Official Report 874KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00707, in the name of Katy Clark, on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s service delivery review. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses its dismay at the decision taken by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) Board to proceed with service changes outlined in its Service Delivery Review, despite what it believes has been significant public opposition, including in the West Scotland region; considers that these service changes will result in station closures, the withdrawal of fire appliances, reduced fire cover and increased response times; understands that there has already been a loss of 1,250 jobs and an around £74 million per year reduction in real-terms funding of the SFRS since 2012-13, and notes the calls for increased and sustained investment in the SFRS to ensure that it can keep the public safe, improve response times and respond to challenges, such as the reported rising number of wildfires.
17:46
I thank all those members who have signed the motion, ensuring that it has cross-party support. I believe that that support illustrates the strength of feeling among not just MSPs, but the communities that we represent, about the future of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. We are joined today by some of Scotland’s firefighters in the public gallery and I pay tribute to them and their colleagues for their tireless dedication to keeping us safe.
In this year alone, there have been significant fires across Scotland, including at Union Street in Glasgow; on Arthur’s seat and Princes Street here in Edinburgh; and in the Cairngorms. In the face of those fires, our firefighters answered the call, putting their own lives at risk to protect the public. However, the motion that we are debating is necessary because of underfunding of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
For years now, firefighters and the Fire Brigades Union have been warning the Scottish Government about the impact of over a decade of cuts to the service. This year’s SFRS resource budget has been cut by £74 million in real terms, and that has been happening every single year since 2013.
We can all support and get behind the funding of front-line public services, because—as the member says—they put themselves in harm’s way. However, has the member also considered the impact on morale and recruitment in the fire service as a result of the constant attacks on their pension provision and the recent changes to commutation factors? Those changes are so bad that members of the police and fire services are seeking legal advice because they are so severely financially impacted.
I agree with Patricia Gibson on the importance of the pension scheme. In recent years, there have been a number of positive changes to the pension scheme, which the Criminal Justice Committee has scrutinised and voted through. Nonetheless, she is absolutely right in what she says, and we need to be alert and vigilant with regard to issues with pensions not only for the fire service but for all the emergency services. I am pleased that she has put that issue on the record; perhaps we will have the opportunity to consider it in more detail at another time.
Since the creation of the single service in 2013, more than 1,200 firefighter jobs have been cut, which is around a sixth of the total workforce. Those job losses have disproportionately hit the front line, with more than 1,000 operational firefighters lost. Ten fire appliances have been temporarily withdrawn, and the capital backlog now stands at £800 million. For firefighters, the result of those cuts has been a less safe working environment. Crewing shortages have added to the workload of firefighters, and they are working in breach of safe crewing and operational levels. They often do not have access to appropriate personal protective equipment and decontamination facilities, and they are working in fire stations that are often in a state of disrepair.
For the public, the result of the cuts has been a greater risk to their safety. Average response times have risen by more than 20 per cent in a decade, even though every single second counts when it comes to dealing with a fire. The significant fires that have occurred in Scotland this year illustrate the real impact of more than a decade of cuts.
As the wildfire in the Cairngorms raged, the redeployment of firefighters from across Scotland affected fire cover in other communities. Our firefighters were left to combat the wildfire without specialist PPE and decontamination facilities, which potentially exposed them to significant health harms. When the Union Street fire began in Glasgow, the response time was six minutes—well over the national average—and Glasgow’s only high-reach appliance was unavailable. Given the severe disruption that the Union Street fire caused, a properly funded and resourced service may have been able to respond more quickly and lessen some of the disruption to the public, businesses and public transport services. In the wake of those fires, the need for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to receive a sustained, multiyear real-terms increase in its funding could not be clearer, yet the service instead faces the most significant cuts to the front line in decades because of the service delivery review.
The service delivery review proposes significant cuts across the country at up to 30 fire stations. That includes firefighter job cuts, and a reduction in fire cover as a result. Up to 10 fire appliances could be permanently withdrawn, and seven fire stations are marked for closure.
For example, in the West Scotland region that I represent, communities such as Greenock, Helensburgh and Milngavie are set to be hit by the service delivery review cuts. A cut of 15 firefighter jobs and the permanent withdrawal of an appliance will hit Greenock, and there will be changes to fire cover at both Helensburgh and Milngavie. All those cuts have the potential to increase response times and risk public safety. They could also force our firefighters to work in conditions that are even less safe than those in which they currently work.
The cuts proposed in the service delivery review were strongly opposed in the public consultation process last year. Local communities, firefighters, the FBU and politicians came together to say no to cuts that would leave firefighters and the public unsafe. However, despite that significant opposition, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board approved most of the service delivery review proposals. When I raised that with the First Minister at First Minister’s Questions back in June, he said that he was “satisfied” with the way in which the board had conducted the service delivery review process. I am certainly not satisfied, and nor, I suspect, are most of the public or the firefighters, who have made clear that they oppose the cuts.
These are the most significant cuts to the front line in decades—
Will the member give way?
Yes, of course.
The member is in her last minute.
I thank Katy Clark for giving way in her last minute. She has repeatedly referred to cuts. Does she recognise that not a penny of savings comes to the overall Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s overall budget, nor is there a reduction in firefighter numbers, as a result of the service delivery review?
I do not—I have referred to some of that in my speech.
It is very clear that there are threats to jobs, stations and appliances. I am asking the Scottish Government to hold a debate and a vote on the service delivery review, in Government time, so that we can explore some of the issues that the cabinet secretary has raised. If we are to have a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that is fit for future challenges such as climate change, it has to be properly funded and resourced. We cannot continue to see increases in response times. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will today outline how the Scottish Government will respond to the issues that I have raised, which will, I suspect, be raised by many other members in the debate.
We move to contributions from other members—four minutes per speech, please.
17:55
First, I will touch briefly on the wider issues that the member has brought to the chamber in this important debate. Scotland established the first municipal fire service in the world, and that service, and the remarkable bravery and contribution of those in it, is as important today as it has ever been. Indeed, it is important that we prepare for and adapt to the challenges of climate change coming at us—which, in an international context, we have limited capacity to change—and our fire service is a key part of that. I note the welcome commitment in the programme for government to expand the role of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; I know that the FBU and the service have wanted to do that for some time, and it is great that those proposals are progressing constructively.
Secondly, I will speak to a specific issue that is local to my constituency. I know that there are members in the chamber today, and others beyond, who are disappointed in the outcome of the service delivery review. For my constituency of Edinburgh North Eastern and Leith, however, there is some positive news, in that Marionville fire station was not recommended for closure in the end. I raise that point because, as has been said, there were unfortunately more fires on Arthur’s Seat this summer. During my time as a constituency MSP for the north-eastern side of the city and Leith, Marionville fire station has, importantly, saved lives and stopped damage on several occasions.
The response time that Marionville delivers to an extremely highly populated and growing part of our capital city cannot be underestimated. That is why there was a strong and persuasive campaign to the SFRS board from community councils; local politicians, including myself; and members of the public to save Marionville fire station. We know that response times matter, and that this city is growing more than anywhere else in the country. Although we know that the Marionville building contains reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—that is a reality—and that there is welcome investment in other stations in the capital city, including the spades-in-the-ground work that recently began on building a new Liberton fire station, a refurbished McDonald Road fire station, and potentially additional capacity to fill at Newcraighall, Marionville fire station is an important asset for the constituents whom I represent and for our growing and thriving capital city.
As we move forward to consider the proposals in the service delivery review and beyond, therefore, I would like to use this opportunity constructively to ask the cabinet secretary if I can, in due course, meet him to discuss Marionville fire station and the fact that, while there is RAAC there that needs to be dealt with, the station is a public sector asset and a key part of our capital city that needs to be maintained. The fire station must be preserved so that if there is, unfortunately, another fire on Arthur’s Seat, or if one of the tower blocks or the other residential or commercial properties at the dock goes on fire, Marionville firefighters can continue to do what they have done so well for so long, which is to be there for public safety and to save lives.
18:00
I begin by thanking Katy Clark for bringing the debate to Parliament, particularly while the issue of fires is fresh in our minds. We need only walk 100 yards to Arthur’s Seat to see that wildfires are a reality for many. “Dismay” is absolutely the right word to describe the reaction to the decision taken by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board.
Between 2014 and 2020 there were 101 wildfires greater than 30 hectares. That is an average of 14 per year in the years up to 2020. In 2025, there were 241 wildfires over 30 hectares in size. So far this year, there have been 72. While the total number for this year may be down, the severity is much worse. The Cairngorms wildfire raged for weeks in July and August 2026, and it required the evacuation of Nethy Bridge, exposing a service that has been hollowed out by a decade of underfunding. Just prior to that wildfire, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board ratified a package of service reductions—let us call them cuts—including fire station closures and reduced overnight and weekend coverage. The scale of the Cairngorms disaster reinforces arguments that reducing the number of appliances and coverage of areas leaves the country vulnerable during major climate emergencies.
We undoubtedly need to fund efforts to combat wildfires. That is a reality of the world that we live in. However, it is not an excuse to steal from Peter to pay Paul.
Turning to my constituency, in response to a parliamentary question, the Scottish Government confirmed a cut of £626,000 to Helensburgh fire station, resulting in a move from 24/7 cover for a population of 15,000 people to a day shift for weekdays and an on-call service at evenings and weekends. For most of the week, local firefighters need to rush from their homes or workplaces to their station, and only then to incidents, when emergency calls come in. Average response times have risen from 6 minutes 50 seconds to 8 minutes 20 seconds—a 20 per cent increase in a decade. The recent changes will make matters worse. We are moving in the wrong direction, against the wishes of firefighters and those who responded to the consultation. The Scottish National Party pressed on anyway—but, surprise, surprise, not until after the election.
Overstretched resources have already caused average response times across Scotland to increase. Adding new statutory tasks such as flooding and water rescue, fire safety training and data gathering to the duties of fewer crews means that they are less available to respond to traditional life-saving fire and rescue emergencies. Because core funding is being squeezed, the SFRS has had to cut front-line fire engines, reduce high-reach capabilities and approve a series of fire station closures and service downgrades.
There are a number of points in Jackie Baillie’s comments that need to be addressed. The first is that, as I pointed out to Katy Clark, the service delivery review has not delivered a penny of savings, nor a reduction in service. It will actually increase capacity, with an additional appliance across the country.
Does Jackie Baillie also recognise that the average number of call-outs at Helensburgh was one per day, and that having the service as it is configured and as it has been set out—not by the SNP but by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—is therefore appropriate to meet the demands that are being placed on the Helensburgh service?
That was a bit like a speech, rather than an intervention, but let me just say to the cabinet secretary that no growth in numbers, more demands and flat cash is a cut in anybody’s book. Simply describing call-outs as happening once per day makes no attempt to assess the risk that is clearly there.
I will finish by talking about the overstretched resources, because core funding is being squeezed. The Government has tried to argue that the review is not a cut. Is money being reinvested into new climate change-related problems such as wildfires and floods? Very few people would argue against that need for investment but, for the people of Helensburgh and 10 more towns and cities like it, that is a cut—a cut that will be dangerous for families and that will leave homes and businesses vulnerable. The Government should be ready to get in behind firefighters to help them do their job and adapt to the changing landscape of increased threats through increased investment—and not at the expense of others.
The cuts are short-sighted and are driven by a desire to save money, when the priority should be the safety of residents.
I ask the Cabinet Secretary to break the habit of a lifetime and trust front-line firefighters and local people, and ensure that local services such as those in Helensburgh are adequately resourced. Support must be scaled up to tackle wildfires and floods as we battle with the impact of climate change. The Government must reverse its cuts.
18:05
I thank Katy Clark for bringing this debate to the Parliament. Her motion uses the word “dismay”. I agree with the sentiment of the term, but on this occasion I do not think that that is the right one. “Dismay” implies that we should be shocked, but I do not think that we should be shocked by the hard decisions that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has had to take. I think that we should all be alarmed. The decisions that the service has had to take were inevitable due to consecutive real-terms funding cuts over a period of 14 years by the Scottish Government.
The cuts to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service have already been raised in the Parliament during this session. In response, the Government has simply shrugged its shoulders and said that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is responsible for operational decisions and has turned the blame back on the service. However, this Parliament cannot and should not blame the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. These are not operational decisions; they are purely financial decisions that are driven by financial cuts. The blame for the situation must lie with the Scottish Government.
I have to challenge that gross inaccuracy. The service delivery review is, by its nature, an operational matter. It is led by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and it is based on operational demands, not on making savings.
I disagree. The record will show that, when this issue was raised previously, the minister said that these were operational decisions that were taken by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. To me, that is pushing the blame on to somebody else, and it is just not right.
On 20 August last year, I attended a public meeting at the Victoria halls. Jackie Baillie was there, too, and I would like to take a moment to thank her for her hard work supporting the campaign to retain Helensburgh fire station as a 24/7 service.
The presentation from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on 20 August laid bare the financial difficulties that it faces. It was impressed upon everyone in the room just how much the range of services being delivered by the service has expanded, with little or no additional funding. It was also impressed upon us just how difficult it is to provide a full range of coverage across the West Scotland region, especially when there are multiple emergencies. The motion is right to highlight the real-terms cuts that have occurred since 2012.
In 2022, the Scottish Government introduced the expanded fire alarm standard, which is welcome. We should also take into account other mitigations, such as fewer people smoking indoors and a lot fewer people using deep-fat fryers. Those are mitigations that reduce the likelihood of household fires. However, on the flip side, we also have new increases in risk through the use of hybrid and electric vehicles on our roads, which cause new challenges to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. We also seem to be inundated by cheap electrical items, such as mobile phone chargers and battery packs purchased online, which are increasingly becoming responsible for starting fires.
We should also take note that, across Scotland, we are experiencing a housing emergency, with many of our homes becoming overcrowded, meaning that the amount of risk activity within each property is also increasing. Coupled with that, we are also seeing increased congestion in built-up areas and a seemingly never-ending series of roadworks, which are creating significant problems in terms of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s ability to get to incidents.
When the union representative from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service addressed the meeting in Helensburgh last August, his message was not a simple series of statements of fact; it was an emotional appeal for help. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has a long and proud tradition. Our firefighters are among the most trusted public service workers in our society, but they will only ever be able to do the tasks that they are funded to do. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will always do its very best for everyone in our society, and I believe that it is essential that everyone in this Parliament does their very best for it in return.
18:10
I am grateful to Katy Clark for securing this debate.
I begin by again expressing on the record my solidarity with the firefighters and control staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I thank them for everything that they do to keep all of our communities safe.
Nearly three years ago, I was proud to host the launch of the FBU’s “Firestorm” report, which exposed not a service with too many resources, but a service that was being asked to do more and more with less and less. Since 2013, more than 1,250 firefighter jobs have been lost. Response times have increased, appliances have been taken off the run, training and equipment have come under pressure and firefighters themselves have been telling us that cuts are affecting operational safety. In the survey for the report, more than 85 per cent of firefighters said that reductions in resources or crewing had adversely affected operational performance. Now, we are being asked to accept another round of reductions as being somehow inevitable.
The SFRS board has decided to downgrade the station in Balmossie, in my region, remove the whole-time appliance from the station and retain just one on-call appliance while reinstating the second whole-time appliance at the Kingsway East fire station in Dundee. SFRS describes this as matching resources to risk and demand. However, its own assessment admits that the change will mean increased first-appliance response times within the local area. That matters, because when somebody is trapped in a burning building, an extra minute is not an accounting abstraction; it can be the difference between rescue and tragedy.
We know that, because of severe staffing gaps and recruitment challenges, safe staffing levels cannot always be guaranteed. Three firefighters cannot perform safely the full range of tasks that require to be performed at a serious incident. They cannot simply compensate for the missing fourth or fifth firefighter by working harder.
A three-person crew means one driver, one officer overseeing operations, and one firefighter. The FBU is crystal clear that that arrangement is hazardous for firefighters and dangerous for the public, because crews trained to operate as larger teams cannot safely undertake lifesaving interventions without sufficient numbers.
The “Firestorm” report makes the broader point clear, and the FBU has called for the agreed safe crewing model to be enforced. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary and the SFRS board to commit, clearly and always, to a safe crewing model. Further, I ask for this Parliament to be given an assurance that no firefighter will be sent into a dangerous incident with an unsafe number of colleagues simply because the service cannot afford to crew the appliance properly.
We also need to remember that the SFRS is an all-hazards service. We know that the climate emergency means more extreme weather, flooding and wildfires. The “Firestorm” report warned that the SFRS was already inadequately equipped to respond to the climate emergency and called for investment in wildfire equipment, PPE and training. We have seen some of the evidence of that need just recently.
We cannot respond to these growing risks by shrinking the service. The answer is not to ask firefighters to carry more risk; it is to invest in them. That means proper staffing, safe crewing, decent stations with decontamination facilities, modern equipment, regular training and sufficient appliances being available when people call 999.
The FBU’s demands are straightforward: no further cuts to firefighter numbers; no reduction in fire cover; no reduction in crewing levels; safety for crews; investment in stations; and sustained real-terms investment in the service from the Scottish Government. Those demands are not extravagant. They are not outrageous. They represent the minimum that we should expect from a Government that takes public safety seriously. That is why this debate matters.
The Scottish Government must listen to firefighters and communities and reverse this race to the bottom. Public safety should never be balanced against a spreadsheet. Cuts to fire cover are not efficiencies. They are risks being transferred on to firefighters and on to our communities. We cannot accept that.
Due to the number of members who wish to speak in this debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Katy Clark]
Motion agreed to.
18:15
I also acknowledge the work that Katy Clark has undertaken in this area.
As many members across the chamber have outlined, I am deeply concerned about the decision that has been taken by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to proceed with the service changes, despite significant opposition from members of the public and concerns raised by the communities that we represent.
Cumbernauld fire station is crewed by two whole-time appliances, both of which are staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The conclusion of the review means that the second appliance at Cumbernauld fire station will instead operate on an on-call basis during evenings and weekends, with crews available remotely via a pager service. The proposed changes could lengthen the response times of the first and second appliances. I think that we can all agree that, in an emergency, every second matters. Any increase in response times could limit the ability of firefighters to reach incidents quickly, tackle fires effectively and carry out rescues in an incident. I believe that the changes have the potential to have a real impact on safety, not to mention on the firefighters, who are understandably concerned about their future as emergency responders.
There is currently a petition regarding the proposed changes at Cumbernauld fire station, which has already gathered 3,739 signatures. That demonstrates the strength of feeling within the community. However, Cumbernauld fire station does not solely service Cumbernauld. The station also provides cover for Moodiesburn, Chryston, Muirhead, Stepps and Kilsyth, all of which would have to be covered by just one appliance under the proposed changes.
The impact does not stop there. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s area would also be impacted. Last week, an appliance from Cumbernauld responded to a fire at a local business in Airdrie, alongside an appliance from Coatbridge. It is entirely foreseeable that, if the proposals go ahead, the uncertainty around the availability of on-call crews, combined with the possibility of other incidents taking place at the same time, might mean that appliances that could otherwise be deployed to incidents in Airdrie or elsewhere are simply not available. If that happens, response times will increase. That could lead to worse outcomes and, in the most serious circumstances, devastating consequences. I do not think that any one of us wants to be in a position where we have to come to the chamber with a question for the Scottish Government about something that has happened in spite of the fact that we already raised it in the chamber as a possibility.
We keep hearing from the Scottish Government that these are simply operational decisions for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but surely we have now reached the point where Scottish ministers must intervene. When decisions about the availability of emergency responders have the potential to impact public safety, the Scottish Government cannot shirk responsibility.
The Fire Brigades Union has been clear about its concerns that cuts to the fire service will mean a loss of emergency responders and a loss of equipment. When the chief fire officer tells us that there has been a real-terms reduction of around 18 per cent in the resource budget since 2013, we must ask whether those decisions can genuinely be viewed as purely operational matters.
We understand the issues that have been raised so far. Ben Macpherson was right to raise the issue of RAAC, which we all understand and want to be dealt with. However, there is a need for the Scottish Government to accept responsibility.
At the end of the day, the question that we need to ask ourselves as a Parliament is very simple: are we genuinely confident that the changes will maintain the level of fire and rescue service cover that our communities deserve? If the answer is no, the Scottish Government must use this opportunity and act now.
18:20
Like my colleagues before me, I thank the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for all that it does for the lives of residents.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats have been consistent in our call for properly funded front-line services. The residents of North East Scotland have concerns about the future of our local fire stations. Between the closure of the dormant Nethy Bridge fire station on our doorstep just before the summer’s wildfire and the fact that Dundee’s Balmossie fire station is being downgraded, while two new fire stations will be built in East Lothian and Glasgow, it makes them wonder whether decisions are again being made that affect the north-east while the central belt is always the priority and the focus. These are decisions that affect residents, businesses and our natural environment.
The climate crisis will keep adding to the pressure on, and the risk to, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. There is the wildfire risk due to dry summers; the autumn and winter flooding; and the lack of funding to our local government to help with snow clearing and the improvement of our vast road and bridge network. That sadly increases the rate of traffic collisions and extends the travel time for emergency response vehicles, hindering accessibility for the SFRS in helping our residents in North East Scotland.
Katy Clark’s motion mentions 1,250 job losses. What are we doing in real life to help with recruitment? We have really keen young people—girls and lads—who have the calling to serve, but for those who live in the north-east of Scotland, having to go all the way to Glasgow to start their training journey takes up time and impacts on the possibility of achieving their dream.
Our local fire stations are trying their best to recruit on-call firefighters to help with the loss of those jobs, but in a large rural region, the possibility of recruiting those people is highly impacted by their work or home location and the distance to the fire station. We need to work alongside the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to create a safe proposal for strong partnership working with the community, to increase the use of targeted prevention and collect data to help with the recruitment of permanent and on-call firefighters, supporting the resilience of our local government and communities to prepare for the future.
18:22
I thank my colleague, Katy Clark, for securing the debate, and I welcome all the contributions from other members. I was unable to get into the debate last week on wildfires, but I want members to know that I found many of the points that were raised in that debate extremely important. We must continue to take climate change seriously and understand not only the role of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in managing the dangers to our communities, but its valuable role in understanding climate change.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is a cornerstone of every community across the country. The public respect its efforts and wants to see its role supported and sustained, yet it seems that, every year, the service is met with more cuts coming down the pipeline. Since the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was formed in 2013, as we heard from other members, we have seen £900 million of cuts and the loss of more than 1,200 firefighters. The public are probably not fully aware of that—in fact, I think that they would be appalled to know the true scale of the damage that has been done to our firefighting capabilities in their communities.
The service delivery review clearly shows that many stations and facilities require serious upgrading and that more money is needed, as we know, for assets to fight fires and for equipment for firefighters. As the motion sets out clearly, we need sustained investment to ensure that the service can operate fully and—importantly, as other members have said—keep the public safe.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is a unionised workforce of members who stand up for themselves, and that is incredibly important. The Fire Brigades Union is relentless in its support not only for firefighters, but for communities and businesses across Scotland. The Government would do well to include the FBU in decision making and planning, because that would ensure that the service meets the modern-day demands of our communities.
Like the Fire Brigades Union, I welcome the Government’s manifesto commitment to progress role expansion for Scotland’s firefighters, with additional funding, but that must be delivered swiftly and with the full participation of the FBU.
We must also, however, demand increased funding to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to reverse more than a decade of real-terms cuts in order to ensure that the service is fully resourced and equipped and that firefighters are trained. Other members have mentioned the Government’s poor response on the upgrading of equipment and the poor infrastructure and facilities that firefighters have. We know that firefighters are, at times, put in danger as a result of their work, and they do not always have the facilities to make sure that they retain their health. That cannot go on.
I urge the cabinet secretary to support the Fire Brigades Union’s calls for a national conversation on Scotland’s wildfire preparedness. If I had been able to speak in the wildfire debate last week, I would have asked the cabinet secretary what attempts he had made to work across portfolios. This issue is about community preparation, water availability and land management. With an unsettled future for our climate and the related emergencies that could come from that, as we know, we must work across portfolios. That is the only way to increase our understanding and delivery. The Fire Brigades Union has been clear that it is happy to work with the Government on that. It is important that the cabinet secretary takes these issues seriously, and I hope that he will work with the men and women of the service to make sure that they can continue to save lives, as they have done for so long.
18:27
I thank Katy Clark for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank the firefighters who have joined us in the public gallery.
I was surprised by the outcome of the service delivery review, and the worst fears of my constituents in Hawick were confirmed. They had put together huge opposition and a petition against the decision that was made about Hawick—for many reasons, which I will explain as I make progress. Their concerns were clear from the start, and I joined them. We were as one during the whole process, and we supported the firefighters. There have been many cross-party events inside and outside this place.
In response to a point that Katy Clark made, it seems that the level of opposition was almost disproportionate to the outcome of the review, and the people who fought against these decisions felt powerless. I watched the decisions being made online, when the SFRS was discussing every single fire station, and I honestly thought that it would not make the decision that it did about Hawick, for many reasons, which I will explain to the cabinet secretary.
The first reason is that we are the first area in Scotland to have a Center Parcs facility. That is a huge investment—it is just outside Hawick. The cover at the fire station is now going to be downgraded from full-time 24-hour cover to daytime-only provision, just as many of my colleagues have described today. All the people going to Center Parcs will be arriving and leaving in cars because there is no train station in Hawick; that went with the Beeching cuts in the 1960s. They will be arriving along the A7 and down the A68 across from Dumfries and Galloway—neither of those roads are particularly great, and the firefighters also respond to road traffic accidents.
We also have huge concerns about battery storage. Recently, planning applications for battery storage in our area have been approved. Again, that is a new development to meet the Government’s net zero commitments, and local people are very concerned about it. It seems to be following a pattern of hollowing out public services, in particular in rural areas like the Borders.
Similarly to the remarks that I made around Marionville station in my constituency, does Rachael Hamilton agree that, collectively, we have to give careful consideration not only to what the needs may be in a decade’s time but also beyond that: that we need to preserve public assets to the greatest extent and consider future demand?
Ben Macpherson makes an important point. The Scottish Government energy strategy will not be published in full until 2027. We are getting all of these renewables and developments in place, and everyone is crying out for economic growth and infrastructure investment, and we need to retain public services, even if they need to be improved because of issues with RAAC. I am listening to you, Ben Macpherson. The decision to overturn the closure at Marionville was great for your constituency, but many of us have been left in really detrimental situations.
I was grateful to David Farries, who is the assistant chief officer at the SFRS, for meeting me, councillors and my colleague John Lamont MP at the Hawick fire station. However, all that we could agree on is that there would be a review—because there was not one—about how the outcomes would work in practice. We agreed that that needs to be looked at, and that the service must not be detrimentally affected by these changes.
I echo a lot of what has been said today. I read the briefing from the Fire Brigades Union and the Government cannot hide from the fact that 1,200 firefighter jobs have been lost since 2012-13 and that response times are up 20 per cent. In this financial year alone, a £74 million reduction in real terms in SFRS funding has been enacted. Those cuts are the most significant of all front-line service cuts in the entire time of the reductions. I just hope that the person who is responsible for making these decisions does not have to be responsible for any fatalities that happen on the back of this.
18:32
I thank Katy Clark for bringing this debate to the chamber, especially given the recent events that have been mentioned, which have so badly affected families and businesses, not only in my own region but across the whole of Scotland.
I pay tribute to the personnel of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service who risk their lives and dedicate their expertise to our nation’s emergency response capacity, and in particular to the firefighter who tragically lost his life fighting the fire at the Jenners fire in Edinburgh in 2023.
As I rise to make my speech, I am reminded of when I was a young officer in the Royal Navy visiting a Vanguard-class submarine: a vessel that makes an irreplaceable contribution to our strategic nuclear deterrent. During that visit, one of my fellow guests asked: “We spend billions of pounds on the construction and maintenance of these weapons, but they are, thankfully, never used. Could that money not be better spent elsewhere? What are they supposed to do, other than sitting there doing nothing?” The captain replied: “What they are supposed to do is exactly what they are doing right now: doing nothing.”
I know that an increased number of fire stations or equipment will not, in and of themselves, deter or prevent a fire from starting and spreading. However, it is a question of capacity to deal with the ultimate emergency, should it ever happen. As we have heard, it is indisputable that, over a 10-year period from 2012, personnel numbers decreased by 15 per cent. However, have we seen a corresponding decrease in the risk of fire emergencies?
Globally, instances of wildfires have decreased to record lows, sitting at around 50 per cent of the levels seen in the year 2000. Regionally, however, in our area of operations, we have seen a steady increase in the instances of wildfires. And yet, in the face of this, in the Highlands, we have seen station closures formalised at Nethy Bridge, Ratagan and Isle of Muck, and at Fetlar in Shetland.
I do not presume to know the Government’s position, but I predict that mitigation will be furnished in the form of increased efficiencies, wider safety awareness initiatives and the centralisation of services. However, in remote and rural areas, 100 miles is still 100 miles, and that cannot be overcome by efficiencies, especially in the face of ongoing transport problems and trunk road upgrades, and when a team reaches an area, a fire engine cannot be in two places at once if there is another incident.
As Ben Macpherson and Rachael Hamilton touched on, there are wider risks that relate to battery storage sites, proposed artificial intelligence hyperscale data centres and the fact that the review did not seem to take into account ongoing and future increases in regional infrastructure, such as major leisure resorts and residential developments, which will increase local demand.
I am offering members a short summary of the increased burden and risk of potential fires. Under this Government, there is not only a staffing and infrastructure level that does not increase correspondingly with the risk, but a centralisation of capacity away from remote areas, which is compounding more than a decade of previous cuts. The safety of the Scottish people should never be at the mercy of budgeting pressures, and I urge a rethink and a new plan that ensures that communities across not only the Highlands and Islands but the whole of Scotland are safe and have a well-resourced, well-staffed fire and rescue service that is fit for the 21st century.
18:36
I thank Katy Clark for bringing an excellent members’ business debate to the Parliament, which follows on the back of Andrew Baxter’s members’ business debate on wildfires last week.
I do not get the opportunity to make decisions in this Parliament. However, all of us in the Opposition can represent our constituents as best we can. For an issue such as wildfires, I feel that I need to come in on every single debate that I possibly can.
I will make just one correction, having fairly recently rejoined the back benches from the Government. I urge Tim Eagle to take on board the responsibility—as I know that he does and probably meant to—that we make decisions as a Parliament. Yes, the executive has much decision-making power, but it is us collectively, as the legislature, that make the decisions.
I would love to have a debate in the Parliament on that, because I am not sure that I agree; I do not think that we have the ability to make decisions. We might be able to try to get amendments through, but having spent two years sat here trying to get reasonable amendments agreed to, I do not think that we make decisions as a Parliament. Frankly, the SNP makes decisions and it just imposes them on the rest of us. However, I will move on, and I agree with the point that we should try to be consensual where we can.
Last week, I tried to be consensual in Andrew Baxter’s debate. I genuinely wanted to impress upon the Government that there is a problem and that we did not learn enough from the wildfires last year, which led to a major blaze in the Cairngorms this year. We simply cannot allow that to happen again next year.
This debate is about the fire service in full, but I want to make a couple of local points. Lots of members have raised points today about risk, and the fire service has amended its plan according to risk. However, I am worried. I agree with Victor Currie that there are worries that, although the fire service has taken account of historical data, it has not thought about the future, which includes the emerging risk of wildfires, future energy infrastructure and growing communities. We need to have the ability to cover large areas with potentially multiple fires as quickly as possible, and I am not satisfied that the service review will enable the fire service to do that.
There are two specific points that I will raise on behalf of my community, one of which is about Aviemore fire station. We can all agree that Aviemore is right at the heart of the Cairngorms national park and an incredibly busy location during the tourist season, and that the area has just had the largest ever wildfire in the United Kingdom. Yet, Aviemore fire station is a tier 2 fire station for wildfires. That is out of four tiers, if anybody knows the system—tier 1 is basically nothing, while tier 4 has a wildfire tactical advisor.
I would have thought that the major fire station in the heart of the Cairngorms national park should be at least tier 3, which under the tiered system would mean having a Ford Ranger, with a Polaris all-terrain vehicle with a fogging lance unit on a trailer. I am not sure that I know what all that means, but good equipment would be in place. However, the fire service has the fire station at tier 2. I tried to ask in the community, “Why is that? That is a bit odd.” Apparently, it is because the fire service does not have the storage to put that equipment in. The cabinet secretary needs to step in, because this is a dangerous area. The fire station should be at least tier 3, if not tier 4.
I turn now to the second thing that members of the fire service came to me about. There was a fire in June in Fearn, which is close to Balintore fire station. It has a community response unit, a vehicle and volunteers ready to go, but the fire service would not let them. A shed caught fire, causing a huge blaze, but the volunteers were stood down. They were told that they could not take action, despite the fact that the community and a significant local employer were pleading with them to take action. It took much longer for the fire service to come in. The volunteers contacted me, saying, “Isn’t this crazy? We are fully trained. We have a vehicle ready to go, yet we cannot get involved in this fire.” They faced criticism from the local community after that incident. Firefighters should not be put in that position.
I ask the cabinet secretary to look into incidents such as that, so that, if there is a trained crew—and they were a trained crew—with the appropriate equipment in place who are willing to tackle such fires, they should be allowed to do so.
The final speech in the open debate is from Paul Sweeney.
18:40
I thank my friend Ms Clark, a member for West Scotland, for lodging the motion, which I was happy to sign. I welcome firefighters from across the country to the public gallery.
The recent decisions by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board represent some of the most profound front-line cuts to my city of Glasgow in decades, under the guise of a service delivery review. Glasgow is being subjected to a managed decline of its essential emergency infrastructure. The closure of Yorkhill fire station in the west end removes a strategically vital asset. The station covers complex residential profiles, major universities and the Scottish Event Campus, as well as river safety along the north bank of the River Clyde. Indeed, when the station was opened in 1971 it was originally known as West Marine fire station.
On the south bank of the river, in Govan, a community with a proud industrial heritage, where I worked at the shipyard, the permanent removal of the second appliance strips away vital resilience in an area with the country’s largest hospital and heavy industry. For Springburn, a community already suffering from systemic underinvestment, losing a dedicated full-time appliance is another blow and is very worrying for public safety.
The Fire Brigades Union has been crystal clear on the matter. Removing the appliances from three stations across the city of Glasgow will increase response times, reduce city-wide resilience and leave Glaswegians less safe—and it is happening in the wake of one of the most disastrous fires in the history of the city, at Union Street earlier this year. We are repeatedly told by the cabinet secretary and the service board that there is no capital budget available to maintain or modernise the facilities, yet they are sitting on prime urban real estate across Glasgow. As we have seen with the proposed redevelopment of Cowcaddens fire station, the concept should be expanded to other sites in urban locations. The member for Edinburgh North Eastern and Leith raised an important example in Edinburgh about what could be done with the real estate there.
Instead of retreating and abandoning these municipal buildings, we should be showing real financial imagination by adopting a mixed-use model. By utilising air rights and building high-density residential flats directly above modernised appliance bays, we can capture local land value to cross-subsidise our emergency services. That co-location approach is already well developed in major North American cities, and it would allow us to rebuild standalone 1980s facilities such as that at Springburn, alongside the adjacent ambulance station, as well as retaining vital urban sites such as Yorkhill, without draining the capital budget. That would turn our fire stations into dual-purpose assets that actively tackle the housing emergency amid a major shortage of sites.
We should consider broadening our horizon more generally in what we can use a modern fire station for, in the interests of wider public safety and health. Across the United States, in places such as Providence, which I visited over the summer, fire stations have pioneered the safe stations model, transforming 24-hour civic buildings into immediate, non-judgmental access points for individuals seeking recovery from addiction.
In a city such as Glasgow, which is currently fighting a devastating drug deaths crisis, our fire stations could be repurposed as holistic community safety hubs, offering low-barrier harm reduction and addiction pathway support alongside operational firefighting, rather than just being boarded up or scaled back. We could also utilise new technologies such as drones, which would dramatically improve incident command and situational awareness, as well as considering how to improve water and river safety at sites near major rivers such as the River Clyde.
We cannot accept an estate strategy that hollows out our city, nor can we allow a lack of imagination to mean a further dismantling of front-line resilience. I urge the cabinet secretary to intervene and halt those damaging cuts, and to direct the fire service to explore innovative new ways of developing its estates with new funding, using air rights and expanding community health roles across the fire brigade estate.
18:44
I thank Katy Clark for leading the debate, and I begin at the outset by profoundly agreeing with her over our thanks to firefighters and SFRS staff. In that vein, I put on record my thanks to all who work in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for all that they do to protect our communities. Their work as a front-line service is hugely appreciated. We all know from the summer wildfires how important their work is, and I am immensely grateful to them.
The service delivery review was a safety-focused modernisation programme that was designed to ensure that Scotland has a fire and rescue service that is adaptable and fit for the future. Based on the evidence, we should all agree with that.
As we have seen this summer, the types of fire risk that we face as a nation continue to change. As an illustration, dwelling fires have reduced by more than 20 per cent since 2013 and, between 2009-10 and 2024-25, there was a 33 per cent reduction in non-fatal fire casualties and a 32 per cent reduction in fatal fire casualties. Although those are meaningful reductions, which reflect the incredibly focused efforts of our fire service and the extremely important prevention work that it does in our communities, our changing climate means that the risks of both wildfires and flooding are growing. It is essential that the SFRS adapts to face those changes and challenges.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will if I get a chance in due course.
The recommendations that are informed by the review will deliver the changes that are needed to protect communities and ensure that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service adapts to the changing demands and risks. The review concluded that some stations and appliances are not in the right places to meet current and future risk and demands. Towns, cities, rural areas and community demand have changed in many places, so it is right that the service supports those communities and that community needs are aligned with demand. Changing the crewing model will match resources to local risk and demand.
Although some of the options naturally achieve savings, others will lead to new investment—contrary to what Katy Clark set out. Any savings will be reinvested by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that resources are in the right areas. There will be no reduction in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service budget, nor in firefighters, as a result of the service delivery review. Overall, delivering the review will lead to an additional fire appliance for Scotland and will liberate 69 posts that can be redistributed to support emerging priorities, including firefighter and community safety and other preventive measures that are needed to continue to support the downward trend in dwelling fires and the increase in climate-related emergencies.
The cabinet secretary’s contention seems to be that there will not be cuts. Across the chamber, we have heard many examples of cuts. To use an example from my region, at Greenock, 15 firefighter roles will be lost, and a whole-time second appliance, which had been temporarily withdrawn for a period, will be permanently removed. That is expected to save £426,000 and, according to the fire service, will lead to a moderate increase in response times. Surely the examples that the cabinet secretary has been given are cuts to jobs, appliances and the service.
No. I reiterate that there will be no reduction in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service budget, nor in firefighters, as a result of the service delivery review. Indeed, overall, the review will lead to an additional fire appliance being created and will ensure that the 69 posts that I have talked about being moved can be redistributed to support emergent priorities, including firefighter and community safety.
I recognise that challenges are faced in individual areas but, overall, this is about ensuring that we have investment in the right areas, based on the challenges that are being faced. I gave the example of Helensburgh, which, under the service delivery review, still has two appliances. It also has the lowest operational demand of all such stations in Scotland. It has an average of one call-out a day. It still has two appliances available.
The revised model relies on retained firefighters. There are already difficulties in recruiting to the existing retained firefighter posts across Helensburgh and Lomond. Where will the cabinet secretary magic them up from?
The model already exists in other fire stations in the country. I point to Livingston, which is one example.
We must have resources in place that meet the demand and need of those local areas, and those needs are changing. We have to accept that, which is why the operational response has been taken forward by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. [Interruption.]
I have given way twice, and I need to make progress in order to keep within time.
The current SFRS estate has 356 fire stations. As part of the public consultation, the SFRS took on feedback, which included not recommending the closure of Lochgelly in Fife and Marionville in Edinburgh, as Ben Macpherson set out, and highlighted the rigour with which the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service undertook its work. I am, of course, always happy to meet Ben Macpherson, although I note that some of the points that he has raised might be more appropriate for the SFRS to address from an operational perspective, but perhaps we could meet jointly.
The SFRS has also assessed that the increased population in East Lothian would be better served by a new purpose-built station in Tranent, with the whole-time crew currently at Musselburgh being stationed there.
Paul Sweeney referenced the plan for Glasgow. The population of Glasgow will be better protected by a new purpose-built fire station adjacent to the current Cowcaddens site. Those are two new fire stations, backed by capital investment of more than £21 million.
I am very aware of how important an increase in sustained funding to the SFRS is to allow firefighters to do their job and keep the public safe. In the 2026-27 budget, the SFRS was provided with a £23.8 million uplift, bringing its total budget to £435.96 million. That is an above-inflation increase of 5.7 per cent. That is contrary to the motion and to the statements of Katy Clark, Jackie Baillie, Rachael Hamilton and David Smith.
That settlement also included £48.4 million in capital—a 3 per cent increase on the previous year—to improve facilities for firefighters and invest in their estate, the fleet and operational equipment. It also means that the annual capital budget for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is now £16.2 million more than it was in 2024-25.
There was also a suggestion that the SFRS did not have the capacity to respond to the Cairngorms wildfire. The chief fire officer directly contradicts that. When the Scottish Government resilience room was activated, on the weekend of 24 July, on average, 10 to 15 appliances were deployed to the Cairngorms by the SFRS. The service also had an average of 330 front-line pumping fire appliances available across Scotland. That is the benefit of having a Scottish national service that is able to respond to needs and has the capacity to do so across the country.
The demands of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service have changed. The review, alongside the above-inflation funding that we are providing, will ensure that we have a fire service that is fit and ready for the future and is able to meet new, changing demands and, importantly, to continue to protect our homes, our businesses, our communities and our natural environment.
Thank you. That concludes our debate.
Meeting closed at 18:53.
Previous
Decision Time