A Dundee councillor has failed to persuade fellow members of the Tayside Fire and Rescue Board that a single fire service to cover the whole of Scotland would be the best way forward with Dundee as the ideal location for the national HQ.
Councillor Richard McCready and fellow Dundee councillor Helen Wright were effectively lone voices at Monday’s special meeting of the board and failed to attract any other votes for the plan.
However, he pledged to continue to push for Dundee to be the HQ if, as he believes, the single service plan is ultimately given the go-ahead at Holyrood.
“I think that there are arguments in favour of a single service,” he said.
“I also think that we should have as our priorities frontline services and better local accountability.
“I know that many people are concerned that a single service would be too focused on the central belt, that is why I called for the HQ of a single service to be located in Dundee.
“This would give a clear message that this is a national service.
“Dundee is well placed to play host to such head-quarters being in easy reach of the majority of the Scottish population.
“Despite the decision of the fire and rescue board to reject moves towards a single fire service in Scotland, it appears to me that it is likely that we will be heading in that direction.
“If that is the case I will continue to call for a single fire and rescue service to be headquartered in Dundee.”
The meeting considered the board’s response to the Scottish Government consultation on the future of the fire and rescue service nationally and the minister’s view that there are “compelling arguments” for a single service.
Members were asked to approve a response which underlined the board’s commitment to the current set-up and the “high level of service” provided by Tayside Fire and Rescue.
Councillor McCready’s amendment fell at the first hurdle, when it was pitted against an alternative proposal which suggested less drastic changes to the response being recommended to the board.
Only councillors McCready and Wright supported the former’s amendment when it came to a vote, with the second amendment only winning the support of councillors Peter Valentine and Helen Oswald, its proposer and seconder.
The remaining councillors abstained, leaving it to convener Ken Lyall to use his casting vote in favour of Councillor Valentine’s amendment.
Councillor Lyall had moved acceptance of the recommended response, saying any change had to be “evidence-based” and there was simply not enough evidence at the moment.
The motion was seconded by Angus Councillor John Whyte, who said that he was not actively opposed to a single service but felt it was not right to make changes which would inevitably involve upfront costs, at a time of economic constraint.
The board overwhelmingly approved the motion, with 12 votes in favour, against just two from councillors Valentine and Oswald for their amendment, and abstentions from councillors McCready and Wright.