By Earl Moxam, Senior Gleaner WriterWHEN THE Senate convened on April 3, 1992, the main item on the agenda was the state of the country's fire service and how to improve it.
This came by way of debate on a Bill amending the Fire Brigade Act. The main purpose of the Act, as outlined by Leader of Government Business, David Coore, was to 'make possible the establishment of an independent statutory body (a Board), which will direct and control the Fire Brigade Services'.
This development was coming four years after the promulgation of the Fire Brigade (Amendment) Act of 1998, which removed administration of the Fire Brigade Service from the Parish Councils to Central Government, through the Local Government Ministry.
As Senator Coore explained, the overall aim of the amendment before the Senate (in 1992) was 'to ensure that the country is satisfactorily and adequately provided with fire protection services'.
PROPER FUNDING ESSENTIAL
But, in a nod to practical considerations, he conceded that the mere establishment of a new administrative body will not achieve the levels of efficiency of the Fire Brigade Service as we would like, unless that service is properly funded.
For a while, the debate diverged to the question of whether it was a good thing after all for the Administration of the 1980s to have removed the Fire Brigade from the Parish Councils and the Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation to create a national service.
Opposition Senator Oswald Harding, who had been a member of that Administration, was in no doubt as to whether the correct decision had been made back then. Under the old regime, he said, 'you had a situation- where a particular brigade could stand there and see a fire across the road and wouldn't do anything about the fire because the fire was in another parish and they couldn't get authority from that Parish Council for the vehicle to go across the other parish'.
Government Member, Barclay Ewart, while agreeing that it had been a good thing to establish a National Service, proposed that the service be privatised along community lines.
According to his proposal, while there would be a National Board in charge of the overall regulation and direction of the Fire Brigade, communities with particular economic emphases, like hotels and similar businesses, would finance and run the fire service in their area along private lines. "It would not be a profitable undertaking but it would be a proper allocation of cost where they truly belong," he argued.
Similarly, he said, in an area that was primarily agricultural and not built-up some equipment such as the very huge ladders would not be required, but would be tailored to meet the specific needs of that community.
Irrespective of the management model to be used, however, Opposition Senator, Hugh Hart, a former Minister of Tourism, warned that if the Fire Brigade 'is not kept in first class condition it (will have) serious consequences for this country: for business generally, for home owners and for the economy in tourism, because if there is ever a problem in one of those hotels you can write 'finis' to the tourist industry for a number of years'.
The debate, though generally of a serious nature, did have its lighter moments. The presence of two members, one with the name Coore and the other named Hart, on opposite sides of the Senate, provided one such moment.
Senator Hart, in stressing the importance of adequately maintaining the equipment of the fire service, wanted to say that this went to 'the very core' of the matter, but hesitated to do so, because, as he quipped, he did not wish to be partisan.
Senator Coore sought to help him out, suggesting that it could also be said that 'it is the very heart of the matter!'
As a compromise, Senator Hart opted to combine the two, asserting that it was 'the very heart and core of the matter'.
