Official Report 816KB pdf
Our final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00878, in the name of Andrew Baxter, on the growing risk of wildfires in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now. The debate is very highly subscribed and it is likely that we will have to extend it.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament shares its deep concern for the growing number of wildfires taking place, which, it considers is a result of both climate change and land management practices, and the increasingly significant threat that these fires pose for communities across rural Scotland, such as those in Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch; understands that the Cairngorms wildfire in particular has had a devastating impact within the Cairngorms National Park, both on its natural environment and the businesses that were forced to close; further understands that more than 100 firefighters were required to tackle the blaze; commends the work of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and retained duty firefighters for all that they have done to tackle the wildfire in the Cairngorms, as well as other fires in Holyrood Park in Edinburgh and Hill of Tarvit in Fife; further commends communities in the Cairngorms and across the wider Highlands region for the support that they have provided alongside hard working firefighters as well as for the residents of Nethy Bridge when they were forced to evacuate; understands that the Scottish Government has published a Strategic Action Plan on Wildfires and the announcement of a £3 million fund to help those businesses which have been impacted; notes the belief that despite this action plan and fund, the Scottish Government response to the wildfire in the Cairngorms has fallen short; further notes the calls for a cross-party summit to be held to learn the lessons of the response to the Cairngorms wildfire, ensuring that there is a concrete action plan for any future wildfires, and notes the calls for better funding of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service as well so that it is better equipped to deal with these major incidents going forward.
17:34
The smoke has not yet cleared from the Cairngorms wildfire, but already it feels to a certain extent as though the Scottish Government would rather dampen down questions about its response.
For years, when we heard the word “wildfire” we pictured California, Australia or Southern Europe—hillsides glowing orange, communities evacuated, aircraft overhead and firefighters facing walls of flame. A hillside burning above communities, smoke stretching across the horizon, roads being affected, businesses closing, residents leaving their homes—that was not California but the Cairngorms.
That distance has disappeared and, this summer, not once but twice, flames have been seen on Arthur’s Seat, within sight of the Parliament. Serious wildfire is no longer something that happens somewhere else; it is here and it is happening now. The question is whether Scotland is ready.
In this debate, I will concentrate on three key issues: response, resources and responsibility.
More than 100 firefighters were involved in tackling the Cairngorms fire. Many were retained crew. Alongside them were land managers, estate workers, rangers and volunteers. Volunteers in Nethy Bridge assisted with the evacuation of residents, transport and feeding those on the ground who were tackling the fire. It is a scandal that it fell on the community, through crowdfunding of more than £130,000, to provide that welfare support. Surely it is the duty of the Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Community spirit is one of the great strengths of our country, but we cannot assume that good people will simply step in and somehow make things work.
A Scottish Land & Estates survey found that more than 40 businesses or organisations were involved and that more than 50 employees and contractors volunteered or were made available.
The member mentioned the good will of the community. I recently had the pleasure of meeting the volunteers at Balintore fire station. Does the member agree that such remarkable volunteers are strongly dependent on the generosity of their employers to attend fires, at the sacrifice of those businesses? Moreover, does he agree that more should be done to recognise the strain that that puts on employers as wildfires become more common?
I absolutely agree, and we rely on the good will of not just the employers of our retained fire crews but land managers in releasing from their jobs the staff who have tackled wildfires at not just the Cairngorms but Dava moor, last year, and other places around the country.
That response demonstrated extraordinary good will. However, good will is not a resilient strategy. The question is not whether people responded but whether the system was ready to make the best use of them. The survey identified more than 250 pieces of specialist equipment and heavy plant worth nearly £6.4 million, yet there were recurring weaknesses in tasking, communications, welfare and command and control, with capable volunteers and contractors left unused, turned away or sent home. The problem was not simply whether resources existed; in some cases, they existed but the system was not ready to absorb them.
Nobody is suggesting replacing professional firefighters, but, when the next fire comes, local knowledge, equipment, training and minutes will matter. We need to examine whether properly trained, equipped and insured local capability can work alongside the fire service under a clear command structure, just as voluntary mountain rescue has complemented our emergency services for generations.
What would have happened if another major wildfire had broken out at the same time? What if, while resources were concentrated in the Cairngorms, another major fire had taken hold somewhere on the west coast? Where would the firefighters, specialist equipment and aircraft come from?
The member will be aware that, far from seeking to dodge scrutiny or questions about wildfires, I will give a statement on Thursday on the review of the wildfire strategy that we are undertaking.
On the question of what we would have done had there been other wildfires at the same time, there were other wildfires, of course. Does the member agree that the strength of having a national fire service is that it is able to deploy resources on a national basis? Does he agree that ensuring that we review our wildfire strategy off the back of that experience, with input from local members and from the land managers and volunteers of whom he spoke, is about getting it right so that we can prevent the situation from happening again?
My point is that, in a Highland context, having a national fire service has exposed the strains on the system. We saw examples of crews being moved from the west coast to backfill stations on the east coast. If we had had another major wildfire on the west coast, I am sure that we would have struggled with the level of response that could have been provided.
Fires do not politely wait their turn and emergencies do not check whether our resources are already committed elsewhere. The real resilience test is not whether we can fight one major wildfire; it is what happens when the second major wildfire starts. That is why addressing our aerial capability is vital. Current arrangements rely heavily on private contractors, who may be committed elsewhere, which creates uncertainty and delays. We need a contractual mechanism that guarantees access to appropriate helicopter assets during periods of very high and extreme wildfire risk. Preparedness means no delay to convening the Scottish Government resilience room or requesting military help where it is appropriate.
The third R in my list of key issues is perhaps the most important: responsibility. A responsibility that is shared between half a dozen organisations must never become a responsibility that is owned by nobody. I am not asking who commands firefighters on the ground—that responsibility is clear. I am asking who in Government owns Scotland’s national readiness for wildfire: who ensures that the resources are sufficient, who joins up the various agencies and who checks that lessons learned are actually carried through. That is why I believe that we need a director-led wildfire resilience response working across Government. Government leadership does not mean that the cabinet secretary fights the fire; it means ministers ensuring that Scotland is ready before firefighters are asked to fight those fires.
I welcome much of the Government’s strategic action plan. However, the Cairngorms fire was its first real-world test, and the evidence suggests that there is still a gulf between policy on paper and our capability on the ground. A strategy does not drive a fire engine or fly a helicopter. The test of a strategy is not whether it has been published but whether it works when the emergency comes.
That is why I am asking the Scottish Government to agree to my call for a cross-party wildfire summit. In addition, will the cabinet secretary commit to attending the public meeting that has been organised by farmers and crofters in my constituency to answer questions about the Government’s response and how it is preparing for the future? There should be nothing party political about ensuring that Scotland is ready for the next wildfire.
We move to the open debate and four-minute speeches, please.
17:43
I commend Andrew Baxter, as the Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch constituency MSP, on securing the debate. After a summer of wildfires across the United Kingdom, it is appropriate that the first members’ business debate on our return to Parliament is to consider and reflect on the response to the fire in the Cairngorms national park and to the fires in other parts of the country.
First, I echo Andrew Baxter’s comments and put on record my own sincere thanks to our firefighters, emergency services and land workers who fought the fire over many weeks, in circumstances that were made all the tougher by the terrain and the weather conditions changing quickly. Although the fire was not in my constituency, I, like Andrew Baxter, am lucky to represent part of the Cairngorms national park, and many of my constituents, including firefighters and land workers, were part of the response. Throughout the fire, responders were supported and cared for by the local community, whose efforts were outstanding.
As our climate changes, with hotter and drier periods, the risk of wildfires in Scotland and across these islands rises, so it is crucial that the Government, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the national parks and the landowners take the opportunity to reflect on the latest large fire and ensure that lessons are learned. I therefore welcome the cabinet secretary’s decision to review Scotland’s wildfire strategy, and I look forward to his statement later this week. I also welcome the commitment that he gave in the chamber earlier today that front-line responders—those who bravely go towards danger—will be heard in the review.
Having met with some of Moray’s retained crews, I believe that we must focus on three key themes: prevention, preparedness and personal protective equipment. While we cannot remove all risk of wildfires in Scotland, it is important that we look at what we can do to make such incidents less likely and less severe. There should be an evidence-based approach to fuel management and land breaks, and I hope that the review will also consider what more can be done to reduce the use of disposable barbecues over the spring and summer months.
On being prepared across Scotland, we must ensure that local response plans are in place long before a fire begins. Those plans should ensure that agencies set out which areas are high risk; communication and engagement arrangements; and equipment and resources that are available locally. Communication must be a key consideration in the review. Social media is a great tool, but we cannot rely on social media alone to communicate with everyone in a community in an emergency situation such as a wildfire. Again on preparedness, we need to have discussions with the UK Government on the lack of military capability to support firefighting efforts in such incidents.
On PPE, it is vital that retained and full-time crews who are expected to respond to these fires can access the correct wildfire clothing and equipment. Again, I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments in the chamber earlier today confirming that he has already raised the issues of PPE and training with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I am doing likewise on behalf of firefighters in my constituency.
In closing, I once again thank all those who responded to the fire. The review of the wildfire strategy is hugely important and we must get it right for the communities that will be affected by fires in the future and for those whom we call upon to respond to keep people and our communities safe. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Scottish Government on those issues in the coming weeks.
17:47
I thank Andrew Baxter for securing the debate. Like him, I had many constituents contacting me when the fire was at its zenith with real questions that they were looking to have answered, and I know that he, like me, met constituents on the ground and engaged directly with them, so I thank him for bringing the debate to the chamber.
Rather than relitigating the narrative and the points that Andrew Baxter has made, I will focus on what should happen from here. I know that the cabinet secretary is making a statement on Thursday—I do not want to pre-empt that statement, but I would like to focus his mind on some of the things that I think it should contain and the things that he should, in his role, take forward and look at in response to these events.
An important point is that this debate is long overdue for those of us in the north, who have seen the increasing frequency and scale of wildfires for years. We need a firm commitment and action from the Government to supply new equipment. Simply reviewing the wildfire categorisation policy will not resolve the obvious: we lack dedicated aerial firefighting resources.
I encourage the cabinet secretary, if he has not done so already, to read the report for the Scottish Government that Scottish Land & Estates published this morning, which was based on evidence from 40 businesses and organisations. It recorded that there were 300 days of volunteering by local volunteers on the ground, including local land managers, estate workers and gamekeepers. I spoke to some of them myself at the agricultural shows in the Highlands over the summer. I felt that it was important for me, as a regional member, to hear what they had to say, and other members will have done likewise.
On the issue of aerial firefighting, there are private sector firms in Scotland with helicopters that are equipped to be able to flex into the role in the way that we would like to have seen more of during recent events, but none are safeguarded for a wildfire response. That was the main reason why the Dava moor wildfire last year grew so large. When a helicopter was called to tackle the blaze, none were available—in fact, all the helicopters that were equipped to carry the firefighting buckets had long-term bookings for a film studio and were mounted with cameras at the time. By contrast, European nations combined have 70 of the largest type of firefighting aircraft, with around 600 dedicated aircraft in total. Scotland has only six of the smallest firefighting aircraft, none of which can be guaranteed to respond in an emergency. I ask the cabinet secretary to look at that before he gives his statement on Thursday.
I appreciate the point that Max Bannerman makes. He will also appreciate that aerial firefighting capability is not always the silver bullet. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is absolutely clear that it has a plan based on whether that capability is available, but it has been incredibly helpful in tackling parts of the Cairngorms wildfire.
I am particularly interested in looking at our aerial capability, not just in Scotland in isolation but across the UK, and working collectively. The wildfires across the UK this summer have exposed the current capability as a weakness, and I am keen to work on a four-nations basis to look at not only our resilience but a four-nations response.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the intervention. I do not really disagree with that—he should go away and look at the response across the four nations, and I certainly encourage him to talk to his counterparts across all the devolved Governments and the UK Government.
He should also look abroad—as I mentioned, there are examples of such capability being used in European countries, and I believe that Australia is a specific example of where there is a register of aircraft that can be used to combat wildfires. I encourage the cabinet secretary to look at those examples.
In closing, I support Andrew Baxter’s call for a cross-party summit on the issue, and I look forward to working with him and others as we take the matter forward. Without pre-empting the cabinet secretary’s statement on Thursday, I hope that he will go away and listen to the points that I and other members have made and come to Parliament with some answers.
17:52
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of the Fire Brigades Union.
I thank Andrew Baxter for securing this members’ business debate on such an important topic. The events of this summer must be a wake-up call. Our climate is changing, and how we respond to that change will be critical. How we manage the land and how we resource our fire service are both crucial to that.
On land management, there is no one-size-fits-all option. The area that burned this summer was diverse, with different habitat types. The way in which land has been managed has changed over time. That has not happened in a vacuum, and policy has played a role, but we need now to understand how those changes are impacting the resilience of the landscapes to fire and, importantly, how we can make those landscapes more resilient.
Less grazing and changes in moorland management have increased fuel loads, thereby increasing risk. While more broad-leaved trees and peatland restoration can improve resilience, it is clear that a full range of tools must be available to land managers to tackle the scale of the challenge, and that includes controlled burning.
The events of the summer have shown that the biggest resource in our rural areas, and perhaps the most important, is the workforce on the land: the gamekeepers, foresters, crofters, farmers and conservation workers, who all worked with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to bring the fires under control. Their skills and knowledge of the land proved invaluable, and every effort must be made to ensure that their expertise is retained,
Before I was elected to Parliament, I served my community as an on-call firefighter, responding to a pager. I have attended wildfires, although—thankfully—none on the scale of what we are considering today. On-call firefighters serving in the retained duty system are on the front line of dealing with the challenge of wildfires, and they were to the forefront in tackling the Cairngorms fire. Too often, however, the ask of them is increasing, and the resources with which they are being provided do not match the demands of the job.
We will all have seen pictures of firefighters in structural firefighting kits rather than the dedicated wildfire gear that is being rolled out across the service, which Laura Mitchell mentioned earlier. That roll-out must be accelerated. The safety of our firefighters should always be the priority, and they need to have the necessary kit for the job that they are being tasked with.
The location of dedicated wildfire units and the training of crews in wildfire techniques also need to be reviewed, and the roll-out of that needs to be sped up. Further, there is a need for a review of aerial firefighting capabilities, as has been discussed by other members.
It is beyond time that the SFRS had access to dedicated aerial support. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, had aerial support been available early on day 1 of the Cairngorms fire, the situation could have been brought under control much earlier. The financial cost of that delay is enormous. So, too, is the cost to the communities and the environment.
More broadly, we still have far too many fire stations across the country that do not have the facilities for effective decontamination, and stations that do not even have showers. The Fire Brigades Union has done excellent work through its DECON campaign to raise the serious issue of decontamination and the risks to firefighter health, yet we still have firefighters who are unable to follow the established protocol due to a lack of facilities. Those issues need to be resolved if recruitment problems are to be addressed across the retained duty system.
I welcome the wildfire strategy and look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s statement later this week. However, that must be backed by action to reverse the cuts to our fire service and invest in front-line services.
17:56
I thank Andrew Baxter for securing this important debate. I will not rehearse things that have already been said. I want to cover a few areas this evening, focusing on people, planet and place.
We saw an incredible response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, land managers, volunteers and conservation workers. That has been acknowledged, and it has been great to see that happen and be supported by the community. However, I want to back up the calls from the FBU. I have spoken with firefighters who were on the ground wearing their conventional, regular kit rather than dedicated wildfire gear. What I heard was that the jackets and helmets were so heavy and hot that they were taking them off, meaning that they were fighting the fire in extreme heat without any proper protection. The correct equipment needs to be rolled out as fast as possible and, in particular, made available to all firefighters in Highland as a priority.
In addition, the FBU is calling for level 2 equipment to be provided to firefighters. Every firefighter in Highland should be equipped with leaf blowers, cutters and adequate backburning training. Some of them arrive on site feeling ill-prepared and have to sit in their pump, not being able to actually do anything.
I also want to pick up on Donald MacKinnon’s point about decontamination. That is a huge piece of my motivation for calling for fixed-wing aerial support. We are talking about people who are going into long-lasting fires and areas with toxic air for protracted periods of time. That is a very different situation from putting out a house fire. These people will be in that environment for days. We need decontamination units, but we also need to seriously consider fixed-wing aerial support, because fixed-wing aircraft can get a lot more water on the ground faster than helicopters can.
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention, but I heard the cabinet secretary say to Max Bannerman that he is looking for a four-nations approach. I agree that that is the way that we need to be going. We need that four-nations approach, because that is what makes the most sense.
I want to give Ariane Burgess and colleagues who have corresponded with me on the issue some reassurance, which I hope came through when I responded in writing to colleagues during the wildfire. The issues that Ariane Burgess and Laura Mitchell raised about PPE were raised directly with the SFRS. Similarly, the points about decontamination and other issues have been discussed with the FBU and the chief fire officer. That is all feeding into the review of the wildfire strategy that I have asked for to ensure that we have the best possible position, informed by the perspectives and experiences of everyone involved, both in Parliament and on the ground.
I appreciate that there is going to be a review of the wildfire strategy, but I am a bit concerned about the fact that we are reviewing a strategy that was published only in March this year. I am concerned about the level and depth that we will get to in that review.
Something that I heard from firefighters, which Andrew Baxter mentioned, is that the community had to raise more than £100,000 to feed them. A person who was running a community centre and feeding people asked me what normally happens, and I had to tell them that the model that we have for fighting fires is really based around urban settings, where firefighters are normally given meal deals.
There are many points that need to be covered and I do not have enough time to do so, but I want to touch on planet and place. We absolutely need a resilient landscape, and I know that work is being done on that. Rewetting the land absolutely needs to happen. We are restoring peatland, but that needs to happen faster. We need to think differently about our ancient woodland as well. We need to protect that mature broadleaf woodland, because it provides a huge amount of carbon sequestration. We also need to recognise that beavers play a role. What we saw from the Cairngorms wildfire is that the fire stopped where the beavers had built dams, and there was still green growth around those areas.
We need to know as fast as possible who is doing controlled burning of our land and for what purpose. I look forward to the roll-out of licensing of that activity, and there should be no Government hesitation on that.
Briefly, on place, we need to involve the whole community in this discussion. The community council at Nethy Bridge had an emergency plan, but it was shut out of action on the ground. That emergency plan detailed locally available equipment that could have been deployed. We need to build trust in communities at a local level so that, before we get into the heat of the fire, there is a feeling that people can work together.
There is a need to train the SFRS leadership and anyone who is going to be working in that kind of space in collaboration skills. There were some great examples of collaboration. For example, the Cairngorms National Park Authority offered its thermal drone unit, which enabled SFRS to know where the fire was hottest. However, even though the SFRS had that information, it could not go to fight the fire in those areas, because the firefighters did not have the necessary training, although it paid for helicopter cover. That raises a question. There is a public body that owns a lot of land and it cannot put the fire out.
You must close.
Finally, let us call for a UK climate shock fund, and I look forward to a summit on Scottish landscape resilience.
18:03
I feel for Ariane Burgess, because I have lots that I would like to say as well, and we could all use 10 minutes to do that.
I thank Andrew Baxter for bringing this debate to the chamber. It is very welcome, although I think that Emma Roddick and I are experiencing déjà vu, because we were standing here on 18 September 2025—nearly a year ago to the day—discussing exactly this issue of wildfires. There had just been one of the largest ever wildfires—in fact, the largest wildfire in the UK—in Dava, and we were saying to the Scottish Government, “Do you think we need to do something about this, because it is pretty serious and at some point communities are going to burn down?”
This is not a new debate for those of us who were here before. I realise that we have some new members, and it is great to hear some of those new MSPs discussing the issue, but it was acknowledged to be a serious issue before, when it was brought to the chamber by Emma Roddick. I am slightly missing Fergus Ewing, who would be trembling with annoyance, I imagine, if he was still sitting at the back of this chamber, listening to what is going on.
I happened to be travelling back from Glencoe on 15 July and I came across—
Will the member give way?
I am happy to take an intervention.
I appreciate the fact that Tim Eagle, Emma Roddick, Jim Fairlie and others have fed in quite a bit of work to this process. To answer Tim Eagle’s question about what is happening and what has happened, and to respond to the point that Ariane Burgess made about the fact that the wildfire strategy was published only in March, I say that I am not necessarily looking to entirely reinvent the wheel. What I am looking to do is review the pace at which the actions that were set out in that strategy in March have been taken and whether there are other areas that we need to touch on to ensure that we are as responsive as possible, for the very reasons that Tim Eagle is setting out.
That is actually quite a welcome statement. I did not entirely disagree with the strategy put forward by the Scottish Government, but I was concerned about the pace of change and about action. There can be a lot of talk and writing, but what is the action on the ground?
This year’s Cairngorms wildfire was a very dangerous one. I have been down to Nethy Bridge twice to speak to people, and several people have told me that, but for the sheer luck of the wind changing, Nethy Bridge could have burned down. We do not want to go there, but, in years to come, we could end up in a situation where houses are burning, as we saw in England earlier this year. There is great concern. We need change at pace. We have spoken about area support and PPE, all of which will come out in the wash over the next few months.
I come to a point that Andrew Baxter raised. Cairngorms crofters and farmers have organised a meeting, which I believe will take place on 18 September at 6 pm. They have asked the cabinet secretary to come along to give a speech and answer questions, so I am happy to take another intervention if he can come back in to confirm whether he will do that. It would be really welcome if he could be there. I have double checked and Aberdeen are not playing that day, so he should free to come along. It would be really good if he could be there to listen to and answer questions from people who have really serious concerns about what happened.
I will pick up on today’s report from Scottish Land & Estates, which talks at the very end about the fact that we, in Scotland, can no longer rely on the good will of volunteers but need a planned response to these events. There were circumstances in which volunteers were bringing very heavy equipment down to Nethy Bridge to try to help but too much was unknown. They did not know whom to talk to. There were good machines that could have helped to create more of the firebreaks that were needed or that could have done other work, but they were not utilised because the structure just was not there. All that I am asking the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government to do is ensure that that structure is there and is planned and co-ordinated so that communities do not face risks in the future.
18:07
I, too, thank Andrew Baxter for bringing this members’ business debate to the chamber. Like others here, I am deeply concerned about the growing number and severity of wildfires that Scotland has experienced in recent years. Others have highlighted the response to the devastating Cairngorms wildfire this summer, which demonstrated the immense damage that such incidents can cause to communities, businesses and natural habitats and the challenges for our fire service.
It is therefore vital that we do all that we can to reduce the risk of wildfires occurring in the first place. As someone who focuses on solutions, recognises that there are many causes of wildfires and sees the need for a culture change regarding responsible access to the countryside, I will focus on one source of ignition risk: disposable barbecues.
Fire prevention starts long before the first emergency call is even made, and these items present a significant risk to the public because of the potential for the ignition of wildfires during periods of warm and dry weather. Although many people use them responsibly, it takes just one act of carelessness to spark a significant wildfire. These barbecues also inflict damage on the surfaces that they are placed on, scarring the ground and melting or charring picnic tables in our parks.
In 2025, wildfires on the cliffs at Dunnottar castle, in my constituency, and in the Glen Finglas area of the Trossachs were caused by disposable barbecues. This year, another barbecue caused a fire on Yellowcraig beach. Such incidents are happening too often. As members are aware, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, local authorities already have the powers to introduce byelaws restricting the use of barbecues, including the disposable kind, in connection with preventing the risk of wildfire. Scotland’s park authorities can also introduce such byelaws, and both the Cairngorms national park and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park have taken advantage of that provision.
Dawn Black is making a really helpful point about the byelaws that are in place. Although we are here to talk about a serious wildfire in the Cairngorms, we have seen, as a result of local byelaws, a significant reduction in the use of disposable barbecues in the national park and in the risk of wildfires occurring there.
Andrew Baxter, Tim Eagle and Dawn Black have talked about the need for a review, and that sort of preventative action must be part of it, to ensure that humans behave responsibly during the kind of extreme weather that we have seen this summer.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s remarks. Two national parks have taken advantage of the ability to introduce byelaws, but I have engaged with Angus and Aberdeenshire councils, in my constituency, and they have raised the challenge of actually enforcing any byelaw, particularly given limited local authority resources.
Dawn Black makes a really important point about byelaws and extending them away from the national parks. One of the most difficult challenges for our local authorities is the cost and time involved in introducing a byelaw in the first place.
Does Ms Black think that there is a case for the cabinet secretary reviewing that process to make it easier for our local authorities to tackle that issue?
Absolutely I do. Cost is one of the points I was going to come on to, but I also think that we could take that approach.
Byelaws take a significant amount of time and resource to develop and implement—generally about four years from inception to implementation—and there are tens of thousands of pounds in costs to our local authorities, which is why the introduction of byelaws is so prohibitive. Angus and Aberdeenshire councils told me that, as a result, their focus is on working with landowners to discourage the use of fire in high-risk areas and on promoting wildfire awareness through signage and on social media.
Although those local efforts are important, they also highlight the limitations of relying solely on local action. If enforcement is difficult at a local level, there is a strong case for a national approach that provides consistency across the whole of Scotland, removes uncertainty for the public and businesses on where and when these items can and cannot be used and reduces the burden on individual local authorities and, indeed, the emergency services. In my view, given the risk, a piecemeal approach is no longer satisfactory.
It is notable that, this summer, some retailers have voluntarily stopped selling disposable barbecues, but recent events have demonstrated that voluntary action alone is not enough and we cannot rely on the good will of individual businesses to protect communities from wildfire risk. A consistent national approach would provide clarity for retailers, certainty for consumers and greater protection for the public and the environment.
The member must bring her remarks to a conclusion.
I also believe that the case for a permanent ban extends beyond just wildfire prevention, because those disposable barbecues are not recyclable.
I recently submitted a motion on this subject and I was glad to see cross-party support for it. That is something that we really do want to take ahead, even though I recognise that this matter is not within the remit of the Scottish Government, so work needs to be done with the UK Government to bring a ban to pass.
Banning disposable barbecues is not a silver bullet, because a holistic approach to prevention is needed, but a ban would send a clear message that we, as a nation, recognise the escalating nature of the risk. If we can act to show leadership, we should do so.
Due to the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Andrew Baxter to move such a motion.
Motion moved,
That, under rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Andrew Baxter]
Motion agreed to.
18:13
I thank the cabinet secretary for remaining in the chamber for this debate and Andrew Baxter for bringing the debate to the chamber.
I rise today to address the increasing risk of wildfires in Scotland—a matter of grave concern to me and many of my constituents, given recent events. I will largely supplement but sometimes complement the points raised by Andrew Baxter, my colleague Max Bannerman, Donald MacKinnon and other members in their contributions, as well as those raised in Morven-May MacCallum’s intervention.
Our country witnessed a cataclysmic blaze that scorched more than 30 square kilometres of moorland, ancient Caledonian pine forest and precious ecosystem. Before addressing the failures that allowed this crisis to compound, I must pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of our front-line responders. Scores of firefighters put their lives on the line to battle the inferno, and alongside them stood an army of local volunteers, land managers and gamekeepers. Those rural workers used their own specialist machinery and their intimate knowledge of the landscape to bulldoze emergency firebreaks, saving centuries-old trees from complete destruction. They showed rural Scotland at its absolute best. However, while local communities and emergency services displayed unparalleled resolve, the political response from the Scottish Government exposed a dangerous bureaucratic weakness.
The fire broke out near Glenmore on 15 July, and it was about nine days before the relevant cabinet secretaries gathered at the Scottish Government’s resilience room, at which point residents in Nethy Bridge were already being evacuated from their homes. To the people on the ground, that delay felt less like a co-ordinated strategy and more like closing the stable door after the horse had bolted.
Worse still was the unjustifiable refusal of additional help. When the UK Government offered military assistance to bolster the exhausted crews on the ground, the justice secretary rejected it. The Administration claimed that the military lacked the specific water-bombing capabilities but, thinking a little more laterally, the logistical support, ground transport and manpower—
Will the member give way?
Yes.
I want to reassure Victor Currie that I was receiving daily—in fact, more than daily—updates from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The local resilience partnership has the primary responsibility for responding to such incidents.
On the point about military aid, the ask was made because of a very specific request at that weekend from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The UK Government’s response was that it could not meet that ask. That is why the offer that was made was turned down. It was because the very specific ask from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—not the Government—could not be met by the UK Government. I cannot remember who made the intervention earlier about having a UK-wide look at our resilience, but a question needs to be posed on a four-nations basis about why we do not have UK-based water-bombing capability in our UK military.
I completely accept the cabinet secretary’s point on lines of operational responsibility and the request feeding up to the Scottish Government and then on to the military. However, the offer was there from the military for logistical support, ground transport and manpower. Although the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service did not specifically request that, it is a question of statecraft for the Scottish Government to get ahead of such problems. More manpower and logistical support would be exactly what an exhausted fire service would need during a prolonged multiweek fire. Turning away that valuable resource during a national emergency—
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will take the intervention.
I just want to be clear that that is not the ask that was made by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. That is not what was requested.
I accept that. Again, I make the point that perhaps taking an offer of help when offered would have been better in that situation to ensure that we had spare capacity should the situation have got any worse. Turning away that valuable resource during a national emergency, simply because of where the offer originated from, created an image of political posturing above public safety.
We are told by Government ministers that we must simply adapt to a changing climate as if such blazes are inevitable, but that is an evasion of responsibility. They are an annual threat in Scotland, yet our response mechanisms remain completely ad hoc.
To supplement Max Bannerman’s statement on the report by SLE, the private sector and local volunteers contributed not only 300 days of voluntary work but £6.4 million-worth of their own equipment. We can see that Scotland is relying on the good will and improvisation of rural communities because the Government has failed to build a formal exercised resilience system.
At the same time, the Administration’s ideological crusade against traditional land management is actively disarming the people who know how to fight these fires. By restricting muirburn licences—
The member must come to a conclusion.
Okay.
By restricting muirburn licences, we are discouraging investment in the very rural workers who understand the behaviour and possess the skills.
Will the member give way?
Yes, I will take an intervention.
I am sorry, minister, but the member is making his closing remarks.
To put the minister at ease, I say that my party is not here to indulge in empty rhetoric or assign blame for the sake of grievance. We are here to help furnish some commonsense solutions for working people in rural communities.
I would conclude by arguing that, when it comes to the formulation of the ministerial statement, we need a dedicated helicopter and pilot framework with guaranteed availability and mobilisation standards, be it a four-nations solution or something unilateral—whatever works best for our communities. We also need an integrated wildlife management plan that treats gamekeepers, farmers and land managers as official partners and not inconveniences, as well as proper funding and staffing for our rural fire stations, so that our communities are never left vulnerable again.
The member must conclude now.
I look forward to the cabinet secretary’s statement and hope that the points that have been made across this chamber are drawn on when a long-term strategy is being formulated for our country.
18:20
I congratulate Andrew Baxter on bringing this timely debate to the chamber.
Official figures show an alarming increase in wildfires across Scotland, with a recorded 238 in 2025 compared to just 55 the previous year—a rise of 330 per cent. One of the most devastating recent wildfires occurred in Galloway when a blaze burned an area almost six times the size of the town of Dumfries, and it took four days just to bring it under control. The damage to wildlife, forestry and local habitats was immense.
Of course, that was mirrored this summer in the Cairngorms national park, with local businesses disrupted and a huge firefighting effort required to contain it. The Scottish Government rightly provided financial support to businesses affected by the Cairngorms fire, although I am not aware of similar assistance being made available to affected communities in my part of the country. We have even seen fires in Holyrood park in Edinburgh, so it is clear that this threat extends right across Scotland. These wildfires should serve as a wake-up call in demonstrating the far-reaching consequences of uncontrolled fire for communities, businesses, wildlife and emergency services.
Of course, prevention starts long before the first emergency call is made. Those who manage Scotland’s landscapes every day must have the tools and flexibility needed to reduce risk before fire takes hold. Farmers, crofters, gamekeepers, estate staff and other land managers play a vital role in maintaining resilient landscapes. They manage vegetation, understand the local terrain and access routes, and are often among the first to identify fire incidents. During the recent wildfire, many worked alongside our firefighters, providing local expertise, equipment and manpower. Ministers, therefore, must ensure that those who live in rural areas are fully involved in developing the wildfire policy.
Indeed, that is why many stakeholders have raised concerns about the Scottish Government’s muirburn licensing regime. Responsible muirburn, carried out by skilled practitioners in appropriate conditions, remains an important tool for managing vegetation, reducing fuel loads and helping to prevent the spread of uncontrolled fires. NFU Scotland and others have warned that the new licensing requirements could create unnecessary barriers to effective land management at a time when wildfire prevention is becoming increasingly important.
I am in absolutely no doubt that no one in this chamber is doing anything other than trying to find the right solutions, but there must be clarity here. There is no muirburn licensing scheme in play right now, so the fires that we have seen over the past couple of years have nothing to do with such a scheme. That said, would the member accept that well-trained local people who know the ground and have a muirburn licence will be a far greater asset to community resilience than having nothing at all?
I will make one more point. When I delayed the muirburn licensing scheme last year, the very next day somebody set a fire with no license and no training—nothing—and it got out of control. So, the value in the muirburn licensing scheme is in having properly trained people on the ground to do it. That is not to diminish what keepers and farmers currently do, which we are taking into account, but the implementation of the scheme will allow us to ensure that there is resilience in the communities that we are trying to protect.
With regard to prevention, I have to say that that was not the point that I was driving at. We have to ensure that any licensing scheme leads to a safer landscape instead of being some bureaucratic hurdle that needs to be jumped over and that undermines the real practical prevention measures that we know land managers can put in place. My point is that stakeholders have concerns. The Scottish Conservatives have consistently advocated for a balanced, evidence-led approach that recognises the contribution of responsible muirburn, alongside grazing, habitat management and other measures that reduce wildfire risk, while supporting biodiversity and rural livelihoods.
I recently visited Carrifran woodlands, near Moffat. The restoration of the environment there has created a wet and green landscape, which is a natural firebreak, and I commend the volunteers who have created that new woodland.
During the passage of the land reform and natural environment legislation, we proposed amendments designed to strengthen Scotland’s ability to prevent and respond to wildfires. Unfortunately, those measures were not supported by the Scottish Government. I therefore call for a renewed, continued pause to the licensing scheme, to ensure that everybody is on board and that the scheme is practical and proportionate and does not inadvertently increase wildfire risk.
We recognise that wildfire risk is driven by multiple factors. Environmental organisations have highlighted the impact of the prolonged dry weather, while many fires are caused by avoidable human actions, such as the discarding of cigarettes and disposable barbecues.
Prevention requires active land management, strong partnership, public awareness and properly equipped emergency services. Ministers must now work with all relevant organisations and rural communities to deliver a co-ordinated national wildfire strategy that puts prevention, preparedness and partnership at its heart.
18:26
I thank my colleague Andrew Baxter for his brilliant efforts in bringing this critical issue to the table directly after our return to Parliament. After a summer recess filled with the risk and the reality of wildfire across my region and across Scotland in general, there has never been a more important time to bring order and reason to a system that, for too long, has relied on luck, good fortune and fate.
Outside the central belt there exists a different type of Scotland, which many of my colleagues across the chamber know well: our island communities, rural communities in the Borders and communities such as those where I live, in rural Aberdeenshire, just 30 minutes’ drive to the Cairngorms national park. We are no strangers to driving in snow and ice. We know that heating our homes does not always mean turning a dial on a wall. We face shortages in our supermarkets when the weather is poor. We know which roads to avoid in bad weather. We never take it for granted that mother nature will be kind. We therefore learn to be self-reliant, and we are resilient.
That does not mean “Every man for himself”, but it does mean that we often have to create infrastructure within our own communities if we are to do our best to protect the success and safety of our families, businesses and homes. This summer, that network of self-reliance was tested. The wildfires were met and extinguished by our fantastic Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—but not without the support of a network of machinery and the man hours, skills and knowledge of those who live and work in those rural communities. Side by side with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, they fought to protect their homes and livelihoods and the land that we all value as a natural and economic resource.
As my colleague Andrew Baxter has stated, wildfires are not polite and they wait for no one. When the wind carried the smoke and dust throughout Aberdeenshire, all the way to Aberdeen, people were shocked and many felt unwell. For us it was just one day, yet the fire had already been raging in Glenmore and Strath Nethy for more than nine days. As one local resident said to me, looking at the blurred sky and the orange sun, it looked apocalyptic. I said to her that Andrew Baxter’s constituents and the people fighting the fire had been enduring it for way too long.
Be in no doubt: further dry summers await us. I repeat my colleague’s call for a round table. We need to listen to the experiences of those who met the challenge on the ground to help us prepare for the future. I agree with the recommendation of Scottish Land & Estates to build and maintain a live wildfire capability register via the community asset register, which should cover estates, farms, contractors, plant hire businesses, forestry operators, wildfire consultants and conservation bodies, recording equipment type, operator availability, training, insurance, transport requirements and mobilisation constraints. There is an informal network of good will that has not always been used to its potential, as was seen during this summer’s wildfires. Recognising the unique situation that is faced by rural Scotland when it comes to fighting wildfires is critical for an improved response the next time that we face these issues.
I also stand by local voices who question the revised muirburn code. Does it serve to protect the communities that it affects? As I have learned from meeting with a few people in farming communities, we might be failing to listen to the voices of those on the ground who hold expertise in managing the land for the combined benefit of the environment, the local economy and our safety. Without the right preventative measures, there will be no biodiversity left to protect.
Time and again, I hear that valuing lived experience is central to the Scottish Government’s vision of a Scotland that is fit for all. I call on the Scottish Government not to forget the voices of those who stood to press back against the raging fires this summer. It must listen when they tell it to provide joined-up leadership in the face of crisis that unites our established fire and rescue services alongside the existing network of private and third sector emergency response, and to properly—
Sorry, but I am afraid that you are over time—you will need to come to a conclusion.
The Scottish Government must properly fundthe Scottish Fire and Rescue Service so that it is fit for purpose. That is the only way that we can prevent future disaster from which nature may not be able to recover.
18:31
I join other colleagues in thanking Andrew Baxter for introducing this motion and for recently supporting my efforts to bring forward a debate on Raigmore hospital—which I am glad to see he is no longer in. I am glad that he is able to lead this debate. I also take this opportunity to put on the record that I look forward to working with him on issues of shared importance to our neighbouring constituencies and that we can agree on, of which I think that there are already a fair few.
Many of my friends, family members and constituents shared my absolute heartbreak at the sight of the Cairngorms on fire this summer, just as we felt last year when fire took hold in Dava. I saw hourly updates on social media of how businesses were being impacted, biodiversity threatened and residents affected. It is hard to describe the grief that folk in the Highlands feel when we see the land on fire, even for those of us who live further up the road—it is deeply personal and devastating.
There were many questions from the families of those who fought the fire, which have already been covered in this debate. I hope that we will hear more detailed answers to those questions this week in relation to protection, resources and equipment. I am keen that we, in this Parliament, explore every option to make that sight and all the damage that it causes far less common and such incidents shorter and less severe.
What was most clearly and repeatedly asked for and needed was further air support. I was glad to see that the Scottish Government explored options for that, particularly through its request for support from UK ministers. Now that we have the answer that those resources do not exist, it is time to kit ourselves out. Reactive specialist air resource is necessary to fight fires such as the one in the Cairngorms as quickly as possible.
There is also a role for prevention. In the previous session, I successfully amended the now Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2026 to allow local authorities to implement local byelaws to prevent fires from occurring in the first place. I am keen to see those provisions enacted and that opportunity taken by councils, which I made clear to Highland Council last week.
Last year, as Tim Eagle hinted at, I also took part in cross-party meetings. There was a lot of discussion about taking a holistic approach and the need to look at everything all at once and take our time. I understand that position, but there are things that we can all agree on and just get on with now while we take our time on those long-term strategies, so that we do not have this exact debate again next autumn.
We must use every tool at our disposal to prevent—as well as effectively tackle—what is likely to be a regular occurrence. It should be obvious to visitors and locals that setting fires and barbecues in the height of summer when you are surrounded by vegetation is not a great idea, but, sadly, that is not the case. There is an important role for messaging that makes that clear and for penalty schemes that support local rangers to travel around high-risk areas and put a stop to risky behaviour.
When it comes to events like this that threaten lives, livelihoods and health, it is also incredibly important that public messaging is clear, consistent across different agencies and considered trustworthy. Although I appreciated the very regular updates from the cabinet secretary throughout the fire, there was widespread confusion about some media lines that suggested that the fire had been dealt with while volunteers and partners continued to fight it, days before an increase in its severity and a change in direction caused evacuations. That messaging also merits some review.
It is clear that we cannot immediately put a stop to extreme weather events on our own. Plans to tackle wildfires are required regardless of the strength of our climate commitments, but that does not mean that there is a case for reducing any of those efforts. The link is clear and we must continue playing our part in that particular battle while also looking at on-the-ground efforts to prevent and tackle wildfires and flooding in our communities.
I look forward to continuing the work with colleagues across parties, through the Rural Affairs Committee and any other opportunities that we have in the next five years, to make progress on the issue.
18:35
I congratulate Andrew Baxter on securing this debate.
Last year, the UK experienced its worst year of wildfires on record, and three of the five largest wildfires ever to occur in the UK have happened here, in Scotland, in recent years. I pay tribute to firefighters here, in Scotland, across the UK and in Europe who risked their lives this summer in the face of significant wildfires. A number of firefighters lost their lives fighting those fires in Europe this summer.
Those wildfires were not isolated incidents but a clear sign of a growing risk that is driven primarily by climate change. As Emma Roddick said, it is likely that such fires will become a regular occurrence. There are those who will seek to deny climate change or to minimise the risks that it poses, but the need for action to tackle climate change is greater than ever, and that includes doing all that we can to ensure that the risk of wildfires is reduced and that we deal with them better when they do occur.
Back in May, the Climate Change Committee warned that the UK is hugely underprepared for the impact of climate change. I welcome the review that the Scottish Government has spoken about in relation to how we deal with wildfires in Scotland, but we must recognise that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not properly funded or resourced to tackle such fires. The recent Cairngorms wildfire required a huge operational response, spanning weeks, with more than 500 firefighters and appliances being deployed from across Scotland. Despite the tireless dedication and efforts of those firefighters in trying to get wildfires under control, the fire exposed the impact of more than a decade of cuts on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
Does the member also recognise that fuel load is a significant contributor to wildfires and that land management must be done to reduce fuel load across all landscapes?
There is no doubt that there are many factors, many of which have been referred to in today’s debate, but this is not just a Scottish problem. It is a problem across Europe and far more widely. We all know what has happened across the world, particularly in Europe, this summer as a result of climate change and the increased temperatures that we are all experiencing.
We know that 1,239 firefighter jobs have been lost since 2012-13, representing almost one sixth of the total uniformed workforce. Firefighters were deployed from across Scotland to deal with the Cairngorms wildfire, which obviously had an impact on other parts of Scotland. Other members have already spoken about how we would deal with multiple wildfires taking place in different parts of the country. We know that fire appliances have been withdrawn over the past decade and that many appliances remain unavailable due to crew shortages. We also know that there has been a failure to acquire vital appliances such as firefighting helicopters, which might have helped in the Cairngorms.
Collectively agreed safe crewing levels are regularly breached, putting firefighters at greater risk in situations such as wildfires. We also know that other wildfires—including the one on Arthur’s Seat, right on our doorstep—are far from being one-off incidents for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to respond to. As part of this debate, we need to look at the service delivery review, which should have reflected the growing threat from climate change, including the risk of wildfires. However, the review instead—
Will the member give way?
Of course I will take an intervention.
I am sorry, but I must again point out that you are over time. You must conclude.
I will do so, and I apologise to the minister.
The point that I am trying to make is that we need to look at not only the cuts that have taken place but the proposed cuts and the 166 firefighter jobs that would be lost, the multiple front-line appliances that would be withdrawn and the stations that would be closed if the proposals on the table now went ahead. Both the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union are calling for a national conversation; I hope that they are included in the conversation that takes place and that the minister refers to that when he winds up. However, I urge that we look again at some of the proposals that are on the table now, in the light of this summer’s events, because this is the wrong direction of travel.
We are now very tight for time and, having already extended the debate, we cannot do so again. Any interventions will have to be absorbed in the four minutes allocated to the final speakers, but I hope that we will get everyone in.
18:41
The Cairngorms wildfire caused great disruption and concern among local communities, and I give Andrew Baxter credit for bringing this debate to the chamber. Our fire service and volunteers bravely tackled the fire, and I want to say a huge thank you to our firefighters, volunteers, land managers and communities, all of whom played a role in extinguishing it. The delay in the Scottish National Party declaring a national incident, and then being forced to do so by the Fire and Rescue Service, is clearly a matter for separate discussion, and I note the cabinet secretary's earlier comments.
Although the fire itself stopped just short of Aberdeenshire West, the smoke still covered the area. It even reached Aberdeen itself, impacting local businesses and events across the north-east. I hope that the Scottish Government rethinks its financial support and provides it outwith the currently allotted area.
There are, however, several issues that need to be addressed, and I hope that the minister will look into them. The first is insurance. The fact is that volunteers and equipment from estates are not insured, meaning that people are having to take risks that the Government is not prepared to underwrite. Unless that issue is resolved, the army of volunteers and equipment will not always be available.
Secondly, firefighters are angry at being ill-equipped to deal with hill fires—a point raised by other members tonight. Specialist equipment is lightweight, and many firefighters had to wear full gear, which is wholly unsuited to the terrain.
Thirdly, although the changing climate is certainly producing the conditions that have to be dealt with, these fires are not the product of spontaneous combustion. Further education is required on reasonable access as well as on disposable barbecues, which have already been mentioned.
The biggest point that I wish to make this evening is about the ever-increasing fuel load, which is a direct result of the SNP’s poorly thought-out muirburn regulations. Restrictions on muirburn are leading to higher fuel loads—
Will the member give way?
No. We have had enough interventions.
They are leading to higher fuel loads, with more surface vegetation available to feed wildfires.
Will the member—
Thank you, minister.
I have heard the minister’s interventions already, and his points are wholly wrong. If he continues with his ploy of opposing all grouse moor management, there will be nobody left to apply for his muirburn licences.
Allowing biomass to increase and encouraging rewilding while the climate is getting hotter and drier is dangerous. This is a problem that is only getting worse. SLE’s excellent report states that
“Much of the estate-based equipment, trained personnel and fire-behaviour knowledge recorded in the response exists because estates undertake and prepare for planned muirburn.”
However, the briefings for this debate from RSPB Scotland and Scottish Environment LINK fail to mention the importance of keeping fuel load at safe levels. This avoidance of the issue is a huge concern, and it is one based in ideology, not fact. One person affected wrote:
“When my husband arrived on site with another local land manager, FLS personnel were horrified at the suggestion of bulldozing swathes of trees and vegetation to create a firebreak.
They appeared more concerned about the regen than about the prospect of people’s homes and businesses being destroyed, even though that regen was likely to burn anyway.”
If those who have caused this problem cannot accept accountability, rural communities will continue to be at risk.
Another aspect that has become evident is the policy of these bodies of not just preventing new mountain tracks but spending money filling in old tracks. If the fire had crossed over into the National Trust estate at Mar Lodge, it would have been impossible to get fire engines and crews to the scene. Taxpayers have a right to know the full cost of the fire and how public money is being allocated to charities and public bodies that are failing wildfire prevention.
The sentiment among local communities is that the Government is not taking wildfire risks seriously and not listening to landowners and managers who have the local knowledge and expertise to prevent and prepare for wildfires. The Government must rethink its muirburn policy and allow responsible muirburn, to prevent the threat of further wildfires to homes, businesses and communities.
I remind members that the only person speaking should be the person with their microphone on.
I am afraid that I will be able to call only one more member to speak.
18:45
My colleague Andrew Baxter is absolutely right to highlight that our resilience to wildfires is not good enough, and I hope that the Government and the cabinet secretary have listened carefully to the points that have been made.
I am not sure that I will do this formally, but I should maybe note my interest in that my first ever paid job was heather burning—not controlled burning, but burning to improve grazing, mainly for sheep. How times have changed, because fires never got out of control in March in the late 1980s.
I want to focus on our peatlands. Scotland’s peatlands are one of our greatest natural assets. They store enormous amounts of carbon and help to regulate our water and support biodiversity, and they play a crucial role in tackling climate change. I recently was lucky enough to meet scientists from the world-leading UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at their site in a peatland outside Penicuik. They explained how damaged peatlands release carbon that has been stored for centuries back into the atmosphere and how the main component of peatland restoration, sphagnum moss, recovers at the rate of only 1mm per year.
In other words, it takes a millennium to reconstitute 1m of peat. The Scottish Government clearly recognises that, because in 2020 it committed more than £250 million to peatland restoration. That year, the programme restored 5,658 hectares of peat, but, strikingly, roughly the same amount was destroyed in one single fire—the 2019 wildfire in Caithness in Sutherland, which affected around 5,700 hectares of blanket bog in the flow country. The impact was significant: while the fire raged, Scotland’s carbon emissions doubled.
The comparison shows how quickly years of restoration work in one area can be undone in another, and we must look at how our efforts complement each other. I was witness to a farcical sight when I was out with the UKCEH scientists, where, on the peatland that they are restoring and where they are monitoring air pollution on the peatland bog, you could see a peat hag being harvested for compost for garden use. Although that does not have a massive implication over the piece in relation to how much we are doing to destroy our peatlands, it is really bad optics. Why have we not brought out the contracts and reclassified the land, as has happened elsewhere in the UK, so that that practice does not happen? That would give a really strong signal to the public, who can see that it should not happen here. We should also be really conscious of Sitka spruce planting in peatlands, as it releases more carbon than it sequesters. We must really join up our responses.
I have been alluding to the real cause of the issue: I am disappointed that, in the debate, we have not talked about climate change. I was really frustrated by the SNP’s and the UK Government’s responses over this very hot summer. Andy Burnham was literally asking people not to use a disposable barbecue. Really? That is not good enough. The UK this year has had more heatwaves than it has had in the entire last century, and I would really like us to spend time considering that issue during this parliamentary session.
I would like to offer some hope, however. I want to recognise the excellent work of groups such as the Leadburn community woodland, which is restoring the peatland, and Forth Resource Management Ltd, which is helping to reduce our reliance on peat in horticulture by recycling our garden waste. Moreover, as Finlay Carson mentioned, proper woodland management also has a significant role to play, and I commend the Woodland Trust Scotland, the Borders Forest Trust and Dumfries and Galloway Woodlands for educating me on the matter over the recess. I look forward to continuing that work.
The wildfires are quite literally a burning reminder that climate change is no longer a warning for the future. We must see that it is a crisis on which we can have an impact, and we must lead with that. It is a wake-up call, and it is happening right now.
I call the cabinet secretary to respond to the debate.
18:49
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss our wildfire position on the back of Mr Baxter’s motion and ahead of my planned statement on Thursday.
I begin by thanking every single person and organisation who worked tirelessly in tackling and extinguishing the Cairngorms wildfire. I am hugely appreciative of their work, commitment and efforts in demanding, challenging and changing circumstances. I commend and am incredibly grateful for the outstanding efforts of the more than 500 firefighters and staff of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Police Scotland, other emergency responders, landowners, gamekeepers, volunteers, Forestry and Land Scotland, the Cairngorms National Park Authority, NatureScot and RSPB Scotland. There has been a plethora of intervention across the board.
I make special mention of the volunteers who gave up their time to help to fight the fire or to support those who were doing so. I also thank the people and communities in and around the Abernethy area who supported the response effort and those on the front line, and the residents of Nethy Bridge, who supported one other during evacuation. I know that the Cairngorms wildfire was not the only wildfire to have been dealt with this year, but it was the most serious.
As everyone here is aware, there has been extreme weather around the world this year, and wildfires were a feature across Britain and many other European countries this summer, with devastating impacts—a point that, refreshingly, has been acknowledged by Katy Clark and others.
The damage that the Cairngorms fire caused was widespread, with more than 3,300 hectares of moorland and forest—about 10 square miles—destroyed. The wildfire area is home to some of Scotland’s most important biodiversity, including native woodland such as ancient Scots pine trees. Undoubtedly, the wildlife, the woodland and the flora and fauna that it supports will have been affected by the fire—a point that Emma Roddick made powerfully. Ecological assessments on habitats and species that have been affected by the fire will, of course, be carried out.
We know that the duration of the fire meant that people and businesses were affected. That is why the Scottish Government made £3 million available to directly support affected businesses and support the longer-term economic recovery. That support will be delivered through Highland Council, which will also lead on the longer-term wider recovery with partners, including the Scottish Government. We all want to see this region of our country recover and flourish.
Last year, Scotland experienced its most severe wildfire season in recent memory. Unfortunately, we have again seen wildfires across Scotland, with the one in the Cairngorms that we are discussing today highlighting that trend. Wildfires are no longer a seasonal hazard; they are a direct impact of climate change, which is fuelling an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires—a point made by Donald MacKinnon and Duncan Dunlop.
The changing climate that countries around the world are having to deal with will continue to increase the risk of significant wildfires, with the devastating impact that they have on our communities, local ecology and businesses and livelihoods. That is why we are taking action to adapt to a changing climate and minimise the risk of wildfires through delivery of the “Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029” and the climate change plan.
The Cairngorms fire was taken with the utmost seriousness by ministers and Scottish Government officials from the outset. There was more than daily communication with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service throughout the incident. I fundamentally disagree with anyone’s assertion that the response was otherwise. Indeed, on the basis of those updates from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, I was able to do what I could to provide updates to local constituency and regional MSPs throughout the duration of the fire.
I hear what the cabinet secretary says about feeling that there were adequate resources to respond to what happened this summer. However, he will be very aware of the concerns about the service delivery review and the lack of resources of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Will the experiences of this summer be considered when looking at the proposals that are due to be put into effect?
It is not my view that the fire service was adequately resourced on the ground; it is the view of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which said that it was adequately resourced when I tested that point with the chief fire officer and the incident commander on a near-daily basis. The service review is being carried out to ensure that capability is in the right place to meet modern firefighting needs.
As our fire service, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will give way once more, if I can, shortly.
As our fire service, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has the statutory and legal responsibility to deal with fires wherever they occur, and it continues to strengthen its capabilities. The SFRS provided reassurance that its response was resourced appropriately and proportionately, and that operational activity was continually reviewed to ensure that the response remained suitable for the scale and nature of the incident. There was, however, no doubt that it was a difficult fire to contend with. The people tackling the fire had to face the challenges of changing weather conditions, difficult and inaccessible terrain and incredibly difficult circumstances. Operational commanders also continually assessed the hazards, including fire behaviour, fatigue, access and egress arrangements and the availability of suitable supervision and welfare provision. Those decisions and tactics on resource deployment and relief arrangements had the dual aim of achieving operational outcomes while keeping all those who were contributing to the response as safe as possible.
I want to go back to the cabinet secretary’s comments about resourcing. Does he accept that, despite what SFRS senior officers may have told him about adequate resourcing, the view from whole-time and retained firefighters who were involved with the response is very different? They are telling both constituency and regional MSPs that they feel that the resourcing was inadequate? In fact, one firefighter told me last night that they feel that the national fire service is behind what the former Highlands and Islands fire brigade was 20 years ago.
I remind members that incident commanders in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service have a personal legal responsibility for responding to the fires that they contend with. I accept that there will be differences of opinion, but they have a legal responsibility in relation to the fire that they are fighting—that deserves a reminder. Of course, individual fire officers and the FBU—as I said clearly in a meeting that I had with it—can feed into the review and pass on information on their concerns or where there is a need for us to go faster on the wildfire strategy. However, in my asks of incident commanders and the chief fire officer, I made it clear that, if more resource was required, we would do what we could to ensure that that could be fulfilled, and they said that they had adequate and proportionate resources in place.
In March this year, the Scottish Government published its “Strategic Action Plan on Wildfires”, which sets out 18 actions across the three pillars of prevention, preparedness and response, which were highlighted by Andrew Baxter and Laura Mitchell, who also talked about PPE. During the Cairngorms wildfire, I requested an urgent review of the plan to ensure that we are moving forward with the pace and scale of action that is needed in the light of the increasing risks that we face, and to test that we remain in the right space in terms of required actions.
The SFRS is developing contractual arrangements on wildfire danger assessments to make the system more resilient and sustainable. We are also considering how we can better communicate those warnings to the public. I am aware that, throughout the Cairngorms fire, partner knowledge, specialist capability and local expertise were crucial in helping to bring the fire to a conclusion. I know that some in the local community felt that their voices were not listened to. That reinforces the need for clear communication and, importantly, engagement with local residents, landowners and businesses in the course of significant incidents. The SFRS and the Scottish resilience partnership are already considering those issues as part of their wider review. I assure members that multi-agency reviews and debriefs will inform improvements to the wildfire concept of operations, including how the SFRS can work more effectively with partner organisations, landowners and volunteers.
I recognise the significant efforts of communities in response to the wildfire and the valuable contribution of volunteers to tackling it and other wildfires. One strength of the SFRS as a national service is its ability to flex its resources and to work with local resilience partners to reflect the availability of local volunteers and assets. Through the wildfire strategy and wider service delivery review, the SFRS continues to develop the skills, equipment, specialist advice and operational arrangements that are required to respond safely and effectively. That includes strategically located wildfire resources, specialist equipment, tactical advisers and enhanced support for crews operating in rural and island environments.
The budget for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has increased by £23.8 million, bringing the total budget to £435.96 million. In addition, the capital budget was increased to £48.4 million, which is an increase of £1.4 million, to improve facilities for firefighters and invest in the SFRS asset base across property, fleet, operations, equipment and information and communication technology—that is quite the contrast from the suggestion of cuts.
I will finish by endorsing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service chief officer’s statement on Scotland’s wildfire preparedness. Preventing, preparing and responding to the increased risk of wildfires needs to continue to be a joint endeavour. Emergency responders must work with the Scottish Government, local authorities, land managers, public bodies, businesses, communities and the resilience partners to consider what more can be done, and that is what we will do.
I thank all colleagues who have taken part today and who have spoken about the clear challenges that we face with wildfires. As I have outlined, I have requested a review of our strategic action plan to identify any further actions that are needed and to ensure that the implementation meets the risk, which the climate change emergency increases. I will say more about that on Thursday when I give a statement on wildfires. I look forward to hearing more about the issue from members then.
Meeting closed at 19:00.
Previous
Decision Time