points to a tale of mayhem and arson across the country, which is hugely damaging. I would be particularly interested to find out from the minister what strategies are being adopted to tackle and reduce that problem, given that, as far as I can see, the framework document does not see it as a key issue.
The fire and rescue services fulfil a vital part of the duty of Government. We as a Parliament require to support them properly by providing the highest standards of national strategy and appropriate standards, training and support. As the minister said, the fire and rescue services must be fit for purpose. I hope that the minister will take on board suggestions from members of all parties in what is a well-timed and well-merited debate, which I thank the Government for holding.
I move amendment S3M.4810.2, to insert at end:
"; recognises the vital work of fire and rescue services across Scotland, including the contribution of those firefighters on the retained duty system who provide a flexible and cost effective community service, particularly in rural, remote and island parts of Scotland; welcomes local flexibility in service delivery but notes the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union Scotland at the lack of strategic direction for the fire and rescue services, supported by clear and enforceable standards and responsibilities, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the Fire and Rescue Advisory Unit and the Ministerial Advisory Group work effectively with fire and rescue authorities to deliver effective compliance with agreed and consistent objectives under the national framework."
I endorse the comments of the minister and others on the tragic loss of Ewan Williamson.
The Scottish Conservatives welcome the publication of the "Draft Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2009". Many changes have been made to the responsibilities of our fire and rescue services since publication of the first framework in 2005 by the previous Government, not least because of the events that unfolded at Glasgow airport in June 2007, when we suddenly became aware of how vulnerable we all can be in the face of a terrorist attack. The way our fire and rescue services responded to that situation was testament not only to the bravery and selfless commitment of their workers, but to the efficiency and adaptability of those services.
Not long after my election to the Scottish Parliament, I spent a day with firefighters in Hawick in my constituency. It is a day that I will not forget, partly because I was able to fulfil a long-standing ambition to wear a fireman's hat. More important, I was able to experience first hand the dedication of the men and women who are concerned to do their job. Their work involves daily risking their own lives to save others, and it is both physically and emotionally demanding.
Alongside the stories of the people who are directly involved in the fire and rescue services are those of their families and the impact that working shifts or responding to pagers can have on family life. A friend of mine whose father was a firefighter in Glasgow spoke of how, as a young child, she would wake up in the night worried about her dad on night shift. As she got older, she would check the news each morning to find out whether there had been any big fires that he might have had to respond to. As we thank and pay tribute to all the men and women who work in the fire and rescue services, we should not forget their families.
Each of the eight Scottish fire and rescue services has its local needs, so I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment not to micromanage all the services. It is easy for me to compare the differences between the fire and rescue services in my more rural constituency with those in the city centre of Glasgow. If I remember correctly from my student days—which were not all that long ago—no Saturday night was complete without a 4 am call-out by Maryhill fire brigade to Murano Street halls because a student had decided to have toast after a night out. Each of the 388 fire stations or volunteer units in Scotland, which range from city centre multipump stations to remote rural volunteer units where equipment may be stored in a small garage, needs to have flexibility. It is important that we do not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach.
As I have already said, the roles and responsibilities of the fire and rescue services are constantly evolving. No longer do firefighters' duties amount to responding to fires and occasionally getting a cat out of a tree. Fire-raising is an area of recorded crime that continues to rise—it has risen by 88 per cent over the past 10 years. Fire and rescue services now have to deal with fire-related crimes and antisocial behaviour, so we welcome the Scottish Government's continued emphasis on community safety education and awareness campaigns, and its development of a range of initiatives to help the public understand not only the dangers but the consequences of fire-setting.
Another way in which our fire and rescue services have had to evolve is that they must be ready to deal with major incidents that result from terrorism or extreme weather. I am reassured to see that a review of existing resilience capabilities is being undertaken, with a view to enabling the Scottish fire and rescue advisory unit to assess regularly the total level of resilience capability.
Although I have emphasised the importance of flexibility and of local services being adjusted to local needs, there are some matters in which it is important that we take a national approach. We must be assured that if another major incident were ever to take place in Scotland, the eight authorities would have a consistent and joined-up approach. Eight fire and rescue authorities doing things in eight different ways could create major difficulties and compromise safety.
We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to ensuring that high-quality training and support are provided, but those training opportunities must be rolled out across Scotland and must not be focused only on particular authorities. We need to be sure that when new recruits begin their work, their training and development is continued and supported to the same standards, regardless of where they are located.
In March this year, I lodged a motion on the FBU's report "In the Line of Duty". I am pleased to say that it rightly received cross-party support. The safety of our fire and rescue services is an issue that should bypass party politics. The report said that because different definitions and recording methods are used across the UK, it is nearly impossible to create an accurate record of on-duty firefighter fatalities. That has meant that very little analysis has been done of the figures, and that there has been little by way of an attempt to understand or evaluate the causes of those fatalities. Standardisation in recording and investigation of fatalities and injuries to firefighters could prevent future deaths. It is important that our fire and rescue service authorities communicate with one another, not just across Scotland but across the UK.
The Scottish Conservatives will support the Scottish Government's motion. We agree with the principles of reducing risk, responding effectively and improving the safety of communities, which can be done more effectively by giving fire and rescue services the freedom to address local needs and by looking at where the services can work together and learn from each other.
We come to the open debate. I repeat that we have some flexibility with time, so members should feel free to take interventions.
I associate myself with the minister's remarks on the tragic death of Ewan Williamson. I know that the thoughts of all members go out to his friends, his family and, of course, his colleagues.
I welcome the minister's opening speech and, in particular, his announcement on the extremely difficult issue of pensions. It is a great credit to the Government that uncertainty about that has been removed, and I am sure that his announcement will be welcomed by members of the fire and rescue services across Scotland.
I also very much welcome the fact that the great uncertainty surrounding fire control rooms, which swirled around for years under the previous Executive, has been removed by this Government. As someone whose final two years of employment prior to entering Parliament were spent working for Strathclyde Fire Brigade at the Strathclyde fire control room in Johnstone, I am only too aware of the anxiety that that uncertainty caused the staff there.
I want to move on to some of the issues that concern me about the future of the fire service and where we will go on the critical issue of fire safety. I will raise a number of issues that I have questions about, and to which I hope the minister will be able to respond in his summing up.
The first is about common fire standards across Scotland, or the risk to which the public may be exposed as a result of our not having such standards. I understand the reasoning behind the removal of the national incident response standards and why it seems logical to have standards that fit local areas. I am not suggesting for one minute that the centre of Paisley is the same as the north-west Highlands, and I accept the argument about local flexibility, as long as local flexibility is not to the detriment of local people. However, I ask the minister to lay out how the new framework will deal with the potential loss of nationally comparable information, which allowed the public to be reassured that high standards were being maintained in their area. I also request that he pay close attention to other common standards that used to apply, such as those that covered operating procedures and risk assessments, so that he is certain that there is no diminution of the service that is provided to the public.
Another area that I have concerns about is inspection of the fire and rescue services, which Robert Brown mentioned. I seek assurances from the minister that regular inspections will be carried out and that rather than being a general audit, they will be conducted by experts and specialists. It is essential that there is robust scrutiny of critical emergency services.
As the number of live fires to which an individual firefighter is exposed goes down, for example, as a result of the success of fire safety work and improvements in fire-retardant materials in homes, the need for live fire training goes up. There can be no argument about that. In years gone by, firefighters could expect to gain enormous experience through on-the-job training, as they would be exposed to a large number and a large variety of fires. However, that is no longer the case, which is why we must ensure that today's firefighters are properly equipped, through first-class training and increased live fire training, to deal with any incident with which they are faced.
I turn to fire safety and the incidence of fires, fire injuries and fire fatalities in Scotland. Over the years, Scotland has had a rather unenviable reputation for fires and fire deaths. There is no doubt that a number of factors have contributed to that reputation: for example, the flammability of materials in homes, cooking styles, levels of alcohol abuse—unfortunately—and the high incidence of smoking in homes. I am glad that the number of fires caused by cooking is down and that the new fire-retardant materials that have been introduced in recent years have had a positive impact. Smoking rates are also lower and smoke detectors are now installed in many homes. However, despite lower smoking rates, smoking materials remain at the top of the list of causes of fires that result in deaths and injuries.
Has Stewart Maxwell been struck, as I have been, by the fact that the majority of fatal casualties occur in fires in dwellings in which smoke detectors are not present or not operational? Should that be a national priority for the strategic direction of the Scottish Government?
Robert Brown makes a salient point. There has been huge success in bringing smoke detectors to the public's attention. Many people install them and change their batteries as they should, but many others do not. As a result of the regulations for new buildings, smoke detectors are now hard-wired into properties. I am afraid that overcoming the problem will probably take many years, but there is no doubt but that we must focus on it, given the clear statistics on the problems that are caused by smoke detectors that lie unused, or smoke detectors whose batteries have not been replaced.
Over the past few years in Scotland, about 40 per cent of fire deaths have been caused by smoking materials. Members should think about that for a moment: four in every 10 fire deaths are attributable to smoking and smoking materials. It does not need to be that way. In June 2004, New York state made reduced ignition propensity cigarettes the only cigarettes that were allowed to be sold in that state. Its approach was followed by Canada in October 2005, and by Vermont and California in 2006. North Carolina will join them in January 2010 and Finland will become, in April 2010, the first European country to adopt the measure. In New York state, 167 deaths were caused by smoking materials in the four years before RIP cigarettes were introduced; in the four years since their introduction, 113 deaths were caused by smoking materials. That is a decrease in fire deaths of 54, or 32.34 per cent. In other words, fire deaths in New York state fell by a third following the introduction of RIP cigarettes. Between 1999 and 2006, smoking materials were the leading cause of fire deaths in Vermont—they were responsible for 19 per cent of them. In the two years after the introduction of RIP cigarettes, no fire deaths were attributable to smoking materials in Vermont.
I began to campaign for the introduction in Scotland of reduced ignition propensity cigarettes in the previous session of Parliament. I lodged a motion on the matter in that session, and there was a members' business debate on it. There is currently a motion on the matter in my name before Parliament, which I ask members to sign. As I said, the issue was considered in a members' business debate in the previous session of Parliament but, unfortunately, the relevant legislative power is reserved to Westminster, so the Scottish Parliament cannot act to stop the unnecessary deaths. However, we can send a strong signal and demand that Westminster act. The campaign has the backing of all eight of Scotland's fire brigades and of the Fire Brigades Union. I ask the minister and Parliament to lend their weight to my campaign for RIP cigarettes to become, as soon as possible, the only cigarettes that are available in Scotland.
Stopping smoking is the best fire safety strategy. However, I conclude by quoting Chief Fire Officer David Dalziel of Grampian Fire and Rescue Service. In a letter to me on the issue, he said:
"Scotland has an unenviable record for fire deaths and casualties and measures such as you propose will make a significant and lasting contribution to reducing that toll".
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.
It might be useful to make it clear that the Government has an entirely open mind in respect of governance issues. We appreciate and have discussed with the FBU its perspective. We are happy to consider how that can be further developed while we work in partnership with stakeholders in local government.
I am grateful to the minister for his assertion that the Government has an open mind on governance issues. That chimes with his opening speech, in which he said that the Government does not want
"a postcode lottery in fire cover".
We can all agree with that, and I welcome it.
We cannot have a situation that leads to a lack of coherence in the approach and delivery of other matters, such as training strategy, procurement policy and appointments and promotion criteria. The lack of a uniform approach in certain areas potentially compromises public safety and the safety of the workforce, and so cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, I welcome the minister's promise.
I also ask the minister to accept the FBU's argument—which seems incontrovertible—that
"the requirements of an Act of Parliament take precedence over the terms of a Concordat."
That is a truism. I hope that the minister also sees the common sense in the FBU's suggested solution to this serious problem, which is that the ministerial advisory group should, because it seems to be the most suitable vehicle, be the body that must meet the requirements of the act in terms of national resilience. That would allow ministers to give direction, set common standards and determine national strategies, while taking proper account of the views of all the fire service stakeholders who are represented on it. If that solution is accepted by ministers, it will improve delivery of public safety. What could be more important?
When Parliament passed the 2005 act, no one envisaged the unintended consequences to which I and other members have referred. Members who speak after me will refer to further unintended results of that legislation. The draft framework presents the Government and Parliament with an ideal opportunity to listen to the concerns that are being voiced by those who work in the front line, and to acknowledge deficiencies and rectify them. The minister has promised that he will listen to the worries that are expressed by members today, and that he will revise the framework accordingly.
Like other members, I associate myself with the minister's tribute to Ewan Williamson. Many firefighters in my constituency knew and worked with Ewan. I also take the liberty of drawing to members' attention the motion that has been lodged by my colleague, Shirley-Anne Somerville, which supports the call for Ewan Williamson to be posthumously awarded the Queen's gallantry medal. I urge members to consider giving their support to the motion.
The FBU briefing contains the salutary statistic that in the 27 years from 1979 to 2006, only two firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty yet, in the relatively short period between 2007 and 2009, the figure was four firefighters. As other members have done, I thank the FBU for the briefings that it has distributed, which—as is its style—are both informative and straight to the point, rarely missing a target. I have been impressed not only by the FBU's steadfast focus on representing the interests of its members, but by its commitment to making our communities safer. It disappoints me, therefore, that some of our fire and rescue authorities are not as inclusive as they could be in their decision-making processes. They could do far more to listen to and consult the FBU, which would be in the interests of all stakeholders, not the least of which are our communities.
I listened with great interest to the minister's comments when he advised us that the Government intends to review the integrated risk management planning process. I am told that the IRMP process is meant to enable fire and rescue authorities to identify risks in their areas and put in place the resources to address those risks. That sounds grand in theory, but the reality in my constituency has been very different, where the IRMP process has been used to identify the euphemistically entitled "efficiency savings"—more commonly known as "cuts". There has been a downgrading of services at the Craighill station in Livingston, despite the fact that the new town has a growing population and a growing number of residential homes, businesses and nursing homes, as well as a hospital at the heart of the town and a nearby motorway. The IRMP process was used to justify the cut, but I fear that the reality was that a political decision was made. The minister is well aware of my views on joint fire and rescue boards, which disadvantage smaller areas such as West Lothian in relation to their larger neighbours.
There has also been inconsistency in how the IRMP process has been developed, and the differing approaches to the process have contributed to divergences in response standards, although I note that national incident response standards were abolished in 2005, as members have previously stated. Like other members, I have considerable sympathy for the idea of common or national incident response times, given the concerns that exist about postcode-determined fire services. Given that the Scottish Ambulance Service can work to national response times of 13 and eight minutes, it seems odd that response times for fires in identical buildings differ in Scotland's cities because of local determinations of resource application.
My last grumble—in the current debate, at least—relates to training. I note the minister's comments about unnecessary duplication in training and information technology. This is where I will sound like a broken record, but I make no apology for that. The minister is well aware of my objections to the proposal by the Lothian and Borders fire and rescue board to build a new multimillion-pound training centre at Newbridge while it cuts front-line services in my constituency. I believe that that would be a fickle use of public money, given the proximity of Lothian and the Borders to the national training centre in Gullane.
I will end on a positive note. The facts that the minister has announced his intentions regarding the pensions commutation problem and that he has previously ended speculation in relation to control rooms are to be celebrated. I also record my appreciation for the firefighters in my constituency—in particular, the retained firefighters in Broxburn, who had to deal with the severe flooding that occurred in the community last year.
I, too, associate myself with members' comments about Ewan Williamson.
I will be fairly brief and will concentrate on a subject that has been mentioned only in passing by Angela Constance. It is an aspect of the work of the fire and rescue services that has proved to be extraordinarily important in my area, and in relation to which the minister's announcement in his opening speech is timely. I will talk about the impact of flooding, given the events of last weekend.
Throughout Scotland, but particularly in Moray, many families and individuals have yet again been left traumatised—I use the word advisedly—by the effects of events last weekend. To be flooded out of one's home is a truly traumatic experience. I can testify to the fact that certain individuals—whom the minister knows, as they live in his constituency—say that whenever heavy rain falls in their community, their personal anxiety levels rise, they have a degree of trepidation about what that might bring and they fear what might happen to them and their property. It is not only flooding that is damaging—the fear of flooding is damaging, too.
In such circumstances, the public need early warning of what might be about to happen to them. Thankfully, the processes for that are improving. However, the public also need to be prepared to minimise the impact of flooding if it affects their properties and their families. Also, they need on occasion to be assisted to leave their property or to be rescued from their property.
As we all know—not least because the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment said so yesterday—that that problem is going to increase because of changes in our climate and in the pattern and intensity of rainfall. It is inevitable that there will be more flooding events in Scotland in coming years, which means that it is likely that more communities will be affected by flooding.
Partly because of the force of nature and partly because of the unpredictability of flooding events, it is not always possible to protect every property in Scotland from flooding, which means that there will always have to be a rescue element to our flooding preparations, and that more work will always be required to help people to prepare for floods.
Last year, when the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee was considering the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill, we heard effective evidence about the lack of coherence that is sometimes evident in the responses of emergency services, and we were told of the need for greater clarity around roles and when various services should act. Amendments that were lodged as a result of that evidence led to cross-party discussions with the minister about how to handle the matter, which resulted in Paddy Tomkins being asked to conduct a review.
I am a bit disappointed that the framework document acknowledges that review only on page 19, which is quite late in the document, and that there is no earlier rehearsal of the role of the fire and rescue service in water rescue, although it is a current and key activity. I regret to say that the review appears to be somewhat of an afterthought in the document, and that there is no rehearsal of the service's potential role in the future, or of the fact that the context in which we are operating might require that that role be enhanced.
I am pleased to say that, as it always does, the fire and rescue service in Moray played a vital role over the weekend in helping communities in Elgin, Fochabers and other areas. It was highly professional, provided reassurance to the communities within which it was operating and provided support to people who were being helped to leave their properties or were being rescued from those properties. There are always lessons to be learned from such incidents. In Moray, we have a fire and rescue service that has had a lot of practice in dealing with such incidents. Not every service has had so much, however.
I believe that the fire and rescue services throughout Scotland are well placed to play a key and enhanced role in water rescue. There are various parts to that. First, there is an education role, which is linked to preparing people for incidents. Through its fire prevention work, the fire service has great experience in helping people to adjust and adapt their personal circumstances.
Secondly, the service has a role to play in responding to incidents by rescuing and assisting people. If that is to be carried out properly, it will need funding, the provision of proper equipment to all the services and—as many members have said today, and as the Fire Brigades Union said in its briefing—training in how to deal with those incidents. As Stewart Maxwell said, the services that do not have the level of experience that the service in Moray has will require greater training to enable them to operate properly when such circumstances arise.
I hope that, when the minister sums up, he will tell us what progress is being made on the Tomkins report. I also hope that he will assure us that, when he considers revising the framework following this debate and further consultation, he will think about how he can accommodate within it more explicit recognition of the existing role of the fire and rescue service in water rescue, and an acknowledgment that the Tomkins report might make recommendations about what the fire and rescue service might have to do in the future.
Presiding Officer, I have run out of things to say on this subject, so I will now sit down.
That is a good time to stop, certainly.
It is a pity that we could not have had this debate yesterday, when I understand that an unusually high number of emergency service personnel from throughout the United Kingdom tied the knot, especially in Gretna Green. I refer of course to yesterday's date—9/9/9. I am sure that members will join me in wishing those newlyweds all the best for the future. However, today is 10/9/9, and we have to get serious about a serious subject.
As my colleague Robert Brown outlined, the Liberal Democrats largely welcome the Government's motion. However, as Bill Butler said, it is the Government's concordat that has caused some of the concerns around micromanagement that have been expressed by the FBU and the Liberal Democrats. Those concerns have resulted in an endless debate between the Government and the FBU over who can do what. That is why our amendment seeks to recognise the excellent work of our retained firefighters and challenges the Government to deliver, with the fire and rescue advisory unit and the ministerial advisory group, an improved Scottish fire and rescue service.
Another concern that has been highlighted to me on a number of occasions involves the question of who is responsible for fresh water rescue. The Government has instigated an inquiry into Scotland's water rescue capability, and a report on that is due at the end of the year. As a matter of some urgency, the Government needs to designate an agency to take responsibility for fresh water rescue. Unless the confusion in that area is removed immediately, there might be more tragedies such as the one that occurred in Loch Awe in April.
The minister's motion is long on rhetoric and short on substance. The SNP Government says that it aims to work in partnership with COSLA and local government. However, if its track record is anything to go by, it will pull the wool over its partners' eyes, give them more burdens and restrict the funding that they need if they are to deliver. Who needs partners like that?
Is the member aware that I have an excellent relationship with Mr Raeburn from his party?
I was not aware of that detail. However, when it comes to working with others, the minister might recall that, when the Liberal Democrats raised the issue of reserve firefighters, his colleague Rob Gibson said that our intervention was unhelpful scaremongering. Of course, this morning, the minister very much backed our position. I hope he feels that there should be some consistency in his group on that matter.
It takes a Liberal Democrat amendment to add some substance to the debate. It took the Liberal Democrats to make the Government realise that the effects of the European working time directive on our retained firefighters would have a devastating impact on our rural and island communities. Fortunately, the Government eventually saw sense, but it took a while.
The flexibility that the Government showed then needs be shown again. The draft fire and rescue framework needs to offer clear guidance to Scottish fire and rescue services if we are to avoid a repeat of the situation that we got into as a result of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, which led to a loss of common standards and consistency in relation to training, governance and so on. According to the FBU, the result has been a wide divergence in service delivery across the country. I strongly urge the minister to ensure that the ministerial advisory group, which he chairs, is diligent in setting a consistent and workable framework that will provide robust guidelines with some degree of local flexibility.
It is fair to say that there has been some progress with the Scottish fire and rescue service under this and previous Scottish Governments. One example of such progress is the proposed introduction of firelink—a highly resilient communications system that will replace a fragmented legacy radio system with one wide-area radio system. That new system will allow not only better communication within and across fire and rescue services in Scotland but quick communication with other emergency services.
The firelink system will also include a priority call function to help give protection to our firefighters when, as has unfortunately become all too prevalent, they come under attack from mindless thugs—often the same mindless thugs who deliberately call out the fire services to false alarms, seeking to corner firefighters and attack them while they are on duty. Fortunately, such incidents are on the decline but they are nowhere near eradicated. Across Scotland, every fire and rescue service has seen a reduction in the number of false alarms. The drop in Fife is nearly 75 per cent, which is significant and much better than the Scottish average. Still, 158 false alarms in Fife in 2006 was 158 too many.
I am sure that there are a number of reasons for the decline, but the direction of good firemasters and a huge effort by serving firefighters to educate young people has ensured that Fife has blazed a trail—if the minister will forgive the pun. Many young people are realising the deadly consequences of sending a fire engine to their street for a false alarm—they realise that their own family could be affected.
The Government's motion does not go nearly far enough. It does not provide the assurances that either the FBU or the Liberal Democrats require. I hope that the Government realises that, by accepting our amendment today, it will give more substance to the framework, and that if the minister puts all his efforts into the ministerial advisory group, we will have a Scottish fire service that is truly fit for the 21st century.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Government's draft fire and rescue framework. Like other members, I pay tribute to Scotland's 8,310 firefighters and control staff, particularly those who serve the area that I represent in the Strathclyde and central regions. It is impossible to overstate the importance of their work and the passion and devotion that they show, day in and day out, in providing a rescue and response service that keeps people safe in often very difficult circumstances.
I join all my colleagues in paying tribute to firefighter Ewan Williamson, who was tragically killed in the line of duty earlier this year. We owe it to those who have given their lives or sustained injury in the course of duty to ensure that fire services throughout Scotland are equipped and resourced for the challenges of the 21st century.
Tomorrow marks the eighth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington DC, which killed nearly 3,000 people including 343 firefighters and paramedics. Watching footage of that day that shows firefighters making their way through the crowds of people escaping the turmoil and chaos behind them, I noted that there has never been a more vivid demonstration of the saying that firefighters run into buildings that other people are running out of.
As John Lamont said, Scotland's fire and rescue services played an important role following the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport in 2007. I pay tribute to the work carried out on that day and since to keep Scotland's civilians safe from real and threatened attacks. The need for resilience against such threats is rightly identified in the draft fire and rescue framework that is before us today, and I am sure we all agree that it must be taken seriously.
I thank the FBU for the briefing papers that it provided, which are marked by its usual candour, as Angela Constance noted—although her description was more polite than the west of Scotland terminology that I might have used but for fear of using unparliamentary language.
The overriding aim of the draft fire and rescue framework rightly remains the elimination of preventable fire-related deaths, injuries and damage. Sadly, there is still work to be done in that regard. The motion mentions Scotland's poor record of fire fatalities, and it is certainly true that we have the highest number of fatal casualties per million of population, and the highest rate of non-fatal casualties per million of population, in the UK. I am glad that those statistics show a downward trend, but it is clear that there is still work to be done.
I am pleased, as I am sure other members are, that there has been a 12 per cent funding increase during the past three years for Scotland's fire services, and total revenue funding for Scotland's eight services of £331 million in the 2009-10 financial year. The Government continues to review and update the training that is available to firefighters to reflect changes in equipment and operating practices. Although the content of such training is of course the most important aspect, I nevertheless welcome plans for an extra week to be added to the current 12-week programme.
Another important aspiration of the draft framework is ensuring our preparedness to deal with floods and other environmental emergencies. As the minister said, the importance of that work has been illustrated all too starkly in recent days, with the flooding in Moray and the A83 landslide. It is important to stress that the role of dealing with emergencies that nature throws at us is one that fire services have undertaken for some considerable time, although it was not formalised until the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005.
I remember well the inquiry into flood prevention from my time on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, and the widespread belief that multi-agency guidance on responding to and co-ordinating flooding incidents needs to be improved. That point is accepted in the draft framework document, and the need to prioritise that work has become even clearer in light of recent events.
The 2005 act requires the Government to keep the strategic framework within which our fire services operate under review, and I welcome the fact that the Government is doing so to take account of the changes that have taken place in Scotland since the first framework document was published in 2005. I am also glad that, notwithstanding Jim Tolson's cynicism, the Government is undertaking the review in what the motion describes as
"a spirit of partnership with COSLA and all key stakeholders".
I am sure that members across the chamber expect nothing less.
Getting the partnership approach right is hugely important, and I welcome the Government's consultation on the framework document a wide range of organisations and bodies that represent those who are involved in our fire and rescue services.
The Government's concordat with local authorities has had an impact on the way in which decisions are made and co-ordinated among Scotland's eight fire and rescue services. I broadly support the concordat and the emphasis that it places on giving local government the autonomy and flexibility to make decisions that are based on local need, but I recognise that the FBU has concerns. I accept that each fire and rescue service should be able to deliver services flexibly, but that flexibility needs to exist within a set of national parameters to ensure that there is essential consistency throughout the country, particularly in resilience preparation. In that regard, I welcome the minister's indication that the integrated risk management planning guidance that was established under the 2005 act will be re-examined.
I know that the FBU feels that the remit and powers of the ministerial advisory group could be strengthened, and I am interested to hear the Government's response to that. I accept that, under the terms of the concordat, the Government does not want to micromanage decisions that are rightly made at local level—indeed, that would be inappropriate. However, I hope that it will be possible to address concerns about consistency in standards and procedures between services, especially in the area of national resilience and preparedness.
I commend the Scottish Government for its willingness to engage regularly with the FBU. My contact with FBU representatives indicates that there is an on-going and open dialogue, which is to be welcomed. Some of the concerns that the union and members in the chamber have expressed today—with which I have great sympathy—could perhaps be addressed more easily if local fire boards were to replicate that openness and ease of communication in their relationship with the FBU and, indeed, all unions.
I fear that I am probably taking up too much time, so I conclude by welcoming the minister's announcement today of further funding for firefighters' pensions and the Scottish Government's commitment to maintaining the existing control room structure. I welcome the opportunity that today's debate has presented, and recognise the Scottish Government's on-going commitment to ensuring that our fire and rescue services have the support and resources that they need to carry out what we all acknowledge can be a dangerous but vitally important role.
It would be hard to criticise the Scottish Government's motion or the minister's sincere speech. However, I am sure the minister agrees that there are issues that need to be explored during the debate.
Any debate on the fire and rescue service is welcome, because it gives us the chance to recognise and appreciate—as members have done today—the job that our firefighters do on society's behalf. Those men and women risk their lives daily to save the lives of others, and we are all indebted to them for the exceptional service that they provide in our communities. This year in Scotland, we tragically lost a brave firefighter, Ewan Williamson; as other members have done, I express my condolences to his family and his comrades.
Angela Constance pointed out that in the past two years, there have been four fatalities in the line of duty, whereas there were two in the previous 25 years. One death is one too many, but that increase is deeply worrying and indicates that something must be wrong. Ken Ross of the FBU says that deaths in the line of duty touch everyone who works in the fire service, and we should remember the debt that we owe firefighters when we seek to reorganise the service in any way.
Like other members, I have seen what firefighters can face in the local area when they are trying to carry out their jobs. They are often attacked in our communities. There was a major incident a few years ago in Carnbroe in my constituency, and more recently there was an incident in Strathclyde in which bottles and objects were thrown at firefighters from an upper storey of a tower block.
Given firefighters' contribution to the safety and security of our communities, it was sad to see them having to strike over pay and conditions in 2002.
The FBU has wide-ranging political interests including union learning initiatives and its support for the Cuba solidarity campaign and, topically, the people's charter. If we look at fire brigades' websites, we see the diversity of what they do, for example planning for a swine flu pandemic, providing fire reach training for young people and planning for major incidents such as the Glasgow airport attack. However, their priority has to be intervention and fighting fires. To do that, the service needs more, not fewer, front-line operational firefighters.
The Parliament has taken action in the past to try to address some of the issues that face fire and rescue services. As others have said, the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 was intended to improve the service and was put in place with the best motives. Indeed, the review of the framework is required by that very act. Unfortunately, it seems that in some areas new arrangements have left front-line firefighters overstretched and underresourced, and the review needs to address that.
In recent years, the number of fire deaths and injuries to firefighters and members of the public has increased, training and competency levels have decreased, front-line jobs have been lost, fire stations have been downgraded or closed, and response times have increased. Those are all worrying trends. Non-uniformed posts in fire and rescue authorities are necessary, but there seems to have been a vast increase in the number of such posts with no corresponding increase in front-line uniformed posts. Indeed, about 220 front-line posts have gone.
Before 2005, if an FRA altered its number of front-line posts, that had a commensurate effect on its allocated budget, which went either up or down. Since then, it has been possible to decrease the number of uniformed posts with no effect on the budget. In that way, unfortunately, savings can be made. Given that, in the long run, it is not a saving in terms of safety to have fewer front-line posts, will the minister consider re-establishing the budget link, obviously in the spirit of partnership with COSLA? I hope he will answer that at the end of the debate.
One reason that is given for cutting front-line personnel is the effectiveness of community fire safety initiatives, but even if they are successful in prevention, that does not justify a decrease in intervention levels for the fires that continue to occur. Does the minister have any plans to review or assess the effectiveness of community fire safety initiatives?
As others have said, the FBU believes that many problems in the service could be addressed through governance. Like Bill Butler, I am pleased to note that the minister says that he has an open mind on the matter. The FBU strongly believes that local flexibility must be set within national parameters that ensure that there is Scotland-wide consistency. The minister must seriously consider creating a central Scotland-level structure to oversee the eight FRAs. Perhaps the ministerial advisory group could have that role, but a forum below that level is also needed. There should be a body that can establish common standards with which FRAs are required to comply, and FRAs should be measured against those standards in a robust inspection regime. It is difficult to see how national resilience can be secured without harmonisation of policies, procedures, strategies and equipment. I reiterate that joint procurement by the FRAs would lead to significant savings and best value and would allow consistency in relation to appliances and equipment throughout Scotland.
That brings me to the somewhat contentious issue of the concordat. I do not think that a commitment not to micromanage has to extend to providing revenue funding on a non-ring-fenced basis. That does not necessarily follow. Of course FRAs should manage the day-to-day running of the services that they provide in a local context and with local flexibility, but they did that before the concordat. Scottish ministers have legal obligations, which they cannot offload, on matters such as national resilience. I believe that ring fencing of capital and revenue funding for the fire and rescue service is required in order to ensure appropriate funding levels. I was a wee bit concerned by the minister's comment that there will be competition in local authorities with the likes of education, housing and so on. That is worrying.
I conclude by quoting Strathclyde Fire and Rescue's motto, which is:
"Making our communities safe places to live, work and visit."
The revised framework must be measured against whether it will do that. Does the framework represent a better service in our communities? Will it save lives or will it result in underfunding? Our fire and rescue services are far too important to get caught up in the politics of the concordat. The people on the front line know what they need in order to provide a service that not only delivers for our people but ensures their, and their comrades', safety. The Scottish Government would be wise to pay heed to the front-line firefighters' views as expressed via the FBU. I am pleased that the minister said that he will indeed do that.
Like colleagues, I pay tribute to the work and dedication of the fire service. The untimely death of Ewan Williamson reminds us that some of the jobs that are done in our society are hazardous and occasionally fatal. We should never forget that.
I also pay tribute to the recent work of fire and rescue services during the floods. We do not need to have been up north or anywhere near Fochabers to have discovered that floods can arrive. The sight of floods in the middle of Aberdeen came as a surprise to many, not least the owners of the cars that suddenly disappeared beneath the floods.
I, too, have visited my local fire brigade. I was interested to see what it does, and it was a fascinating visit. However, I did not sample a local hat. I was not offered one because, I suspect, it was felt that the brigade might not have one that was big enough. I note on reflection that the fire station is only a mile from my home. I think that that is a good place to have a home.
As has perhaps become my wont in the Parliament, I will discuss some of the issues at the periphery of the main topic of discussion, which has been amply covered by others. I start by looking at what I might describe as end-of-valley arrangements. I have addressed before the ability of ambulances to reach people who live at the end of the roads up the valleys that go from Aberdeen into Aberdeenshire, but there is a link to the issue of fire and rescue services. It seems to me and others that, if we are to have satisfactory arrangements for such things, integration is needed. We need to think carefully about how we integrate emergency services of one sort or another away from major conurbations in order to reach people who live at the end of valleys where there is no access from the other side. In such situations, we have to do what we can to get to people as quickly as possible. Standard response times become meaningless when the start point and end point are 15 or 20 minutes apart.
We must also continue to make efforts to reduce the number of fires. Quite simply, a person will not get hurt in a fire that does not start. I notice that the trends are in the right direction, which suggests that the right things have been done in the past.
I am glad that Stewart Maxwell commented on fire-resistant cigarettes, as I was going to mention them. If we had a mechanism for reducing deaths on the road by a factor of a third, we would grasp it without having much of a discussion about it. I suspect that the introduction of seat belts in cars had a rather greater effect than that, and it did not require much discussion once somebody had worked out the statistics. I am not sure what the statistics are on RIP cigarettes—I am not sure that we have heard them yet—but it is entirely clear that we are going in the right direction. If it is clear that RIP cigarettes will make a substantial difference, we should emphasise that. I appreciate that the matter is reserved, but—
I appreciate that we are in the early days and that there are not many statistics on the impact. We should not jump to conclusions too early, but it is certainly becoming clear from the places where RIP cigarettes have been introduced that there is an impact. In addition to the involvement of Canada and a substantial number of US states, I believe that Australia has introduced RIP cigarettes and that Finland will do so. In all the areas where they have been introduced, the impact has been the same—there has been a downward trend. I do not think that we will have to wait much longer to be sure.
That is my very point: we should not have to wait very long. After all, good ideas do not necessarily need to come with too many statistics attached. Although the issue is reserved and decisions in that regard have to be taken elsewhere, it is important that we place some emphasis on it. As always, time will rush away from us.
There are many things that we can do to help the situation. Members have mentioned smoke detectors, but there is no use having one if it does not have any batteries—and it is no use at all if it is sitting in the cupboard, even if it has batteries.
We must ensure that the right things are being done in the right places. Yet again, we have to think about cigarette lighters and, indeed, electrical equipment, which I believe is still the most hazardous element in our old building stock. My point is not so much that such hazards exist and must be dealt with, but that we should not expect the fire brigade to deal with all of them. For one thing, our children should be educated in such matters in our schools; for another, we are all educated through our media, but I have to say that do not recall any recent advertisements highlighting the importance of and sense in having smoke detectors and not leaving lit cigarettes lying around. I certainly remember such ads in the past and, in that respect, we should explore other such routes in other media.
In all of this, we need to strike a balance. For example, I am very grateful to the minister for having discussions on the effect of new regulations on bed and breakfasts. As originally drafted, the regulations seemed unduly onerous, would have been ridiculously expensive and would not really have helped the situation. However, it seems that, as a result of those discussions, the regulations might be relaxed, which is a sensible move. That shows that one can swing too far and that, in all such matters, one must strike a balance.
On the issue of fatalities, I should at this point put on my ex-factory engineer hat and suggest that the biggest hazards in our country are industrial ones. Outside of a plane crash or terrorist incident, the most likely cause of an event incurring a large number of fatalities will be the build-up of explosive materials, almost inevitably as the result of an industrial problem. I realise that that issue, too, is reserved, but we simply need to keep our eye on the ball and ensure that industry does everything possible to prevent the egress of flammable and dangerous materials.
I am pleased to take part in this debate. Like other members, I pay tribute to Ewan Williamson, who gave his life serving his community.
The motion and amendments simply state our expectations of our firefighters and fire service. I had not imagined that any member might want to criticise or oppose such sentiments, but I had forgotten about our colleague Jim Tolson. In a democracy, though, he is right to say what he feels.
As it is nearly five years since Parliament considered and passed the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, and given that we are now moving towards the second fire and rescue framework, it is right that we assess progress, highlight the areas that need to be refined or improved, and acknowledge areas where we are not making the intended progress or improvements in delivering our fire and rescue service.
Although I am pleased to take part in the debate, it is always difficult to speak at the end of any debate, as other members have already covered most of the areas and highlighted many of the concerns.
I place on record my admiration for the men and women of the fire and rescue service, whose job most of us would find too dangerous and demanding. Whether full-time or part of the retained service, those firefighters are always ready to put their lives on the line to serve and protect our communities. I also pay tribute to the men and women who serve either full-time in Cumbernauld fire station or in the retained service in Kilsyth. They do a grand job engaging with the community and helping to educate young people in schools and people in their homes about the dangers of fire and the small interventions that they can make to protect them and their families. Like those in Angela Constance's constituency, the firefighters in my community have to respond to very dangerous situations on the A80. They do a very important job and I thank them for their work.
The FBU raised a number of concerns about the consultation paper. I believe that, as far as the service in Scotland is concerned, it is fundamental that employers and the minister listen to firefighters' first-hand knowledge and experience before the final document is agreed to.
As other members have discussed various issues in some detail, including governance, standard response times, equality and fairness, and ring fencing, I will in the short time that is available reinforce the importance of training, which has also been mentioned. The point applies to any service, but the fact is that if we value the employees of the fire and rescue service—which we do—we must equip them with the best possible skills.
I am told that the Scottish Fire Services College at Gullane in East Lothian delivers excellent training courses to new entrants to the service, and that recruits return to their various fire and rescue authorities enthusiastic, fit, ready and well prepared to do the job that is asked of them. However, according to firefighters, the absence of a national training strategy means that, from that point on, training on identical subjects is delivered differently across the service depending on local determination. That is unacceptable, and the delay in introducing a national training standard must be addressed immediately. I have not been persuaded by the minister's comments on that issue this morning. I realise that training has to be carried out at station level and that the service has to respond to local communities' needs, but we also need to respond at national level.
In my opinion and in the opinion of the trade unions, training, health and safety and the general development of the workforce in our fire and rescue service are of paramount importance. Given that we expect those workers to respond to any emergency, whatever it is, and given that they do respond, we should in return provide them with training to a national standard. Firefighters work as a team in dangerous situations, relying on each other not only for their own safety but for the safety of the people they seek to assist. As a result, it is not unreasonable to expect training across Scotland to be consistent.
I acknowledge that eight different authorities serve eight different communities but, regardless of where boundaries lie, their business is to respond to emergency situations. Indeed, fire and rescue crews certainly have to cross boundaries to respond to large-scale emergencies. My constituency is on the boundary between Strathclyde Fire and Rescue and Central Scotland Fire and Rescue Service, both of which have on numerous occasions carried out cross-boundary work. Firefighters should expect the person who is working at their side to be trained to the same level because, as I have said, they depend on each other in dangerous situations.
In conclusion, the service must have continuous training to a national standard. I know that the minister has already engaged with the FBU, which in this respect has raised an important issue. We must listen to the firefighters, who after all are on the front line, and develop a system that allows them to serve our communities and in which they can have confidence.
I add my condolences to those of my colleagues from throughout the Parliament to Ewan Williamson's family, friends and colleagues. I pay tribute to all our fire services and take this opportunity to remember the fallen and the injured.
As Cathie Craigie said, speaking so late in an informative and good debate poses its own challenges. I am reminded of a story about Professor Neil MacCormick, who was a great friend of mine, when he was speaking at a hustings and was eighth on the list. He came on and won everybody's heart by saying, "Being eighth in the debate is like being a husband of Elizabeth Taylor—you know exactly what to do on the wedding night, but the trick is to make it interesting." So here goes.
The Labour amendment refers to "health and safety standards". I am sure that Mr Martin did not mean to imply in any way that firefighters in Scotland are anything other than rigorous in enforcing those standards. I am sure that no one thinks that people who put their lives on the line in the course of their employment would be lax about health and safety.
It is important to provide clarification that the point is not about firefighters enforcing the standards; it is about the services around them, and ensuring consistent health and safety standards throughout Scotland.
I absolutely understood that that was the tone of the amendment. The member will hear what I think about health and safety. We can be certain that Scotland's firefighters will be careful to ensure that their health and safety protection is as complete as it should be. The firefighters have the most to gain from the consistent and rigorous enforcement of health and safety standards in fire and rescue services, and they are best placed to know what needs to be done in their working environment, hence the on-going work with the FBU on health and safety issues.
I applaud the minister for engaging properly with the FBU and ensuring that it had a seat at the table when the framework was developed. Such invaluable input must have helped the framework to move in the most appropriate direction. I congratulate the minister on that wise decision. I do not encourage him on much, so I hope that he enjoys it while he can. Although I am encouraged by the inclusion of the FBU in the framework's construction, I note that the union has voiced concerns, and I ask the minister to take note of them. I do not expect an answer today, but I hope that he will take proper note of the concerns and factor them into his thinking in the next few weeks and months.
The union has argued that the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 has been found wanting in its operation. The framework states:
"While FRAs should continue to place greater emphasis on preventing fires from happening, the need to respond swiftly and professionally to those incidents that do occur is not diminished."
I echo Elaine Smith's concerns about front-line jobs. The FBU points out that every fire and rescue authority in Scotland has reduced front-line firefighter numbers. As Elaine Smith said, the union estimates that there are now 220 fewer front-line firefighters than there were in 2005. I am sure that the minister will want to ensure that the number of firefighters who can respond to live incidents, whether or not they are emergency calls, is maintained. I acknowledge that fire and rescue authorities are autonomous to a great degree and are therefore not subject to the direction of the Government. However, I encourage the minister to do what he can to ensure that, at the very least, numbers are maintained and to aim to get the number of front-line firefighters back up at the earliest possible opportunity. It should be noted that Central Scotland Fire and Rescue Service is taking steps to reverse the trend, which I welcome.
There was a long-term trend of reducing the number of fire deaths, but since the 2005 act came into force that has tended to reverse. In 2007, fire deaths increased to the same level as in 1959, and the number has increased further since. None of us wants that to continue. Stewart Maxwell described the causes of fires and talked about smoking. The increase is a worrying development, and even more so when we consider that the number of fires has continued to decline. That is a salient point—the number of fires has declined, but the number of deaths has increased. The immediate temptation is to conclude that fires are now more dangerous, with fewer fires causing a greater number of deaths and injuries. That might be the case, but I ask the minister to have the evidence examined, so that we know for sure the cause of the increase in fatalities, which will allow us to take the necessary steps to address the problem.
The integrated risk management that is mentioned in the framework will go some way to addressing the problem, particularly in relation to firefighters' safety. However, I would be grateful for an indication from the minister that he will consider fire deaths as a stand-alone issue. The 2005 act added several fairly onerous responsibilities to firefighters' duties, but the number of front-line staff has decreased. I know that the minister will be concerned about those issues and that he is probably already considering them, but I would be grateful for an indication that that is the case, to ease the FBU's concerns.
I will restate Angela Constance's point about the contention that fire authorities have used the process of integrated fire risk management as a tool to argue for efficiency savings in the fire and rescue service, which has led to cuts in the number of front-line firefighters. I hope that we can be sure that fire safety is not being compromised by such decisions. It will not be easy for the minister to ensure that, but I know that his main concern is with getting it right rather than with having an easy time. I hope that he will take on board those concerns and consider ways of addressing them.
I fully support the minister in carrying out the task that is before him, and I congratulate him on bringing the framework so far. I encourage him to continue driving forward the agenda and to keep making Scotland's fire and rescue service the very best that it can be.
The debate has been constructive and many useful points have been raised that I hope the minister will address in his summing-up speech. We have had significant contributions, such as that from Paul Martin, who raised valid points about fairness and the need to tackle the currently fragmented approach to discipline and grievance procedures in the employing services. Robert Brown stated that we need greater clarity on the division of responsibility. He and Stewart Maxwell mentioned the inspection requirements under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005. I would particularly appreciate the minister's response on that. Stewart Maxwell spoke well about his campaign to ensure that only RIP cigarettes are sold in Scotland. I will certainly pay more heed to his campaigning from now on. Peter Peacock, who was, as ever, succinct and to the point, asked for more detail on water rescue and on the training and resources that will be needed for the implementation of the Tomkins report. Cathie Craigie spoke about the need for continuous training to a national standard. She and Angela Constance talked about the need to maintain front-line services. I hope that the minister will pick up on those points.
The minister opened the debate by paying tribute to Ewan Williamson from Edinburgh, who died in the line of duty. We all associate ourselves with the minister's sentiments, which have been echoed by all speakers.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the vital work of fire and rescue services throughout Scotland, including the contribution of the firefighters in the retained duty system, who provide a flexible and cost-effective community service, particularly in rural, remote and island parts of Scotland. We support local flexibility in service delivery, but we note the concerns of the FBU, which is calling for clear and enforceable standards and clear responsibilities. We therefore believe that the fire and rescue advisory unit and the ministerial advisory group must work effectively with fire and rescue authorities to deliver compliance within agreed and consistent objectives under the national framework.
Our amendment highlights the role of retained firefighters, which many members have mentioned. My region of North East Scotland is covered by Tayside Fire and Rescue and Grampian Fire and Rescue Service. Grampian has 33 retained fire stations and only three full-time ones. Tayside has 24 stations, of which three are volunteer and four are whole time, with the other 17 being retained. They provide fire and rescue services to a region that has busy industrial harbours, major oil and gas terminals, and the busiest heliport in the country. We also have two major hospital campuses, including the biggest single-site hospital in Europe.
Retained firefighters provide fire cover for at least 90 per cent of the landmass of Scotland, which is no mean feat. I must also mention volunteer firefighters, who work at remote stations. Tayside has three stations that are operated by volunteers, at Kinloch Rannoch, Glenshee and Kirkmichael. Those volunteers show an exceptional level of commitment, for which I thank them.
As the minister said, the framework recognises the changing role of the fire and rescue service. We now have a modern service that is about much more than firefighting: it is a comprehensive fire and rescue service, which, as the minister rightly said, puts prevention on a par with intervention. The service attends car crashes, flooding incidents and landslips, and carries out a lot of prevention work in the form of home-safety visits and school work.
As the Liberal Democrat transport spokesperson, I am increasingly aware that, certainly in my area, firefighters' time is taken up with responding to road traffic incidents. I therefore welcome the framework's focus on reducing death and injury caused by road traffic accidents. It is telling that, as we debate the issue, the Chief Fire Officers Association is hosting a major conference in Glasgow to explore the unique role of the fire and rescue service in reducing the appalling effects of road traffic collisions.
The minister spoke about co-operation and partnership. I will highlight an example from my region. Road safety Grampian is a pioneering partnership with Grampian Police in which three members of fire service staff are based permanently at Nelson Street police office in Aberdeen. Those staff members are part of Grampian fire and rescue service's risk reduction unit that is managed by community safety and is under the overall control of central support services. The unit has crew managers, police officers and support staff working together in the same base. The ultimate target of the partnership is to contribute to the key strategic objective on which we just touched—reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by road traffic collisions.
We heard this morning that the fire and rescue service has to deal with a sometimes hostile public, with at least 200 attacks a year, which is an appalling number. Paul Martin and Elaine Smith rightly highlighted the dangers of attacks and, indeed, the need for legal protection.
I will touch on something that is highlighted in the framework but which no one has mentioned this morning. Changing societal norms mean that duty systems that were developed over the past century do not necessarily meet the needs of 21st century families and communities. If we are to cope with the projected increase in retirements and also have a diverse and representative fire and rescue service, the service will need to monitor carefully recruitment and retention, and develop initiatives to recruit the next generation of firefighters.
We will support the motion and Labour's amendment. In closing, I pay tribute to the sterling work that our fire and rescue service provides—a service that my colleague Robert Brown defined rightly as one "of compassionate competence". I urge the Government to ensure that the national framework provides only strategic guidance, encourages appropriate enforceable national standards and at all times ensures that we respect local autonomy.
I am glad to be able to wind up in today's important debate. I echo others in the Parliament when I say that we must never take for granted the efforts of the very brave men and women who turn up to fight fire and flood to save lives and property.
Anyone who has been through a fire will know the lasting effects of the grime, the soot, the pervading smell of smoke and the shock at that amazingly destructive force of nature that can not only kill in minutes but up-end the entire infrastructure of people's lives. That is why the men and women of the fire brigades who fight fire and flood must be given the utmost respect, and their practical experience must be listened to in the consultation. It is they who know first hand the facets of the service that need improvement.
Peter Peacock mentioned the effects of flooding in Elgin and Fochabers in my region. I know full well how bad those effects are. I hope that members will forgive me for focusing a good part of my remarks on our inland water rescue services in the light of the tragic drowning of four fishermen in Loch Awe in my native Argyll, which Jim Tolson also mentioned. I have been closely involved with the wishes of the community to do anything possible to save people from drowning in Scottish lochs and rivers.
For some years now I have been concerned about the effectiveness of inshore water rescue and who exactly is responsible for that service on lochs such as Loch Awe and Loch Maree, where another two people recently were tragically drowned. Following the drowning tragedy in March, I asked the Scottish Government questions relating to Loch Awe. A subsequent answer revealed that 12 people have drowned in the loch since 1996. That caused local concern and prompted the Scottish Government to launch a review of Scotland's water rescue capability. I am grateful to the minister for doing that.
Page 18 of the draft fire and rescue consultation document states that
"co-ordinating flooding incidents needs to be improved"
and that a review into Scotland's water rescue capability, led by Paddy Tomkins QPM, the former chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland, is taking place. His group will report its recommendations by December 2009. He attended a meeting of stakeholders in Oban—which I also attended—such as the police, the fire and rescue services, the mountain rescue services, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, councillors and community councillors who thrashed out what could best be done to save lives in different areas.
The fire brigade plays an enormous role at the moment. If a person reports an incident, such as someone being in trouble in the water, they are put in touch with the police, but in general the police do not have the rescue training that is given to the fire service and they often do not have the resources to deal immediately with such incidents. They pass the incident to the fire service, which in many instances, for example the incident on Loch Awe, makes it the first responder. In the case of Loch Awe, the police chief informed me that she could not telephone local people to ask for their help and their boats, and in that case the fire brigade had no boat.
Although I fully understand that not every loch can be equipped with a rescue boat, it is vital that a boat is in reach of the rescue services in what I would call black-spot water-death areas that should be identified by the local rescue services as soon as possible. I am sure that the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland would wish to do everything possible to save life rather than put hurdles in front of would-be rescuers, as that might have the opposite effect. It is vital to find an appropriate balance between saving people in trouble and protecting the lives of those who go to their aid. That will be something for Mr Tomkins's review to work out. Having spoken to him, I have every confidence that whatever the recommendations are in December, they will improve our rescue services in Scotland.
Many people living in rural areas would like to help as observers. Local safety clubs should be given basic resources, such as binoculars, to observe areas of water, and they should be encouraged to have a network that can be called on by the police in an emergency. Fire and water have one thing in common—both kill quickly and are no respecters of time. Ultimate speed is one of the main essences of rescue.
Does the member agree that given the thousands of areas of water throughout Scotland, he describes a complicated issue? If the fire and rescue services are to take on additional work in that regard, it is to be hoped that the review's recommendations attract much more additional funding.
That would certainly need to be looked into. I thank the member for her point.
Educating the public about what to do in emergencies is a vital part of prevention. I was mightily impressed by the video that the fire service showed me of a small fire becoming a raging inferno in less than three minutes. I was also impressed by the excellent demonstration by the RNLI on the wearing and maintenance of life jackets by people using boats. I was horrified by some of the examples of life jackets and buoyancy aids without crotch straps and with corroded and utterly useless gas canisters. It is obviously vital that life-saving equipment is in first-class condition and that attention is paid to the recommendations of the RNLI with regard to life jackets. I mentioned that to Mr Tomkins, who said that he will take an interest in the subject.
Before concluding, I raise a worrying issue. Last weekend, an article in Scotland on Sunday pointed out the financial difficulties that private caterers and accommodation providers might face in relation to the enforcement of new fire regulations. Will the minister make certain not only that new regulations are fit for purpose but that they are enforced in a way that allows those providers to accommodate the extra burden of expense without going bust?
I welcome today's debate and the consultation, and I look forward to progress being made as we see the most effective possible co-ordination within our fire and rescue framework.
It has been a good, constructive and informed debate. The sunshine of the morning has brought at least some consensus even to the justice teams in the chamber, so let us cherish the moment. In that spirit, I am happy to say that we will support the Government motion and Robert Brown's amendment. We should look for consensus where it is possible because we are determining the future organisation and provision of a service in which, day in and day out, firefighters risk their lives to protect those of others.
Today, we look forward to the future framework for fire and rescue services in Scotland, but many of us look back to earlier in the summer when we attended Ewan Williamson's memorial service. It was right that the minister paid tribute to him today and I associate myself with all his remarks. Indeed, there should be official recognition of Ewan Williamson's bravery and sacrifice. The memorial service was a deeply moving occasion that reminded us of the bravery of our firefighters and the debt that we as a nation owe them. It was very moving indeed to see firefighters from throughout Scotland and other parts of the UK come together to mark Ewan Williamson's sacrifice.
There is much in the framework with which we agree and we broadly support the key priorities for fire and rescue services outlined in the introduction. However, after events such as the death of Ewan Williamson—in the context of an increasing number of deaths in the line of duty, which Elaine Smith mentioned—it is right and necessary that the debate focuses on health and safety, to which a number of speakers referred. That matter was, quite rightly, brought to our attention by the Fire Brigades Union, whose members join us in the gallery today.
The framework refers to an action plan, which is to emerge from the study on fire deaths and injury. That must happen. Once the investigation into the death of Ewan Williamson has been completed and its findings are produced, it will be vital to respond appropriately and to take any necessary action. Of course, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the investigation, but an appropriate response will be required.
In our amendment to the motion, we have said that health and safety should be prioritised in the framework, because we have heard concerns from the FBU about ensuring a rigorous and consistent approach to health and safety throughout Scotland. That was the driver behind our amendment.
In all things to do with the fire and rescue service, a careful balance has to be struck between providing local flexibility and ensuring consistency in services throughout Scotland. Members returned to that issue again and again in the debate.
Where appropriate, equipment and other resources should be shared between forces. I know that forces are already looking at collaborative approaches to delivering services in their area. Unnecessary replication of resources is a cause of frustration to which members have referred. The minister talked about the need to avoid unnecessary duplication in the service and to maximise efficiency in challenging financial times.
We also believe that more progress can be made towards achieving best value. Initiatives and resources such as firelink are an important innovation for the service as a whole. The need to develop a joint approach to shared services is highlighted in the framework. I believe that significant progress on that can be made. The issue of taking a joint approach is at the heart of Robert Brown's amendment, which chimes with the points that we have made on health and safety.
John Lamont rightly referred to "In the Line of Duty". I was happy to lodge a motion on that report and I was pleased that it received cross-party support.
The sheer scope of the contribution that our firefighters make to our communities must be fully recognised. Paul Martin talked about that in the context of his experience in Springburn. Peter Peacock referred to the service's recent crucial work in tackling flooding. The service's role in water rescue can be important, too, so it should be part of the framework. Jamie McGrigor was quite right to highlight that issue and to draw it to the attention of the Parliament. Progress in that area needs to be made following the report from Paddy Tomkins.
I welcome the points that Alison McInnes and others made about the important role that retained firefighters play in remote, island and rural areas, which is recognised in the framework.
I also welcome the framework's emphasis on the continued role for fire and rescue services in improving the lives of people in our communities through their contribution to community safety education and awareness strategies and to youth engagement and restorative justice schemes. That not only addresses the important issue of fire prevention more broadly but tackles antisocial behaviour. We believe that that role is important and we welcome the fact that it is emphasised in the framework.
Paul Martin talked about the need to be vigilant against the tiny minority who, unbelievably, target and attack our firefighters. We need to make full use of the legislative provisions that the Parliament passed to take action on that issue.
The work and contribution of firefighters must be central to the framework—indeed, it must be central to the service itself. That is why we have placed such an emphasis on health and safety in the debate. It is right that the framework refers to learning and development for firefighters and that there is a focus on training and the role of the Scottish Fire Services College. Cathie Craigie made important points about national standards in training, which need to be addressed.
Of course, there is also the issue of workforce planning. I think that the minister said that, where budgets are tight, there are significant opportunities to share resources and infrastructure. However, the fact is that the number of firefighters has been falling. Priority has to be given to ensuring that there are enough firefighters to do the job safely. As Elaine Smith said, recruitment and retention of firefighters must always be at the heart of planning for the future of the service.
The minister also touched briefly on the wider debates about the structure of the service and what shape it should take in the future. I tend to agree that that is not a debate for today, but I am sure that we will return to it. I do not think that anyone here believes that the framework will be the last word on that crucial matter.
If the minister takes on board the concerns that have been aired in a constructive way, progress can be made through the framework. I note that the minister said that he had an open mind on governance, but we can deal only with the structures as they are. I would welcome further information from the minister on what he means when he says that he has an open mind. Does that mean that there is likely to be further change in governance sooner rather than later?
We have to ensure that there is excellence in the service throughout Scotland and that there can be an expectation of the same high standard of service for communities wherever they are in Scotland. There is a need for ministers to ensure closer collaboration between the ministerial advisory group and the other relevant authorities, including the local joint boards, to ensure that there is a clear strategy.
The framework talks about the famous goal of a joined-up approach, which must be taken even in post-concordat Scotland. We cannot have fragmentation, to which Bill Butler referred.
Stewart Maxwell made pertinent points about nationally comparable standards and data. Angela Constance referred to consistency in response times. I hope that the minister will answer the questions on those issues in summing up.
We all want to see much more progress being made to address Scotland's unenviable record on fire fatalities compared with other parts of the UK. We all hope that that can be achieved through the framework, which must be a step forward in the journey towards a structure and service that give our firefighters the support that they require to do their jobs and to achieve the goal that we all share of having fewer fire fatalities in Scotland.
Before I address the debate, it is with regret that I advise members that I have become aware during the debate that, yesterday evening, a 27-year-old woman died after a fire broke out at a block of flats in Dumfries. The emergency services evacuated residents from the block of six flats but, sadly, one young female lost her life. That is a reminder of the importance of the topics that we have been debating today and the role that our firefighters carry out in putting their lives at risk so that they may save others.
The debate has been excellent. I start off with a collective thank you to all members who have made positive and considered contributions. We will learn from the debate. This has been a good and timely opportunity to have a wide-ranging discussion about our fire service.
I am immensely pleased about the tone of the debate, the positive nature of the contributions from members of all parties and the fact that many members have taken the opportunity to devote their contributions to specific topics, developing their arguments in a considered way. That will be invaluable for us as we proceed.
I will address some of the remarks that my colleague Paul Martin made. My overall response is that the framework document is a process, not a conclusion. We are willing to discuss, reconsider and revise it as necessary. It is an excellent start, if I may say so, and has been agreed with all the stakeholders involved. In almost every case, I have a good working relationship with those stakeholders. Across the parties, it is virtually free of any party-political considerations, which is absolutely right.
Many members have made much comment on the briefing material that the FBU provided, the advice and assistance that the union has given and the time that it has spent describing to members of all parties its views on the important matters in the framework. I have met the FBU regularly and will continue to do so. I pay tribute to the way in which it and the Retained Firefighters Union represent their members with determination, vigilance, persistence and a prose style that is, if I may say so, utterly devoid of ambiguity.
I will address in turn some of the main issues that were raised. First, I will consider training. In the light of recent events, nothing is more important than ensuring that the training regime is adequate and fit for purpose. The framework recognises that point at page 7 and paragraph 7.1.2.
The upskilling of our whole-time and retained firefighters is most essential. The Scottish Government is entirely committed to continually developing their skills and is investing more than £6 million annually in core and specialist training. A training needs analysis has been commissioned to confirm actual need against planned and existing capacity and, thereafter, to determine a strategy for investment and collaboration on the development of facilities locally and at the fire college in Gullane.
Many members mentioned those issues. I think that Cathie Craigie mentioned the national college at Gullane. As an early decision, I was pleased to dismiss a proposal to merge it with Tulliallan, which all members would have dismissed had they been in my shoes. It was a particularly silly proposal that seemed to show a blatant ignorance of the different training needs and disciplines of our fire and police services and, indeed, the different traditions that Tulliallan and Gullane have. In Gullane, we have an excellent national training facility that provides a solid grounding for those who enter the fire service.
There are many elements to training. At a meeting last month, the FBU raised real fire training with me. We take that very seriously. Carbonaceous burn units are one way of providing a realistic simulation of fires and they are used by a number of services. Fife Fire and Rescue Service has recently purchased a new unit. I know that because I was there when it was launched and I saw just how fierce the heat is. When the firefighters emerged from the unit, they all did so shaking their hands because, even with full protection, the heat—which is several hundred degrees centigrade—is so ferociously intense that it provides a real fire experience, which is important.
The Scottish Fire Services College in Gullane has recently reached agreement with BAA to use its facility at Edinburgh airport. The frequency of attendance at live fire exercises varies throughout Scotland. One service achieves a target of exercises twice a year for every firefighter while, at the other end, an ambition to experience live fire training once every three years is not achieved. I mentioned that because, as I said, there are areas in which we face challenges. That matter is without doubt—I am being candid about this—one of those. That is why, following my discussions with the FBU last month, I have signalled that I intend to pursue the matter when I meet chief fire officers fairly shortly. I hope that I will have the support of all members in so doing.
When the minister meets the chief fire officers, will he also raise the importance of a nationally agreed strategy for training so that, when firefighters have to work with colleagues from other fire and rescue services, they can at least be sure that they are trained to the same level and standard? I am sure that the FBU has raised that matter with him.
That is certainly one of the issues that we will discuss. I think that Cathie Craigie acknowledged in her speech that training needs differ across Scotland. One of the places that I had the pleasure of visiting was North Ronaldsay. It takes about a day to get from there to Inverness. If the training is not in Inverness and the firefighters have to go to Gullane, that might take another day. It can take several days, particularly in the Highlands and Islands but also in Dumfries and Galloway or parts of Strathclyde, to undertake training. There are huge pressures on the local fire boards to fund training, particularly in rural areas, and there are different circumstances in those areas. However, as various members said, there must be sufficient and adequate training in the various functions that our firefighters carry out on our behalf.
Will the minister give way?
If I may, I would like to move on, because I want to address many other members' points.
Of particular importance is the core function of tackling real fires.
I say to Angela Constance that Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service's proposal to build a training centre at Newbridge is ultimately a matter for the service; it has the decision-making power. The Scottish Government has provided significant financial support for the creation of a new Strathclyde Fire and Rescue training facility outside Glasgow. The facility's strategic location will ensure that it is accessible and available for use by other services as well as Strathclyde Fire and Rescue. We have made it clear to LBFRS that, given that that is the case and given the location of Gullane within the LBFRS area, we do not see how the Scottish Government could justify providing central funding to support the Newbridge proposal.
Various members, notably Peter Peacock and Jamie McGrigor, mentioned water rescue. The challenges in carrying out water rescue in flooding and in moving water are immense. There are few things more dangerous than someone deciding to enter a river where the water is moving swiftly, as it often does. Sadly, over the summer months, there were a number of fatalities in our rivers—those who decided, understandably but foolishly, to jump into a river to try to rescue a pet and lost their lives. That is an extremely serious issue.
Because of that and because of representations from chiefs such as David Wynne, the FBU and other stakeholders, we decided not only that we needed to have a review but that it had to be headed up by someone who had the most distinguished record and great experience. I was pleased to hear Jamie McGrigor recount some of the work that Paddy Tomkins has already done. I am due to meet Paddy shortly and expect his report to be submitted to me in or around November. It will be a key piece of work and, if the Parliament wishes to debate it after it has been published and perhaps after we have had an opportunity to consider it, it will be entirely appropriate that we do so, given the speeches that a number of members have made today.
A number of members also focused on governance. Bill Butler and Elaine Smith devoted substantial parts of their speeches to that issue. The fundamental basis for the way in which we work with our stakeholders is partnership. As a former solicitor—who, it should be said, was for most of the period in partnership with members of my family—I know that partnership can be a febrile, fissile and volatile business format, in which partners can disagree. There has to be a mechanism by which views can be discussed and thrashed out, and a decision reached.
I am confident that the current arrangements are working reasonably well. All stakeholders are represented on the ministerial advisory group, which I chair. A point that I do not think has been made in the debate is that one of the benefits of the framework document is that, for the first time, it sets out with absolute clarity the respective roles and responsibilities of me, local government, the unions, the chiefs and all the stakeholders; as well as, on page 9, the governance that is provided by the MAG. Although it is not a statutory body, the MAG has the potential to develop further. I indicated to Paul Martin that I have an open mind on the issue. I have also indicated to the chiefs, to COSLA, to the Scottish fire conveners forum and to the trade unions that if there is a suggestion for how we can further improve the MAG, I am perfectly willing to consider it.
How MAG performs its business has changed since I took the helm. It will now meet the expectation that there will be three meetings a year. The format of sub-committees has been slightly simplified. We have an entirely open mind about how to meet people. However, it is wrong to put too much emphasis on governance. A structure in itself is not a solution. The problems that we have are problems that we face irrespective of what structure we have. That said, I very much look forward to hearing from members, and perhaps party spokespeople, about how we can take our work forward. I am always happy to meet party spokespeople to discuss any issue regarding the fire service.
Will the minister consider re-establishing the link between fire service budgets and the number of uniformed posts, as I asked earlier?
I would need to consider that carefully. Plainly, we are under considerable financial pressures. In large part, our local government partners are responsible for delivering those services, and we work with them constantly to ensure that, as far as possible, all decisions involve a joint partnership approach. However, I do not dismiss the point, which we would need to consider extremely carefully.
A number of members, including Christina McKelvie, Jamie Hepburn and Stewart Maxwell, raised the important issue of inspection. I can inform members that the Scottish fire and rescue advisory unit has carried out an extensive review of operational service delivery in 2008-09. The results are to be shared with chief officers, and a report is to be provided to me imminently. The unit will revisit all services in the final quarter of this year to review process. Further, the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 gives me statutory powers to direct the head of the SFRAU to inquire into matters detailed in the act, should I require to do so.
Various specific issues were raised in the debate. Stewart Maxwell made a cogent, coherent argument for reduced ignition propensity cigarettes. I suspect that that is an issue to which we will return—and rightly so. I very much hope that we can work positively with the UK, and perhaps the European Union, to make progress on that issue. The figures that Mr Maxwell quoted in relation to the reduction in the number of deaths in New York and Vermont speak for themselves. Although it is an idea whose time has perhaps come, there will need to be careful discussions before the Scottish Government can come to a view. I look forward to meeting Mr Maxwell fairly soon to pursue those matters.
As I have mentioned, earlier in the year I had the pleasure of visiting our eight fire services and seeing for myself the excellent work that they do. I met firefighters and discussed their work with them. There is a pictorial record of those visits, including a number of photographs of me meeting firefighters and clad in a firefighter's uniform. Hello! magazine it is not. With those words, I commend all members and their contributions to the debate.