The Press WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1952. National Fire Service

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26672, 5 March 1952, Page 6

The Press WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1952. National Fire Service

It is satisfactory that the New Zealand Fire Council’s proposals for the co-ordination of fire prevention ■and fire fighting should have the 'approval of the United Fire Brigades’ Association, which is one of the organisations most competent to express an opinion. Sufficient detail of the council’s plan has not yet been made known to show whether this satisfaction is warranted in every particular, although the general purpose of the plan is undoubtedly excellent. Evidently the chief officer of the council (Mr T. A. Varley) is not altogether satisfied, because he said that there were two authorities controlling outbreaks of fire and that a fire brigade superintendent had to decide whether he should attend a fire outside his district. If the facts are as he was reported to find them, the association should certainly have tempered its satisfaction with a request to the Government that the legislative restrictions that “ shocked ” Mr Varley should be revised. It is surprising to hear that the law may work as Mr Varley suggested. The full title of the act under which the Fire Services Council and, through it, Mr Varley are appointed is: “An “ act to consolidate and amend rhe “laws relating to fire brigades, and “to provide for fire defence, the “ protection of life and property “ from *fire, and the co-ordination of “ urban and rural fire services ”, Section 9 of the act provides that “ the council shall ... establish and “ operate a scheme of reinforcement “ between brigades and industrial “fire brigades, and of rural fire “ protection, and of fire protection in “ the event of war or other emer-

“ gency If the act in any way prevents the “ co-ordination ” referred to in its title or a " scheme “of reinforcement” it should be amended. As Mr Varley truly remarked, fire has no boundary. Broadly, the council’s plan is based on the outline given when the Fire Services Act was before Parliament. It was found during the war that existing fire services were not reasonably adequate for the calls that might be made on them and that methods, efficiency, and equipment varied from brigade to brigade. The Royal Commission which inquired into Ballantyne's fire found other deficiencies in the system, principally in the technical training of firemen and their officers and in their conditions of service and promotion. The commission proposed that all firemen be brought into a national service controlled and directed by three salaried commissioners, The then Government, wishing to preserve the local interest in fire boards and other controlling authorities, decided that it would retain local control under the direction of a Fire Service Council with wide powers of co-ordination. The council represents the Government, underwriters, the Municipal Association, the Fire Boards’ Association, the federation of firemen’s unions, and the United Fire Brigades’ Association. The council was not able to make much progress with its work until Mr Varley, who was one of the 12 chief regional fire officers in Britain, arrived to take up his position as chief officer a year ago. It has now prepared a scheme that appears to be satisfactory, subject to the limitations noted by Mr Varley. Apparently all firemen are to become members of one service, though employed by or voluntarily serving their various local authorities, with one standard of training (possibly through national or district schools), and using uniform equipment. All this will facilitate their co-operation. What is more important is how far the system of organisation will facilitate this co-operation and how far it will co-ordinate urban and rural fire services.