Plenary, 23 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Official Report 446KB pdf

---

Fire (Scotland) Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2421, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Fire (Scotland) Bill be passed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate. Today marks the culmination of an extensive process of consultation and parliamentary consideration, which began as long ago as April 2002 with the publication of the document entitled "The Scottish Fire Service of the Future". Our partnership agreement gave a clear commitment to taking forward the 2002 white paper by introducing a fire bill to modernise the service, meet local needs, increase local decision making and improve consultation with the workforce. The Fire (Scotland) Bill is the outcome of that process.

The bill's parliamentary passage has been assisted by a great many people, and before I proceed to comment briefly on the bill's key provisions, I want to thank a number of them. I thank those who took time to respond to the various consultations; those who gave evidence to the committees; members of the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee and, in particular, members of the Justice 2 Committee for considering the bill so carefully and constructively; and the clerking teams of those committees. I also want to record in the Official Report my appreciation of the Scottish Executive bill team, which has worked hard to support ministers and has given advice and information to MSPs as requested. The team has done an exceptionally good job. I am also happy to confirm that Her Majesty has given her consent to the application of part 3 of the bill to the Crown in Scotland.

Some complex issues were inherent in the bill, particularly in relation to part 3, and we needed fortitude to work through the intricacies of fire safety legislation. Specifically, we have had to address the reserved-devolved divide between general fire safety and process fire safety and how the fire safety regime in Scotland will apply to so-called reserved premises. I can confirm that an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 is being used to transfer legislative competence for fire safety on special premises and construction sites to the Scottish Parliament. I can also confirm that we have in-principle agreement from Whitehall departments—subject to reaching detailed policy agreement and satisfying the statutory tests—to progress other issues, such as fire safety on Ministry of Defence premises and on certain ships and hovercraft and including the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Defence fire services as enforcing authorities through a section 104 order under the 1998 act. Work is continuing at official level with Whitehall counterparts on a number of other issues.

The bill will deliver modern legislation for a modern fire and rescue service that responds to the demands of the 21st century. At times, the bill has been portrayed in some quarters as a vehicle for centralisation and micromanagement of the service by ministers—in effect, a takeover by the Scottish Executive. There have also been allegations that the bill will breach our European obligations and will make it an offence to take strike action—members will have heard that in previous discussions. That the Parliament's rigorous scrutiny process ably demonstrated that the bill will do none of those things is comforting. Above all, the bill will achieve a statutory framework that places fire prevention and fire safety at its heart. For a country that—unfortunately—continues to have the worst fire fatality record in the United Kingdom, driving down the risk of fire, especially in the home, which is where many fatalities happen, must be a priority.

Through the national framework, there will be clear strategic direction for the service, which will ensure local democratic accountability and the local delivery of a key service to meet local needs. The clarification and strengthening of fire and rescue authority powers will provide the means and flexibility for authorities to achieve the best delivery for their areas.

I want to ask about local delivery, although the issue is not covered by the bill itself. The minister will be aware of concerns about local control rooms. In the debate on 18 November, he gave an assurance that there would be further consultation on control rooms and that the issue would be referred back to the Parliament through the proper mechanisms. What further consultation has been carried out? What will the proper mechanisms be? Will the Parliament have the final say on local control rooms?

We are still working on issues that were identified in responses from a number of stakeholders. Consultation will take place with key stakeholders, including trade unions, local authorities and the fire boards once we have all the information to hand. We still have some way to go. We have made it clear that we will come back to Parliament, and the committee will have further discussions before anything further happens. We are still some way from any decision or conclusion. It is right that we should take our time to consider the specific concerns that have been raised about the need for local geographic knowledge and about the financial robustness of certain proposals. Once that information is to hand, there will be full consultation with all stakeholders, including the trade unions.

The bill will also enable a co-ordinated and Scotland-wide response to significant and even unprecedented emergencies. In the post-September 11 environment in which we all live, the provisions to ensure resilience are, sadly, necessary and I hope that they will be welcomed.

I hope that the various amendments that we made at stage 2 and today have given some assurances to those who were a bit uncertain and unclear. Where we can, we have attempted to accommodate and clarify. I hope that we can consider the bill as being just one part of a change process that is moving the fire service forward. I am clear that the bill is a central plank in that process and I am confident that it will stand the test of time. The process has been long, deliberate and rigorous and I warmly commend the bill to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Fire (Scotland) Bill be passed.

I start by supporting the minister's comments and praising many of those involved in the process. I particularly praise the fire service. The work done by operational firefighters, fire safety officers and non-uniformed support staff clearly creates the most effective and efficient public service in the country. That opinion might be slightly biased, given my 10-year service in Strathclyde fire brigade. However, it is an excellent service that responds when the public call and is there to save lives and property. We are all very thankful for that.

I support the bill because we believe that it is essential to have a modern fire service at the start of the 21st century. The fire service requires modern legislation and there is a lot to commend in the bill.

One of the smaller things that has not been mentioned so far but is worth referring to is some of the name changes. For example, firemasters are now chief fire officers. The term "firemaster" is an old term and suggests that the person at the top of the fire brigade will always be a man. Although that is only a small change, it is welcome. Changing the term "fire brigades" to "fire and rescue services" means that the name much more accurately reflects the work that the service does. It does not just deal with fires; it deals with a range of other incidents.

On that point, I welcome the inclusion of road traffic accidents in the bill. That is a positive step. I also applaud the emphasis on protecting firefighters that is included at chapter 5A of the bill. Again, that is a positive step.

As the minister has just said, modernisation of fire safety legislation is central to much of the bill. It is one of the most important shifts in emphasis in the bill. The idea that we consider causes and do not just deal with problems once they have arisen is an important step in the right direction. The emphasis on fire safety legislation in the bill is therefore very welcome.

I am also very pleased to acknowledge Bill Butler's amendments to include the trade unions in any negotiating body and I am pleased that those amendments have been agreed to. Again, that is a good move and I thank Bill Butler for those amendments.

I was disappointed by some aspects of the bill. A replacement body for the Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council is not in the bill. I will certainly be paying close attention to the consultation in that area and to any regulations that the Executive proposes to create a new non-statutory body. I hope that the minister will be as good as his word and will create an effective, efficient and powerful body to advise him and his team.

I am also slightly disappointed that only RTAs, along with firefighting, have been included on the face of the bill, as there are other emergency incidents that could and, possibly, should have been included. Chemical and nuclear incidents, flooding and rail emergencies are well-known examples of incidents that could have been included on the face of the bill, instead of being left to ministerial order. I hope that the issue will be cleared up by ministerial order and that provision will be made for all such incidents.

It is also unfortunate that the opportunity has not been taken to consider who should be responsible for the maintenance of fire hydrants. We discussed the issue during consideration of stage 3 amendments a moment ago, but I think that the current system lacks logic and is basically inefficient. It is not just about transferring resources from one organisation to another. At the moment, when Scottish Water identifies a broken fire hydrant, it informs the fire service. When the service has inspected the hydrant and agreed that it is broken, it raises an order with Scottish Water, which sends out someone to replace it. The bill is sent to the brigades, which pay Scottish Water. In my view, that is not a particularly logical or efficient system. The whole matter must be looked at again.

I put on record our reservations about where fire services in Scotland may end up. Although we support the bill in general terms, it is important that I indicate our concerns for the future. If there is an attempt in the future to contract out fire brigade services, we will oppose it. If there is an attempt to cut control rooms, staff and safety, we will fight such proposals. If there is an attempt to undermine a first-class public service through privatisation, we will do everything in our power to prevent that from happening. I hope that the minister and the Executive will not go down that road. Down south, privatisation, contracting out and cuts have been mentioned as possibilities, but I hope that the idea that those will improve the service will have no place in the Parliament.

With the general reservations that I have expressed, I welcome the bill and the move forward that is being made. I welcome the fact that we are emphasising fire safety legislation and putting it at the heart of our fire safety work. The Scottish National Party will support the bill at decision time this evening.

Today we are dealing with an important piece of legislation. As I did in the stage 1 debate, I pay tribute to our fire service in Scotland for the work that it does. At stage 1, I said that I have been the beneficiary of the service's skill and expertise. We should be under no illusions about how vital the service is to Scotland.

In consideration of any legislation, it is important that we are clear that attempts to modernise services are proceeding in a reasonably transparent and readily understood fashion. I thank the minister for his comments in respect of the Justice 2 Committee and repeat my thanks to members of the committee, of which I am the convener. The committee found the bill an interesting piece of legislation to scrutinise and we had good debates. At stage 2, the Executive made considerable progress in allaying legitimate concerns that existed at stage 1.

The Conservative party was sufficiently unclear about the Executive's intentions in the text on the face of the bill to feel unable to support the bill at stage 1. We lodged an amendment that was not agreed to, which left us unable to support the bill at that stage, because of genuine concern about lack of clarity. However, I am grateful to the minister for emphasising at stage 2 his desire to achieve a degree of transparency and for giving members of the Justice 2 Committee certain welcome reassurances that we accepted in the spirit in which they were given. As our doubts have been reasonably dispelled, Conservative members intend to support the bill this afternoon.

As has been mentioned in the debate and during consideration of amendments, there are some residual concerns about the bill. I refer to the briefing from the Fire Brigades Union. The FBU may be surprised to hear this from someone such as me, but I thought that its briefing, as a model of lucidity, took some beating. It was a very clear piece of work. I might not have agreed with everything in the document, but I certainly felt that it was very well prepared.

Shona Robison has referred to control rooms, and so shall I. The minister said in his response that the consultation is still to happen, but he said specifically that the matter would come back to Parliament via the committee. Although that is reassuring in a general sense, we would all welcome a slightly more specific indication of what form that return of information will take. Perhaps the minister will expand on that when he winds up.

The other relevant issue that the FBU raised concerns the national framework document. I expressed concern during the stage 1 debate that the content of that important and significant strategic document was still pretty vague at the time of the bill's drafting and that it would be subject to consultation and final clarification before the Parliament. I accept that that parliamentary scrutiny will be a safeguard, but the FBU makes some legitimate points about the need to ensure that the document reflects slightly greater diversity in policies and procedures. I was sympathetic to some of the points that the FBU raised in that regard and I draw to the minister's attention the need to be sure that the document takes a truly comprehensive and holistic approach. If we want the legislation to provide the most modernised service that we can achieve, the content of that document will be pivotal in trying to attain that objective.

Some of the Executive's amendments at stage 3 did a lot to dispel residual concerns. I am pleased to see that there will be a reliance on affirmative rather than negative procedure in the Parliament for certain provisions. That is a conciliatory sign from the Executive and I receive it as such.

In short, my party welcomes the bill—it is a solid piece of work for the future. I hope that it will create the type of modern conditions that we all want for our fire service personnel. My party will support the bill.

I rise to support the bill. I pay tribute to my colleague Mike Pringle who, with the Justice 2 Committee, saw the passage of the bill through stage 1 and stage 2 of the legislative process. As a former member of the Finance Committee, where the bill was first considered—I will touch on that in a moment—it is my pleasant duty to support the bill this afternoon as it nears its final stage.

As the minister said, this is the first dedicated Scottish legislation for the fire service in 50 years. The bill will allow the streamlining of fire safety legislation in devolved areas; it will provide a statutory footing for a wider role for the fire service; it recognises the developments over recent years, especially in areas such as serious flooding; and it responds to terrorist incidents and road traffic accidents. Those are all areas in which firefighters have acquitted themselves admirably over recent years. They have been proactive and up for new challenges, as other members have said, and for that they deserve our thanks.

Even with the new bill, I hope that we do not move the service down the line towards working purely within statutory duties, even though it is beneficial to have some of those duties emphasised in the bill. Our fire service is outstanding because of its flexibility and the ease with which firefighters co-operate with the other emergency services. After visiting firefighters in Galashiels and the retained officers in Penicuik in my constituency, I have seen that at first hand. We all wish to be confident that the fire safety regulations are consensual and that they have the confidence of all firefighters.

Firefighters are at the forefront of joint working on fire safety. For example, the community safety forum in the Borders would not function as well as it does without the time and dedication of firefighters there. As an example, today I spoke to Jim Fraser, a senior fire officer in the Borders. It was his day off, and he was spending it briefing the planning officers in Scottish Borders Council on the new sprinkler regulations that this Parliament introduced. Jim Fraser's team in the Borders has installed 100 smoke detectors in houses across the region; leafleted and knocked on doors; and linked in with social workers to provide benefits to the community while diligently performing its core role, which the bill will extend. I hope that, if there has been a tendency in the past to take for granted or not to recognise such additional work, the bill will lead to proper respect for the profession's work and its wider benefit to the community.

Much of the debate within and outwith the committee has centred on fire control centres, which is another area in which regulations outside the bill will be important to the service. When I visited the force communication centre for Lothian and Borders police in Bilston just outside my constituency, I saw at first hand the major teething problems that are faced by a rationalised contact centre and control room. I understand that, although the major reforms that were introduced in the fire service all those years ago have by and large worked well, it was right to review existing practice. For example, the Strathclyde control room, which 20 years ago replaced five control rooms, currently takes 48 per cent of 999 calls in Scotland.

Scottish ministers are carrying out further consultation following the Mott MacDonald report. I hope that, after that consultation is concluded, we will have a considered debate on the effectiveness and efficiency of control rooms that will cover not only their number but their function and links with other emergency services. I also hope that the consultation that the minister has indicated will take place with trade unions and fire boards will be extended to other emergency services and, crucially, to communities. At the start of this process, the Finance Committee raised a number of issues about proposed short-term and long-term savings, and the FBU highlighted those matters in its briefing.

I am confident that the minister has addressed the concerns that have been expressed about ministerial powers. As with other existing powers, such powers are prescribed in the bill. Instead of seeking to centralise decision making, the bill seeks to devolve it, which is the right approach.

Ultimately, the bill seeks to shape the fire service in Scotland in a way that will equip it properly to save lives. After all, Scotland has a very poor record in that area. Many firefighters to whom I spoke during the dispute remarked that their constructive relationship with the Scottish Executive was better than the relationship that colleagues south of the border had with the Westminster Government. The bill secures and takes forward that relationship. Its aims are to save more lives; reduce the number of accidental fires in the first place; and allow the service to be equipped for more modern challenges. With the Executive's continuing financial support, our fire service will be equal to those challenges.

I support the bill.

I have three members on the screen, and I will be able to call them all if they restrict their comments to the four minutes available.

I join other members in welcoming the Fire (Scotland) Bill and record my thanks to the clerks of the Justice 2 Committee, everyone who gave evidence, the bill team and ministers. Although the process has been complex and has sometimes resulted in arguments, it has been worth it just to hear the consensus that has emerged. Even the SNP—or at least Stewart Maxwell—now accepts that a third way is desirable and should be supported.

Will the member give way?

No.

The previous piece of legislation on the fire service was passed almost 60 years ago, in 1947. As it is quite clear that the service has changed dramatically and that its range of responsibilities is diverse, it is appropriate that we reflect the new realities that firefighters face. I join other members in paying tribute to the men and women who work in the fire service and who sometimes risk their lives to protect us in our homes and communities. They deserve our thanks.

The bill seeks to give the fire service flexibility in how it deploys its resources and in finding out how it can best serve our communities. For a start, it sets out a range of core functions that better reflect current duties including, for the first time, dealing with road traffic accidents and offshore firefighting.

Let me spend a minute on the subject of offshore firefighting. Considerable work has been undertaken at UK level on what is called the sea of change project to ensure that fires that happen on vessels at sea can be dealt with appropriately. Given the extensive coastline that we enjoy, it is only common sense that we make provision for firefighting at sea. However, I understand that some concerns have been expressed, principally about no-fault insurance liability cover for firefighters who are involved in events that happen on a vessel that, for example, might be owned in one country but registered in another. I trust that the minister will continue his dialogue with the trade unions to resolve those matters.

I want to raise another concern that I have discussed previously with the minister. For the benefit of members, let me explain that section 67(2) of the bill will make it an offence for an employee to fail to co-operate with his employer in carrying out his duties in terms of part 3. The duty to co-operate is set out in paragraph (b) in section 52. The Executive's helpful amendments at stage 2 put it beyond any doubt that section 67(2) would not apply in the event of strike action. However, it is unclear whether official industrial action short of strike, such as working to rule or a go-slow, would be similarly exempt. Will the minister confirm that section 67(2) is not intended to apply to an employee who does not so co-operate by reason of otherwise lawful industrial action, including industrial action short of strike?

In my concluding minute or two—

You have only one minute.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

In my concluding minute, I want to deal with what I consider to be the essence of the bill, which is the greater emphasis that it places on fire prevention and community fire safety. In the tragic event of a fire, especially those that break out at night, the fire service—no matter how fast it is—often arrives too late and fatalities result. Therefore, we should see enormous benefit from the greater emphasis that the bill will place on prevention. Risk assessment must be used as a key tool by building on the risk-based approach that is contained in the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997, which require employers to identify risks and to take steps to remove or reduce them. In that way, the bill will affect virtually all those who are responsible for non-domestic premises, including shops, offices, educational establishments and care homes.

We all want to see a modern 21st century fire service with a framework that recognises and values our firefighters, provides flexibility to develop the service in the interest of our communities and has prevention of fire at its heart. The bill will provide an essential foundation on which we can build.

As my colleague Stewart Maxwell said, the Scottish National Party is happy to support the bill. We pay tribute not only to those who were involved in drafting the published document that is before us, but to those who put in a great deal of hard work in research and consultation both before and after the bill went to the committee. All those involved, from the top to the bottom, deserve our thanks and the credit that is due to them.

The bill has been introduced not so much because the fire service has changed, but because society has changed around it. There is no suggestion of any fault on the part of the service—indeed, quite the opposite is true, given that all members have voiced their thanks for the current service. We are well served by the fire brigades, both by those who are involved in the control rooms and at auxiliary level and by the front-line firefighters and divisional officers. All of us, in the Parliament and in the country of Scotland, owe them a debt of gratitude.

However, life has changed and society is much more complicated. As Jackie Baillie pointed out, the bill will update existing legislation. Schedule 4 to the bill indicates the extent to which existing legislation will be repealed. For the Fire Services Act 1947, the repeal applies to

"The whole Act except sections 26 to 27A."

For the Fire Services Act 1959, it applies to

"The whole Act except sections 8 to 10."

Those sections were the basis on which the current fire service was organised, but it is clear that our society has changed in many ways, radically and irrevocably, since those times. We need to change with society and to ensure that our fire service is able to deal with matters.

Often, such change in society has not been for the better. Given the need to address matters such as fire officers who are assaulted in the line of duty, it is clear that some changes in our society have been significantly for the worse. However, such issues must be addressed both in the bill and in other legislation that is working its way through the Parliament.

In response to Ms Baillie, let me clarify that the SNP views the bill not as a third way so much as the modern Scottish way to bring our fire service up to date for the 21st century. We are utilising the Parliament that has been restored to the people of Scotland to provide the fire service with the necessary facilities and legislative framework.

Does the member agree that the modern Scottish way is, in fact, the Labour way?

The member may well regret saying that. There has been an element of consensus and there is no suggestion that one party has a greater claim than any other over the fire service. The service benefits all people in Scotland irrespective of who they are, how they vote and whether they are rich or poor. That is as it always should be and no one party should lay any claim to such a service.

The SNP pays tribute to the fire service. We welcome the bill because it introduces the facility and the framework that will allow the fire service better to serve not only us as legislators but the whole of our community.

We have mentioned two specific points, which are not about matters that are contained within the bill but relate to where the bill and, ultimately, the act may go. First, we have put on record, through Mr Maxwell and through my colleague Shona Robison, our worries about control rooms. Those concerns have been elaborated on previously and we reserve our right to return to the issue. Secondly, we feel that it would have been better for the central authority to have some form of statutory basis. I take on board the points that the minister has made, but we feel that it is necessary to ensure that there is a framework around which the authority can operate and of which ministers have some ownership and control so that it is not made into a quango or agency, or put out and sidelined.

With those two caveats, we are more than happy to support the bill at decision time.

Deputy returning officer—[Laughter.] I mean Deputy Presiding Officer—I will get your title right if it kills me, and it probably will.

Like the other members of the Justice 2 Committee, I thank the clerks to the committee for the part that they played in the scrutiny of the bill.

In my concluding remarks in the stage 1 debate on the Fire (Scotland) Bill, I said that the Scottish Socialist Party would support the general principles of the bill because it attempts to modernise the fire service and to update the legislation, but that we intended to lodge amendments during the later stages of the bill. I lodged 19 amendments during stage 2 and stage 3, but none of them was accepted by the minister. There have been a number of welcome developments and the minister has given welcome assurances during the process, but some parts of the bill still leave me dissatisfied and suspicious enough to abstain at 5 o'clock when we have the opportunity to vote.

Like other members, I pay tribute to the firefighters—the men and women throughout Scotland who provide a first-class service that is held in high regard by the population of Scotland. I welcome, as did Annabel Goldie, the work that has been put into the bill by the Fire Brigades Union Scotland, although I confess that if Annabel Goldie has been won over to the union's side, I must reassess my relationship with those comrades. Nonetheless, I have concerns that the bill represents a sea change in the Executive's attitude to the fire service compared with that before the strike. As the minister knows, I believe that the bill faces in an entirely different direction from the pathfinder report and the Executive's "The Scottish Fire Service of the Future" document, which was published in 2002. To me, the bill is an amalgam of the much-criticised Bain report on the one hand and the report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which was published after the strike.

I have similar concerns to other members, the most obvious of which is the contentious possibility of cuts in the number of control rooms from eight to three, two or one. There was pretty clear unanimity in the body of evidence that was presented in favour of retaining the current eight control rooms and providing a better service to the public rather than have a lowering in the standard of the service, which would be the danger if we moved to having fewer than eight, or one in each fire authority.

I have concerns, which I expressed during the consideration of amendments, about the advisory council and its lack of teeth. I also have concerns about the extra power that the minister is handed by the bill. The Scottish Socialist Party has concerns about those matters so we still have concerns about the bill, although we hope that many of those fears will not materialise. We will not oppose the bill, but neither will we support it at 5 o'clock as we intend to abstain.

Despite Colin Fox's unwillingness to assume any responsibility for improving legislation in this country, the process has, in general, been a positive one with constructive suggestions being made at various stages.

It is right that members of all parties have recorded their appreciation of the work of fire service staff throughout Scotland. The staff are dedicated and professional and their dedication and professionalism have saved many lives. It is unfortunate that sometimes people's habits and attitudes let our fire service down. Many people are still not prepared to assume the appropriate degree of responsibility for fire safety and work on education remains to be done to improve fire safety in this country.

If dedicated professionals are to deliver a service, it is right that the legislation should reflect the reality of modern Scotland, as the bill does. During the debate members raised a number of issues, which I will try to address. Stewart Maxwell asked whether BAA would be an example of

"any other employer of fire-fighters".

The answer to his question is yes. He also rightly talked about equal opportunities and the need for greater diversity in the fire services. The chief officer would not necessarily be a man and it is right that we change our attitudes in that regard.

Stewart Maxwell said that he was disappointed that certain powers are not mentioned in the bill. However, we need flexibility to be able to respond to changing circumstances and the approach that we have taken enables us to move more quickly than would otherwise be the case. That approach, rather than the inclusion of rigid provisions in the bill, is appropriate to the circumstances that confront us.

I was disappointed that, notwithstanding the consensus on the bill, Stewart Maxwell took the opportunity to create a degree of fear and alarm by making outrageous and unfounded comments about the contracting out of services and privatisation. There is no truth whatever in his allegations.

Annabel Goldie asked about control rooms. When the information has been collated and consultation has taken place, we will inform the Justice 2 Committee in writing of the outcome of the consultation. Annabel Goldie also raised specific issues about diversity, but I believe that we have addressed matters to do with diversity.

I will try quickly to address the points that Jackie Baillie made. We listened carefully to what was said about strike action and fire safety provisions. I make it absolutely clear that no provisions in the bill make the taking of lawful industrial action illegal. The amendments that were made to the bill at stage 2 made it clear that an offence would be committed only if a fire service employee failed to carry out his responsibilities for fire safety in the workplace while he was at work. In many respects, the provisions reflect those on health and safety at work for other employees. The approach is in no way out of step with the broader aspects of health and safety at work, which apply to employees in a range of services.

Will the minister give way?

No, the minister is out of time.

There has been very good scrutiny and people have worked hard. We have tried to allay fears and make helpful amendments. I hope that we have put in place a bill that, when it is enacted, will reflect the needs of modern Scotland, make modern Scotland safer and ensure that our fire service staff have access to legislation that makes their job much more effective.