Official Report 1099KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19124, in the name of Katy Clark, on protecting Scotland’s fire service. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
16:00
Scottish Labour has lodged the motion because the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is in a state of crisis. The Fire Brigades Union Scotland has been warning for years about the devastating impact of underinvestment in our Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and about the threats that we are now facing after years of cuts and failure by the Scottish Government to deliver investment.
Over the past 13 years, 1,250 firefighters’ jobs have been lost, which represents more than a sixth of the total workforce. That figure includes 729 whole-time operational firefighters and 368 retained operational firefighters. Those are direct cuts to vital, life-saving front-line services. The number of volunteer firefighters has also reduced by 35 per cent, which negatively impacts on emergency cover in many of our remote and rural communities. In control rooms, there has been a 26 per cent reduction in staff—staff who are vital in handling calls and supporting individuals in emergencies, including those that pose a risk to life.
When I met FBU Scotland yesterday, its representatives laid out the impact of those job losses on response times. Average response times have increased from six minutes and 51 seconds to eight minutes and 20 seconds. Every second counts when waiting for a response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The FBU fears that, without the investment that is needed in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, response times could eventually reach more than 10 minutes.
Response times to incidents that pose a risk to life have also increased. In 2016, the average response time to such incidents stood at around seven minutes and 30 seconds. Last year, it stood at eight minutes and 50 seconds. In such situations, when there is a risk to life, every minute counts.
In control rooms, job losses have contributed to an increase in call-handling times. Call-handling times for incidents that pose a risk to life have increased from one minute and 10 seconds in 2016 to one minute and 32 seconds. Staffing levels in control rooms are generally considered to be inadequate and regularly fall below agreed safe levels.
FBU Scotland is calling on the Scottish Government to commit to no further cuts to firefighter numbers. I urge the minister to give such a commitment today. Since its creation in 2013, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has faced cuts of tens of millions in funding from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service resource budget for this financial year stands at £332.1 million, which represents a real-terms cut of more than £56 million in the past 12 years.
Sustained underinvestment in our fire capital budget has also led to a capital backlog of more than £800 million, and many fire stations are no longer fit for purpose. The fire service has estimated that £80 million per year would be needed to improve the condition of fire stations and control rooms. FBU Scotland is calling for increased and sustainable real-terms investment in the service from the Scottish Government. Ahead of this year’s budget process, I urge the minister to engage with the firefighters’ union, with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and with firefighters across Scotland.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s service delivery consultation recently closed, with more than 3,500 responses. The consultation outlined several options, including changes to fire cover, the permanent withdrawal of 10 appliances and the closure of 13 fire stations.
Does the Labour Party believe that rural areas could be disproportionately affected by the proposals from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, because they cover such a large geographical area, and that losing a whole-time service would be so detrimental to anyone who was involved in a road traffic accident or a fire, particularly in rural areas?
Rachael Hamilton makes her point well, and I agree.
The plans that have been outlined would further damage the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and add to the negative impact that underinvestment and cuts have already had. Fire cover would change across Scotland, including in rural areas, but also in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Dunfermline. In my region—West Scotland—fire cover would be affected at the Milngavie, Inverclyde and Helensburgh stations, and in many other parts. Let us be clear that those changes to fire cover would lead to increased response times.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board is set to decide on the consultation proposals by late December. Although it is the board that will ultimately decide, we should remember that the board members are appointed by the Scottish Government, and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety is ultimately accountable to the Parliament for the delivery and provision of fire and rescue services. After the board makes its decision in December, MSPs must have adequate time and opportunity to scrutinise and debate any proposed changes, especially as those changes are set to have a negative impact on service delivery if some of the proposals proceed—particularly due to the likely increases in response times. I therefore call on the minister to commit today to a debate in Government time, to ensure that Parliament gets its opportunity to have a say on any proposals.
I am sure that other colleagues will pick up the many other issues that I could have raised in this debate on fire and rescue services, but I will conclude by thanking Scottish firefighters for their vital work in keeping our communities safe. I pay tribute to all our firefighters, and particularly to Barry Martin and Ewan Williamson—two brave firefighters who lost their lives while on duty. We owe it to them and to all of Scotland’s firefighters to ensure that Scotland’s Fire and Rescue Service gets the investment that it needs. I therefore hope that the Parliament will support Scottish Labour’s motion.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses concern at the cuts proposed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS); recognises the Cuts Leave Scars campaign, which was set up in 2023 in response to a decade of underfunding by the Scottish Government; notes the loss of over 1,250 firefighter jobs across Scotland since the establishment of the SFRS in 2013, leading to pumps being unavailable as a result of too few firefighters to crew them; regrets that, as a result of cuts, call handling times have increased in control rooms and response times have increased from 6 minutes and 51 seconds to 8 minutes and 20 seconds, which risks lives in Scotland; notes with concern the plans to close 13 stations and permanently withdraw 10 appliances, and encourages the Scottish Government to work alongside the SFRS and the Fire Brigades Union Scotland to ensure that there are no further cuts to firefighter numbers or fire cover and that safe crewing levels are guaranteed.
16:08
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which has been a single national service since 2013, is one of Scotland’s success stories. We have a successful emergency service of dedicated firefighters that we should all be proud of, and I thank each and every one of the staff at the SFRS for their commitment to and their work on keeping our communities safe every day.
The vast majority of the reduction in firefighter numbers that the motion cites can be attributed to the reduction in duplication and layers of management that resulted from this significant public service reform.
I join the minister in paying tribute to our firefighters, who do a wonderful job. However, in regions such as mine—the Highlands and Islands—less than 10 per cent of fire stations are fully staffed. Those people have not disappeared—it was not that there was duplication of jobs. Many fire stations cannot put out a crew to deal with a fire.
The bill that became the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 was supported by Labour at the time. The reduction in the number of firefighters is primarily a result of the establishment of the single national service, which reduced the duplication in the eight regional services. I know what the member is saying about rural areas, which she mentioned to me yesterday, but, under the service delivery review, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service needs to keep evaluating its services as time progresses.
The single service has allowed for the delivery of additional specialist resources that serve the whole of Scotland, such as the water rescue capability, which is being rolled out to 20 fire stations.
In 2013, there were 357 fire stations in Scotland; today, there are 356—only one fewer. In that time, the risks that our country faces have changed, and it is right that we make sure that we are ready to respond to any new challenges. Over the past 10 years, there has been a 20 per cent reduction in the number of house fires. The overall number of incidents that are attended by the SFRS continues to fall.
Although the number of house fires has reduced, there have been other incidents, and new risks have emerged.
Will the minister be addressing the concerning increases in response and call-handling times?
I will get to that.
Climate change is contributing to warmer, drier conditions, which increase the likelihood and intensity of wildfires. As I said yesterday,
“Shifts in weather patterns, such as those that led to last week’s wildfire danger warning and this week’s yellow warning for rain, reinforce the climate challenges that we currently face.”—[Official Report, 30 September 2025; c 8.]
With that has come a change in the risks to our communities, as incidents such as those of flooding and wildfires increase. Our firefighters are trained to respond to both those types of incident, but the change illustrates the need for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be adaptable to such risks. That is why it is right that the fire service carefully considers how its services are delivered, to ensure that they are configured in the right way, and that it adapts to changing risks to remain effective and efficient, with firefighters in the right place at the right time.
Not adapting and changing over time—
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress.
Continuing to keep everything the same for decades would not be efficient or effective and would not ensure that taxpayers’ money was invested in the right way.
There is a wide disparity between the numbers of incidents that fire stations respond to, which is why the SFRS is looking to adjust the resources that are present in some locations. I emphasise that the driver for the changes that the SFRS proposes is to better align resources to current risks; it is not about saving money.
Will the minister give way?
The minister will be concluding shortly.
I must make some progress.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service plans to redeploy resources that are freed up by making changes to front-line delivery to provide greater resource to its prevention and protection function, and to boost training provision to ensure that firefighters remain fully ready and competent to keep us all safe from the changing risks that we face. The SFRS also aims to ensure that investment is going to the fire stations that need it most—for example, to tackle reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete roofs and to enhance the facilities for firefighters, including modern decontamination facilities.
Therefore, I do not accept the accusation that the service delivery review is a cuts exercise. Despite financial pressures in recent years—
Minister, you need to bring your remarks to a close.
I conclude by saying something about response times—that is really important because, if anything about that is misconstrued, it can cause public fear. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been clear that it advises against using response times as a meaningful metric for performance and that the focus should be on outcomes. There are complex and dynamic factors that impact on those times.
Minister, you need to conclude and move your amendment.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to update Parliament more in my closing speech.
I move amendment S6M-19124.2, to leave out from “expresses” to end and insert:
“recognises that, whilst house fires have reduced by over 20% since 2013, due to the climate emergency, incidents and risk of flooding and wildfires have significantly increased; further recognises that the recent Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s (SFRS) Service Delivery Review aims to ensure that the service can respond to these changing risks and that the right firefighters and appliances are in the right place at the right time; notes that no decisions will be taken until an independent analysis of the public consultation has been carried out and that any changes would be implemented over a five-year period; agrees that all public services need to provide efficient and effective services that deliver value for the public purse, and encourages the Scottish Government to continue to work alongside the SFRS and the Fire Brigades Union to ensure that Scotland has safer communities.”
16:13
I thank Katy Clark for securing this important debate for the chamber.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is a life-saving organisation, which protects people, homes, businesses and the environment every day. Its importance can be seen in towns and cities, where firefighters race to put out potentially devastating fires in minutes, and it can increasingly be seen in the countryside, as they tackle raging wildfires that threaten to run out of control, ruin wildlife and pose risks for those who live in remote and rural communities.
The importance of firefighters is seldom more recognised than when they put themselves in danger, without hesitation, to ensure that we can live safely. In the process, many have been injured and some have tragically lost their lives. We should take the opportunity to again remember the ultimate sacrifices that were made by Ewan Williamson in 2009 and, more recently, by Barry Martin in 2023. In fact, it seems that the Scottish Government is alone in not fully comprehending the fire brigade’s importance. It is quick to praise firefighters and to talk up its support for them, but the money and the numbers tell a vastly different story.
Since the creation of the single fire service in 2013—a move that was supposed to create a nimbler and more effective organisation—things have got decidedly worse. There has been a reduction of 1,215 uniformed firefighters in that time, which represents a drop of almost 16 per cent, and, although ministers talk about uplifts in funding, the real-terms picture shows that there have been devastating cuts to the budget over a number of years. Scottish Conservative research shows the effects that those cuts have had on performance statistics. Average response times have increased by one and a half minutes.
That all begs the question, why? Why did the Scottish National Party Government centralise the fire service only to subsequently oversee brutal cuts and woeful mismanagement? The minister in charge likes to make the point that Scotland has more firefighters per head than England, but anyone who understands the geography of Scotland and appreciates how spread out and remote our communities are in comparison with those in England knows that that is a completely ridiculous argument.
The efficiencies that are proposed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are truly terrifying and difficult to believe. The chief officer, Stuart Stevens, is on record as saying that the efficiencies will go ahead only if they ensure
“the safety of the community of Scotland.”
If that is the case and the service’s damaging proposals can be vetoed on the ground of people’s safety, those changes must be stopped and an improved funding settlement from the Scottish Government delivered.
I fully support the FBU and its cuts leave scars campaign. Unlike the Scottish Government, it understands the genuine risks that the proposed efficiencies will pose. The fire brigade is facing a range of new challenges, yet it is expected to meet them with fewer tools.
Will Sharon Dowey take an intervention?
Would I get the time back, Presiding Officer?
There is no time in hand.
I am sorry.
Wildfires are on the rise. Newer developments such as recycling centres and battery energy storage systems also present a fresh challenge. Scotland’s population is increasing and ageing and is therefore becoming more vulnerable. Instead of constantly asking firefighters to do more with less, the Scottish Government needs to completely change direction. John McKenzie, the Scottish secretary of the FBU, said:
“The Minister’s call for improved fire safety at a time when she is overseeing a service being systematically stripped of jobs and fire fighting capacity shows she is in complete denial about what is going on in the service she is responsible for.”
Brave firefighters save lives, keep communities safe and place themselves in grave danger while doing so. They need to know that the Scottish Parliament has their backs. I ask all members to support my amendment, which will show firefighters that that is the case and will, I hope, trigger an urgent rethink on funding and resources.
I move amendment S6M-19124.1, to insert at end:
“; recognises that the Scottish Government’s mismanagement of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) has resulted in an £800 million operational backlog that has mostly resulted from the failure to bring stations up to modern standards, with 18 fire stations lacking running water; notes that the SFRS is coming under increasing strain thanks to the pressures presented by wildfires, and that the public are becoming more concerned about the fire hazards presented by battery storage sites, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that firefighters have the basic resources to do their job, to ensure that lives are not needlessly lost.”
I invite Maggie Chapman to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
16:18
I begin by paying tribute to all of Scotland’s firefighters—our fireys—who put themselves in harm’s way every day to protect us; to their families who live with the knowledge that, when their loved ones leave for work, they might not return; to the control room staff who stay on the phone for as long as it takes, even if that means to the end of someone’s life; and to the Fire Brigades Union, for its tireless work in defending not only its members but the communities that they serve.
The FBU is right when it says that cuts leave scars. That is not a slogan—it is the lived reality of communities up and down Scotland. That is why I will support Katy Clark’s motion.
Since the creation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in 2013, we have lost more than 1,250 firefighter jobs. Pumps are off the run because there are too few firefighters to crew them safely. Response times have gone up from 6 minutes 51 seconds to more than 8 minutes, and, as every firefighter will tell you, those 90 seconds can mean the difference between life and death.
The changes that are proposed by the SFRS might not be framed as cuts, but that is how they are understood. We are not trimming fat—we are cutting into the muscle of our fire service, which will leave scars that will last for generations.
Let us be clear about the reality of the modern fire service. Firefighters are no longer dealing only with house fires and car accidents. They are tackling climate change on the front line, with more frequent and severe wildfires and devastating floods. They are stepping into medical emergencies. They are doing more, and they are willing to do even more, but we cannot and must not ask them to do more with less. Role expansion must be matched with proper resourcing, staffing and training; otherwise, it is nothing more than exploitation of their dedication.
The FBU’s “Firestorm” report, which was published in 2023, makes that case powerfully. It shows the risks that our communities face if we continue down the road of cuts and underfunding; it shows the scale of the challenge in an era of climate crisis; and it demands that we all listen to the evidence and act accordingly.
We must not forget the silent dangers that firefighters face. I have championed the FBU’s decon campaign, which highlights the risks of cancers and other diseases that are linked to contaminants on the job. Firefighters risk their lives in the moment of a blaze, but they also risk their long-term health every time that they put on contaminated kit. The least that we owe them is a workplace that does not poison them. That means investment in equipment, decontamination facilities and safety standards.
In my closing speech, I will speak about the potential impacts of the SFRS’s proposed changes to fire services in the North East Scotland region—in particular, the impact on the Balmossie community fire and ambulance station. For now, I will just say that closing Balmossie will increase response times to some communities.
Our firefighters are not asking for luxuries. They are asking for the tools, staffing and safety to do their jobs and to save our lives. They are asking us to value their lives as much as they value ours. Cuts do indeed leave scars on our firefighters, our communities and our collective safety. We must all work with the FBU and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to stop the cuts, guarantee safe crewing levels and invest in the fire service that Scotland deserves. We owe our firefighters not just gratitude but respect—and respect demands resources.
16:22
I thank Katy Clark for lodging the motion for debate, which provides an opportunity to highlight the central role that the fire service plays in protecting communities across Scotland and making them safer and more resilient. I join other members in paying tribute to all firefighters and staff across the country.
The debate comes on the back of stark warnings from the SFRS about the threat of wildfires, and as communities across the Highlands and Islands come to terms with the devastating impact of the wildfires that we have seen over the summer, so it feels particularly timely. As other members have suggested, proposals for the potential closure of 13 fire stations and the permanent withdrawal of 10 appliances are deeply concerning, not least for the workforce. We have been absolutely clear about the potential impact that those staff reductions will have.
The statistics for the period since 2013 are stark, too. There has been a 16 per cent reduction in uniformed staff, with 1,250 fewer firefighters working across Scotland. As a direct result, crews often do not meet safe staffing requirements, meaning that they cannot respond to calls, which, ultimately, and inevitably, leads to call times increasing, as we have seen.
Katy Clark is right that every second counts in an emergency, and that increases in average response times risk lives. In that context, the further cuts that are proposed to firefighter numbers and resource capacity seem untenable. Those cuts are also having an effect on the provision of training. As one firefighter put it in the “Firestorm” report, the public
“envisage a fully equipped, fully trained Service sending the requisite number of firefighters to any emergency situation ... The reality is poorly trained, poorly equipped firefighters who are sick of trying their utmost to carry out their duties against a background of cuts and a lack of training and support.”
Of course, maintaining community safety looks different in different parts of the country—a point that Rachael Hamilton made. In rural and island communities, the vast majority of stations are staffed on an on-call basis by retained crew. However, many of the retained stations across the Highlands and Islands face severe challenges in recruitment and retention. As Rhoda Grant highlighted, only 10 out of 125 fire stations across the region are fully staffed. In Orkney only 10 are fully staffed, and in Shetland none at all. In recent years, stations in Hoy, Eday and North Ronaldsay have had less than half a full complement of staff. That sees crews being taken off the run, which impacts on communities’ resilience.
Meanwhile, statistics published by SFRS suggest that fire casualties are higher in rural and island areas. That cannot be any coincidence. If we are serious about ensuring the safety of communities across Scotland, we must get serious about training, staffing and resourcing our fire service, not least in those rural and island communities.
As an aside, from my perspective, community safety extends to enabling others who require fire training to be able to undertake it. The upgrade in facilities at Kirkwall airport, for which I campaigned over many years, has undoubtedly delivered huge benefits, not least in reducing the need for fire crew members to leave Orkney for training. I understand from a recent meeting at Orkney College, however, that there are currently problems with local merchant seafarers getting the fire training that they need in the islands.
With greater use of indoor simulators, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has raised concerns about the reduced access to real fire conditions as part of the course. MCA representatives are due in Orkney soon, and I hope that an agreement can be reached between the MCA, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and Orkney College so that merchant seafarers can, again, get the access to fire safety training that they need without the additional cost, time and inconvenience of having to travel to the Scottish mainland.
In the meantime, I again thank Katy Clark and confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support both her motion and the amendment in Sharon Dowey’s name.
We move to the open debate.
16:26
What is taking place in our communities is not a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service delivery review—it is an experiment, and it is one which, as a matter of public record, is causing serious concern to members of this Parliament from all sides, including members from the minister’s own back benches. The Government cannot contract out these decisions to the board of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It is this Government that is putting at risk public health, community safety and even the lives of its own citizens. It is this Government which must be accountable to Parliament.
We know that this risk—this experiment—will not be borne evenly, and that these cuts do not have an equal impact. We should look at the awful, distressing facts. We should look at what happened at Grenfell: 40 per cent of disabled people who lived in Grenfell tower died that night in June 2017. A quarter of all children who lived in Grenfell tower died as a result of the fire that night.
This is a public service that should be about people, and not about money. That includes the firefighters and their trade union, the FBU, who passionately tell us,
“We don’t just fight fire, we fight injustice too”
and who make it plain that, since the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was created, there has, in their words, been
“A decade of underinvestment—a decade of real terms cuts”.
There has been a net reduction of 368 retained operational front-line firefighters; a net reduction of 729 whole-time operational front-line firefighters; and cuts to control staff, cuts to volunteer firefighters and cuts to the number of appliances as well.
I vividly remember speaking to firefighters at the Hamilton station back in June 2023, where an appliance was being removed as “a temporary measure”. Over two years later, it has never returned. It was not a temporary measure—a temporary removal—at all. It was, as we warned at the time, a permanent measure—a permanent removal.
At Cumbernauld, we are now witnessing a plan to remove whole-time firefighters and to replace them with on-call crews. The reductions that are planned for stations in Glasgow will have a knock-on impact in Lanarkshire as well. The FBU, in its insightful “Firestorm” report, reminds us that, when the single fire service was set up by this Scottish Government, we were promised that it was about
“stopping duplication of support services ... and not cutting front line services”,
but that is precisely what we are witnessing today: downgrades, front-line jobs and service cuts, redundancies and a significant increase in response times as a result.
In every area, the pros and cons of the proposals have been set out. In every area, the pros include financial savings that are to be made. In every area, the cons include increased response times. In every area, there is a reduction of fire cover. Describing those proposals as anything other than an exercise in financial cuts is the real con. Do not anybody try to tell us that those are operational choices: they are policy choices, and they are political choices. I hope that, at decision time tonight, they will prove to be political choices that the Parliament resoundingly rejects.
16:30
This is an important debate. I took part in the public consultation and have informed my constituents that I do not support the proposals for Inverclyde. To inform my submission to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s service delivery review consultation, I engaged with constituents, visited Inverclyde’s three fire stations and spoke to each of the crew members who were working when I visited. I attended the two Fire and Rescue Service public meetings in Greenock and Port Glasgow and met the local FBU Scotland representative. I also spoke to senior management during my visit to the Port Glasgow station. I thank them all for their contributions and for their information and assistance. I also thank all the fire and rescue staff across Scotland.
I approached the consultation with an open mind as I am acutely aware that time does not stand still and the delivery of public services also changes. If we delivered public services today in the way that we did 20, 30 or 40 years ago, there would quite rightly be a public outcry, and I am quite sure that we would be debating that in the chamber.
I was reassured that the changes have not been made as a result of a reduction in budget, as was suggested at the Port Glasgow public meeting. The local MP tried to make the accusation that the consultation was happening as a result of cuts, which was quickly rebutted. For the record, I note that, since 2017-18, there have been substantial year-on-year increases in funding to support the Fire and Rescue Service.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will in two seconds. Actually, I have only four minutes, but I will come back to address the Tories—don’t you worry.
The current annual budget is more than £97 million higher than it was in 2017-18. Notwithstanding the additional resource over that period, however, the increase still does not guarantee the security and safety of my constituents in Greenock and Inverclyde, because both of the consultation’s proposed options will have a negative impact on the number of whole-time firefighters locally. I do not believe that the proposals will strengthen the on-call service, notwithstanding the various recruitment initiatives that the Fire and Rescue Service has planned.
Gourock’s on-call station regularly attends calls in Largs in North Ayrshire, because the on-call station at Skelmorlie cannot always send a crew. Half of Port Glasgow station covers the area up to Dargavel in Bishopton, in addition to elsewhere in the Inverclyde local authority area. Response times, which have already been mentioned, are clearly a hugely important part of the discussion. If Gourock station staff are having to go to Largs regularly, the addition of 650 homes on the Inverkip power station site will not help with the response times—it is complete folly and utter madness. That is why the decision by the Inverclyde Council planning committee to give the go-ahead for those homes is going to make the situation worse.
Approval has also been given for additional housing at Spango Valley in Greenock, which is not going to help at all. The fact that Inverclyde stations are serving other areas suggests that reducing the number of appliances for the whole-time firefighters in my area will only increase the strain on the existing staff. Safety is paramount, and I do not trust that the current proposals will make Inverclyde and the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency safer.
I will finish with a brief comment on funding. We have had 14 years of austerity. Anas Sarwar claimed at his party’s conference this week that Labour has ended 14 years of austerity. If that is the case, what was announced in June in the UK spending review? I urge the UK Labour Government not to continue with that austerity. It should stop the austerity and ensure that more money goes into public services such as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and other public services across the UK. If that does not happen, sadly, the situation that we are facing in Scotland and elsewhere across the UK will continue.
Mr McMillan, you will need to conclude.
Okay, Presiding Officer.
I support my constituency and I genuinely support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service but, my goodness, the proposals that I have mentioned need to be scrapped. The SFRS must think again and come forward with something that will secure the safety of my constituents.
16:35
I was interested to hear what Stuart McMillan said and I commend him for standing up for his constituents. However, we are hearing from the Government front bench that it is not about the money, while we are hearing from the back benches that it is about the money. The Scottish Government needs to regroup and make up its mind, because what is happening feels like gaslighting of our firefighters and all the support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
I am proud to speak in this debate, which has been secured by Scottish Labour. I am disgusted that the Scottish Government is not supporting our motion. Instead, it has brought to the chamber an amendment that deletes our motion in its entirety and airbrushes out more than a decade of underfunding.
To recap, I note that, in 2023, after that decade of underfunding, FBU Scotland launched the cuts leave scars campaign. We have all been listening to our communities, but we are not just defending our own patches—we want to get this right for the whole of Scotland. It is not about pitting one community against another. However, I feel that the minister has come to the chamber and gaslit not just the members who are here, but also the firefighters in the gallery and people across the country by saying that any reduction in fire crews has been about reducing duplication of services. I hope that that suggestion will be corrected in her closing speech and that we will find out whether the minister agrees with Stuart McMillan.
Like Richard Leonard, I have been spending time in Cumbernauld, Hamilton and right across Lanarkshire and Central Scotland and listening to our communities and our firefighters. Richard Leonard made a point about the second appliance in Hamilton. We were told to trust in the process and that the arrangement was temporary, which is why there was no need for statutory consultation. We were told not to talk down the Scottish Government with regard to the issue. However, I have to say that people no longer trust the Scottish Government when it comes to the future of Scotland’s fire and rescue service. People in Hamilton do not trust what they hear. Why should people in Cumbernauld or anywhere else trust the Scottish Government?
At the public meeting in Cumbernauld—which was also attended by Jamie Hepburn, who heard the same testimony that I did—a woman who had been sitting quietly at the back of the room got to her feet and said to the top table, the politicians and everyone who was gathered there that her sister and her sister’s children had died in a tragic house fire. She made the same plea to decision makers that we are making.
This issue is about people and our communities, and it is about building resilience for the future. If we believe the science, if we watch the news and if we see the wildfires and the impact of floods and storms, we know that we need to act. Our firefighters do more than deal with house fires and other emergencies, and we have to give them the right equipment. I recently visited the national training centre in Cambuslang, and firefighters there told me that they have examples of out-of-date kit that cannot be used in emergency situations. There are many concerns about health and safety, and I pay tribute to Mercedes Villalba and Maggie Chapman for the work that they have done on that issue.
I ask the minister to please think again. She must not dismiss the Labour motion out of hand because of politics. We cannot go on cutting the service to the bone. It will risk lives. The cuts leave scars campaign tells us that, but tonight I am thinking about that sister—that aunt—who said that her family had been wiped out in a fire.
If the minister does not show some political leadership and deal with the reality, I fear for the future. I urge all colleagues to back the motion tonight.
16:39
I am delighted to speak in the debate and I welcome the fact that Labour has chosen this topic for debate. We have rightly had unanimity in our praise of firefighters, who do an extremely challenging job in some of the toughest of circumstances. However, those warm words are not enough if they are not backed up by action. Tonight, the Parliament has an opportunity to unite behind the Labour motion, to dismiss the Scottish National Party amendment and to back up our warm words with action to protect our services on the front line in our communities the length and breadth of Scotland.
The SNP wants to delete all the negative references in the motion. It can delete the text, but it cannot just forget or ignore what is going on outside this building, because there is no doubt that we have seen a reduction in the number of firefighters across Scotland. Many of the stations in the area that I represent are now not manned at all, as Rhoda Grant said.
As we say in our amendment to the motion, some of the buildings that firefighters are using are completely unfit for purpose. There is a huge £800 million backlog in the investment that we need to see going into the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—that investment is not happening.
I say to the minister and members on the SNP benches that I am sorry, but we need more than warm words about the Government supporting our firefighters when it is clear from its actions that it does not. That is why the debate is important and why the votes this evening will be so important. I say to SNP back benchers that this is an opportunity to stand up to the Government and say, “No—this is wrong. We don’t want to support this and we can’t put our names to it”.
I have to say to Stuart McMillan that his very dismal speech was also extremely confusing. He spoke at length about how all the problems were caused by the other parties, ignoring what his party is doing, but he then said that he opposes the cuts. Which is it? How will he oppose the cuts in his local area? Will he vote against his Government? Will he and other SNP members show their constituents, who will go to the ballot box in a few months’ time to say who they want to represent them, that, on an issue as important as this—a life or death issue—they will stand up to the SNP Government? Will they say, “No more—we cannot take the cuts to our fire and rescue service.” Will they say that we cannot accept a greater reduction in the number of firefighters or the standard of service that will be delivered if more and more is taken out of the service when it needs investment? At decision time this evening, we will all be scrutinising which side members are on. Their warm words will count for nothing if they just line up as Government fodder and vote the way that the SNP whips tell them to vote.
This is a crucial issue because, since the single force was brought in, we have seen a cut to and diminution in the service that is provided locally. It is defended by Government ministers and bosses at the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, who seem immune to the criticism that is clearly coming from the local community. They are deaf to it and unwilling to listen. What will it take for them to take on board the legitimate concerns of local communities, which are worried about the provision that is being stripped away day after day, week after week and month after month? At some point, it has to stop.
I was reminded that Colin Brown, FBU executive council member, said that the 2025-26 budget “won’t touch the sides”. This is not just about the future, but also about the past. The SNP Government has underfunded our fire and rescue service for far too long. It is to the credit of our firefighters and those working in the service that we have not reached breaking point before now. However, we are getting very close to that. The way to stop it is to back the Labour motion and unite as a Parliament to send the clearest message to our firefighters that we support them.
16:43
I join others in welcoming the debate. I am grateful to Katy Clark for lodging the motion, which touches on an important issue that is local to my constituency. Indeed, I have heard Mr Leonard and Ms Lennon mention Cumbernauld, which they do not often do. I commend to them mentioning Cumbernauld a little more often in this place.
First, I will try to place my remarks in some context. The motion refers to the 12 years that we have had a national fire service through the formation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I concur with what the minister said at the outset—I think that, overall, it has been a success story. It has enabled a more responsive fire service in many instances.
I will cite a specific example in my area. This April, in common with many other parts of the country, we experienced a wildfire—that was in the Palacerigg locality of Cumbernauld on 10 April. That required a significant response from the Fire and Rescue Service, with the deployment of firefighters from Cumbernauld and other stations. Many of those stations are in what was the Strathclyde fire service area, while some—Slamannan, Denny and Larbert—are based in the former Central Scotland fire service region.
I am not suggesting for a moment that that type of cross-border deployment did not previously happen. However, in my engagement with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, I am told that that process of deployment is far easier to achieve now. That is one practical example of an improved service, which is in the shape of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It would be remiss of me to not put on the record my thanks to the fire service personnel who responded to that incident.
I will touch on the service delivery review in relation to how it impacts my constituency. I understand—we hear this often enough—that we expect public services to be led in a way that is independent of ministerial direction. That is what we generally hear in relation to the Fire and Rescue Service, Police Scotland, the national health service and other public services. I understand that the process is being undertaken in that context.
I have written to the minister about the review and I am grateful for the reply that I have had. In particular, there was an emphasis that the changes that are being considered—we should say that they are only being considered at this stage—are about reshaping delivery in the context of a changed environment. That is instead of being in the context of seeking to—
Will Jamie Hepburn take an intervention?
The member will be concluding shortly.
I am afraid that I do not have time to take an intervention, but I will be happy to engage with Ms Lennon on this issue in any other fashion. Maybe we can work together on the issue.
The specific proposal for Cumbernauld is for there to be a reduction from two full-time crews on a 24-7 basis to one full-time crew on a 24-7 basis with another part-time on-call crew operating on evenings and weekends.
I want to raise a concern about the process. I have talked about it being a national fire service, but I have concerns that that is not being taken advantage of. This is a series of proposals that is often being presented in isolation. In this case, we know that changes in Glasgow might impact on the proposals for Lanarkshire. I have also been informed that Cumbernauld has one of the lowest call-out rates of any station in the country with two full-time fire appliances. That is welcome, but the community knows that the station is there when it is needed. Therefore, some of the proposals understandably cause concerns.
Mr Hepburn, you need to conclude.
I will continue to engage with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to try to make sure that it makes the right decision for my constituency.
16:48
I commend my comrade Katy Clark for introducing Labour’s motion on protecting Scotland’s fire service. Our motion recognises the Fire Brigades Union’s cuts leave scars campaign, which was set up in 2023 in response to a decade of underfunding by this Scottish Government. As a result of those cuts, call handling times have increased, response times have increased and the risk to lives has increased. Unbelievably, the Scottish Government’s response to that has been to support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s latest plans to close 13 stations, permanently withdraw 10 firefighting appliances and no doubt further cut firefighter numbers.
I am proud that Scottish Labour has used our debate time today to highlight this issue. However, is it not pitiful that the Scottish Government has not brought forward the issue in Government time? Instead, the SNP has tabled a wrecking amendment that rewrites our motion and removes any recognition of the damage that its cuts have caused, the danger that further station closures could cause and the responsibility that it has as the governing party to protect our public services. I will not vote for the SNP’s amendment, just as I do not support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s disastrous proposals to downgrade or even close Balmossie fire station in Dundee. I am not the only one who is opposed to it. The council is opposed to it, the firefighters are opposed to it and, most important, the people of the area are opposed to it, because it is dangerous and because it creates an unacceptable risk to people and communities. As one constituent wrote to me,
“We do not elect ministers to be silent functionaries; we elect them to be strong voices, especially when critical public safety issues are on the line.”
I am proud to stand with local firefighters, and I urge all members to join us and vote down the SNP amendment tonight and support Labour’s motion in full.
We move to closing speeches. I advise members that there is no time in hand.
16:50
I do not think that anyone in this chamber believes that our Fire and Rescue Service does not need to change. The minister spoke of better aligning resources to match changing risks that we and our communities face. Several members have mentioned the increasing challenges that our fire service is having to deal with. The increasing frequency and severity of wildfires, coupled with the similarly increasing risk of flooding, means that the jobs that our firefighters have to do are changing. Taken alongside the urgent need to address the demands of the FBU’s decon campaign, we all have our work cut out for us.
We have all said—in different ways—that things need to change, so maybe that is an important point that we can agree on this afternoon. However, it is how that change happens that matters.
I will turn to the SFRS’s proposed changes to the provision of stations and appliances across the country. We know that once a station is shut, it almost never reopens, and that once an appliance is removed, it is almost never replaced.
Balmossie fire station, which serves the communities of Dundee and Angus, faces closure. If that decision were to go ahead, that would be a grave mistake. Balmossie is not an abstract line on a balance sheet; it is a lifeline for the people of Broughty Ferry, Monifieth, Dundee and beyond. It is staffed by skilled and dedicated firefighters who know their community and who can get to emergencies quickly when every second matters.
To remove that cover is to leave thousands of people at greater risk. The local community knows that all too well, which is why their opposition to closure is so strong. Residents have made their voices clear in the consultation process. They do not accept that losing Balmossie will somehow leave them safer. They understand what the service means in practice: quicker responses, better cover and greater peace of mind.
I attended public meetings about the proposed closure in recent weeks, one of which was organised by the FBU and one of which was a formal consultation meeting arranged by the fire service. Local residents who attended those meetings were clear that they are worried about the safety of their communities, their neighbours and their families should the closure go ahead. They are also worried about the impact of the closure on the firefighters in their communities. They see the strain that SFRS staff are under. They care about the wellbeing of their local fireys.
Let us not forget the reality of recent events. We have seen too many substantial fires in the Dundee area—incidents in which rapid attendance by local crews who know their areas made all the difference in preventing wider damage and danger. To suggest that Balmossie is surplus to requirement simply does not match the lived reality of those communities.
The consultation documents that the fire service presents also fail to tell the whole story. They present figures that focus on averages and projections, but they do not capture the risk of delayed response in high-impact incidents. They do not fully reflect how population growth in Monifieth and the eastern edge of Dundee will increase demand in years to come, and they do not acknowledge the role that Balmossie plays in providing resilience and back-up for neighbouring stations that are already under pressure.
The consultation also fails to address—at all—the impact of removing the fire station on the ambulance station. It is a shared joint facility. Closing one will affect the other, and yet we have no information about what those impacts will be.
Closing Balmossie would be a short-sighted and dangerous decision. As I said, once stations are shut, they almost never reopen. I, like Mercedes Villalba and others, will continue to stand with the local community and the FBU in saying loudly and clearly that Balmossie must remain open.
16:54
Given the wording of the Labour motion, which we will support and which sets out many of the serious problems that beset Scotland’s fire and rescue service after 18 years of SNP Government, this was always going to be a pretty depressing debate. So it has proven, with speaker after speaker highlighting the serious challenges that the service faces.
Douglas Ross highlighted the £800 million backlog facing the service, of which £500 million is required to bring stations up to modern standards. I say “modern standards”, but I note Sharon Dowey’s amendment, which says that we are asking those heroes—for that is what they are—to work in conditions that include 18 stations that lack running water.
Sharon Dowey also talked about the long-term underfunding by the Scottish Government, with the loss of around 1,250 firefighter jobs across Scotland since 2013. Maggie Chapman rightly highlighted the impact of that, with pumps being unavailable as a result of there being too few firefighters to crew them. We heard powerful comments from Katy Clark about call handling, with response times increasing—and potentially increasing even further. We also heard from Liam McArthur about the plans to close 13 stations. Those stations include Balmossie, as we have just heard from Mercedes Villalba. That proposed closure totally ignores the large number of incidents that Balmossie’s crew attended in Dundee and Angus. Despite Balmossie being in the finance secretary’s backyard, I note with interest that Shona Robison has not bothered to show up to the debate today.
Things only became more depressing when I saw the Government amendment, which, as Monica Lennon rightly highlighted, deletes all references to those harsh facts from the original motion. Instead, Scotland’s Government denies any responsibility and fails to set out any concrete actions or measures that it might be taking to sort the situation. In fact, we heard the minister blithely say that the reduction in numbers is about duplication, while she completely ignored the response times issue and, indeed, failed to respond appropriately to Rhoda Grant’s timely intervention. Stuart McMillan blamed house builders for building houses and, of course, the Tories for delivering record block grants for years. Incredibly, Jamie Hepburn spoke for four minutes but said absolutely nothing of any value.
He is out of practice.
Indeed, he is out of practice.
What is most concerning is that neither the SNP amendment nor any SNP speaker has proposed any realistic solutions to the issues that are flagged in the Labour motion and the Conservative amendment.
The Labour motion sets out the myriad challenges that beset the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service after 18 years of SNP Government. The Conservative amendment highlights further challenges and proposes solutions. However, as Douglas Ross told us, the SNP amendment deletes all that. It completely defangs the proposition and substitutes warm words while kicking things into the long grass and slopy-shouldering responsibility—it contracts it out, as Richard Leonard rightly put it.
I have one more thing to say, Presiding Officer. For most of the debate, there were a mere seven MSPs from the SNP back benches in the chamber. Over the next 10 minutes or so, SNP MSPs, most of whom have not been in the chamber this afternoon to listen to the contributions and come to their own view, will start to file into the chamber so that they can vote for the Government amendment, as they have been told to do. They will try to ensure that the Parliament passes a sanitised, safe and sterile amended motion that absolves the Government of any responsibility and ensures that, in the face of all the challenges faced by our extraordinary and brave fire service, nothing will change. That betrayal of our brave firefighters is the most depressing thing of all.
16:58
There is no doubt that people are rightly very passionate about our Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. When we think about a fire service, we tend to think about it dealing with fires and other emergencies, but it also carries out vital fire safety and preventative work, which prevents fires from happening in the first place. The statistics show that the SFRS has been successful in that regard, with a 20 per cent reduction in house fires over the past 10 years, along with a 33 per cent reduction in non-fatal fire casualties between 2009-10 and 2023-24, and a 32 per cent reduction in fatal fire casualties in the same period.
I have listened carefully to everybody today, and I have heard the concerns that members have expressed on behalf of their constituencies and communities. I know that this is a really emotive issue. However, I have to point out that I have engaged extensively with the SFRS, which has assured me that any changes that were proposed as part of the service delivery review have been assessed through detailed simulation modelling. The SFRS would not propose any option for change—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am not taking any interventions at the moment, because I have a lot to get through.
The SFRS would not propose any option for change that could place communities at risk. That is important. The SFRS chief officer and his strategic leadership team have the expertise that is needed to deliver fire and rescue services that keep our communities safe. Therefore, decisions on how to keep communities safe should primarily be a matter for the service, rather than politicians deciding how the service should be delivered.
It is appropriate that we await the independent analysis of the public consultation and learn how the SFRS proposes to progress with the options for change. Any changes that are agreed will be decided by the SFRS board in December and then carefully rolled out over a five-year period, with any impacts fully evaluated on an on-going basis.
I have set out that the risks to people have changed over time, so there are good reasons why the SFRS should look at the footprint of fire stations, types of appliances and crewing patterns. Keeping everything the same for years is not an efficient or effective way to manage the service.
I apologise for not being able to get to response times in my opening speech, because I ran out of time. However, it is important to recognise that response times alone do not provide a meaningful measure in determining an effective emergency response. We are aware that increasing response times are a trend that is being witnessed at fire and rescue services across the UK. The issue is complex, because dynamic factors impact and influence response times. They vary across wide-ranging and diverse geographical areas. Factors include rising traffic levels, varying degrees of congestion, unexpected roadworks, road closures and diversions and an increase in the use of traffic-calming measures over the years, but foremost is firefighters’ safety and wellbeing.
The SFRS has strict health and safety policies to protect its staff. For example, firefighters must ensure that they follow correct safety procedures when mobilising for an incident, which can impact response time.
As the minister knows, response times are not the only issue. I understand from speaking to the fire service that one major concern is that the first appliance might arrive but it might not be possible for the crew to act because of the lack of a second or third appliance. Does the minister agree with me that, as well as response times, the reduction in the number of appliances is a major concern?
That is why the SFRS is having the service delivery review that looks at all such issues. Response times are a really important factor. Many years ago, firefighters would get in their fire engine without putting on personal protective equipment. There is a time delay due to those health and safety issues, which are very important.
I work closely with the SFRS. I regularly meet the board, the chair and the chief officer. I meet the Fire Brigades Union’s Scottish officials to hear directly about current issues. The SFRS chief officer and his strategic leadership team have the expertise that is needed to deliver fire and rescue services that keep our communities safe. Therefore, we should listen carefully to the evidence that the SFRS provides for change.
17:03
If the minister is tone deaf and cannot grasp the level of concern across the chamber from members about what is being proposed, I certainly hope that other ministers, cabinet secretaries and Government advisers are listening, because the situation is not acceptable.
Siobhian Brown’s amendment states that
“no decisions will be taken until an independent analysis of the public consultation has been carried out”.
We need absolute assurance that no decisions will be taken until that independent analysis comes back to the Parliament and there is a full debate, in Government time, on the issue. If the Government will not sign up to that, I ask my business manager and all the other business managers to ensure that the proposals do not proceed before there is a proper debate in the Parliament.
This morning, the east area chair of the FBU, Lewis Clark, said:
“The amendment to the motion submitted by Siobhian Brown looks to detract from the responsibility that the Scottish Government, and the Minister for Community Safety, has to properly resource Scotland’s fire service. House fires have reduced, due in great part to the work of our fire fighters in delivering community safety. It doesn’t mean house fires don’t happen. To simply reduce fire cover, increasing the time before a rescue attempt can happen, for those that will still be affected by house fires, doesn’t make sense. This metric is also unrepresentative of the broad range of emergencies, prevention, training and fire safety work we undertake.”
I urge every member of the Parliament not to support the Government’s amendment, because, as the FBU has said, it brushes over issues.
Where are we? What is the position? The senior management of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has put forward proposals that will have a detrimental impact on communities. The FBU Scotland and front-line firefighters are telling us that lives will be put at risk as a result of the proposed changes. Local communities across Scotland have considered the issue at packed-out public meetings. In my area, after Lochgelly community council organised a public meeting, other community councils joined in and said that they are also opposed to the proposals. Communities up and down Scotland are saying that they are opposed to the proposals.
Earlier, Douglas Ross said that senior management is “immune” to those arguments. I sometimes think that the minister is completely immune to them, too. Basically, she is saying that, if the management of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has said that the proposals are right, they must be right. Today, she told us that a detailed simulation has taken place. Despite the concerns about safety, she is saying that a simulation has been done on a computer and that it is a case of “computer says no.”
I have questions for every politician here today. Are they seriously going to ignore the major concerns of front-line firefighters? Are they seriously going to ignore the Fire Brigades Union, which says that lives are being and will be put at risk? Are they going to ignore local communities up and down Scotland?
Where I come from, the Cowdenbeath area committee, which is made up of SNP, Conservative and Labour councillors, is unanimously calling for the proposals to be stopped and for the issue to be looked at again. The Government must do that, because consistent cuts to fire services over the years have left the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service stretched to its absolute limit. As has been said, the latest round of cuts that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has proposed would result in 13 stations being closed and 10 appliances being withdrawn.
Let us take Fife as an example. In 2023, a fire engine was withdrawn from Methil and another one was withdrawn from Glenrothes. Fire facilities have also been withdrawn from Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy. Now, suddenly, the Government wants to put an engine from Lochgelly back into one of those areas. The whole thing is a total farce. It is a total mess.
The people of Scotland are speaking out loud and clear. As we have a minister who sits behind fire service management without seeming to provide any leadership, I say to every other minister in the Cabinet and to every other MSP that they must not allow the situation to continue, and that they must get the FBU Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service back around the table and have a discussion about how we can proceed. We must take people with us, not put lives at risk, which is what is being proposed today. Members must reject the amendment in the name of the minister and put out a clear statement saying that we will fight to protect fire services up and down Scotland.
Mr Rowley, you need to conclude.
When we are in a situation in which we need the fire service, we expect it to be there and to help us. The proposals before us put that at risk and we must put an end to them.
That concludes the debate on protecting Scotland’s fire service.
Previous
Mobile Phones in SchoolsNext
Urban Gulls Summit