Official Report 1094KB pdf
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20218, in the name of Maggie Chapman, on a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service fit for the future. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament recognises, and is grateful for, the work of the around 7,600 firefighters and support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), who help keep people and nature in the North East Scotland region and across the country safe; understands with concern that, since 2013, the SFRS resource budget has been reduced in real terms by £58 million per annum, with 1,239 firefighter posts lost, and that the recent Service Delivery Review could see the loss of fire stations and appliances across the country; welcomes the dedicated work of Fire Brigades Union (FBU) Scotland in campaigning for a well-resourced and well-equipped service, and its 2023 paper, Firestorm, a Report into the Future of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; notes the shared commitment of FBU and SFRS to firefighter role expansion and, in particular, the FBU’s campaign, DECON, which aims to shed light on the health risks of fire contaminants to firefighters; understands that firefighters have a mortality rate from all cancers 1.6 times higher than the general public; notes the DECON campaign’s recommendations, which include annual health monitoring and recording of exposures for all firefighters; further notes what it sees as the impact of the climate emergency on the SFRS, including an increasing frequency and severity of wildfires and flooding, and notes the FBU’s Climate Emergency campaign, which aims to highlight the impact of the climate crisis on fire and rescue services.
12:53
I am grateful to those who supported my motion to allow this debate to go ahead today. I led the Scottish Greens’ first members’ business debate in this session, which was on St Fittick’s park, and I am proud to devote this penultimate Scottish Greens members’ business debate to the fire service.
I speak today with immense gratitude to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and say hello to its members who are in the gallery this afternoon. I am grateful to all of the roughly 7,600 firefighters and support staff who, every day, place themselves between danger and the people and places they serve, and support those in need. They are there at the worst moments of our lives: when a family home is ablaze, when a car is twisted around a tree, when floodwater rises, when wildfires rage and when the climate emergency stops being an abstract concept and becomes an immediate terrifying reality.
I stand with Ms Chapman’s comments about our immense gratitude to those who risk their lives for us.
Hawick fire station is at risk of having its full-time-equivalent service cut. I agree with Maggie Chapman about the incredible risks that we face from wildfires, climate change and so on. Does she agree that now is not the time for that cut to happen? Some 1,250 jobs have gone from the service. The Scottish Government must back it now, while we face those increased risks.
I can give you the time back, Ms Chapman.
I will come on to the service delivery review in a moment, but it is important that we recognise and acknowledge that the staff who work for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are there for us when it matters most. I have outlined their work when family homes are on fire and in response to the climate emergency, as Rachael Hamilton highlighted, but, as is often forgotten, it is also about someone being on the phone, hoping for rescue, even when the service just cannot get to them in time.
Firefighters are not just emergency responders; they are a national strategic asset. Yet, for more than a decade, it sometimes seems as though we have treated them as if they were expendable. Since 2013, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service resource budget has been cut by £58 million a year in real terms and 1,239 firefighter posts have been lost. Appliances sit uncrewed and response times have lengthened year on year.
Now, through the service delivery review, communities are being asked to contemplate the loss of stations and appliances that they know, in their bones, keep them safe.
Let us be honest. This is not modernisation driven by vision; this is change driven by austerity.
I will speak directly about the north-east region and, in particular, about Balmossie community fire and ambulance station. The message from the responses to the consultation on the service delivery review could not be clearer. Communities, workers, unions and local representatives all said the same thing—Balmossie must stay open, with no loss of appliances. This is not special pleading; it is common sense. Balmossie serves a growing population in an area where there are complex industrial risks, major transport routes and communities that already feel stretched. Closing or downgrading the station would increase response times and put lives at risk. I pay special tribute to Alan Park at Balmossie for his tireless activism—raising awareness, supporting people to understand how the consultation worked and so much more. Thank you, Alan.
Of course, similar concerns are being expressed elsewhere, such as in Lochgelly in Fife. I know that my colleague Mark Ruskell would be here if he could, representing the workers and constituents who worry about the proposed changes there. If we ignore these warnings, we will not be able to say that we did not know.
Firefighters are being asked to do more with less in conditions that are increasingly intolerable. That is why the work of the Fire Brigades Union matters so profoundly. I thank the FBU for its tireless campaigning and its 2023 report, “Firestorm”, which set out not just a critique but a credible vision for the future of our fire service.
Last year, the Health and Safety Executive issued an enforcement notice to the SFRS about welfare facilities at three fire stations in Shetland. There were no fixed toilets, rest facilities, showers or changing areas. Although I understand that progress has now been made at the stations concerned, does Ms Chapman recognise the impact on personnel, especially when they are trying to decontaminate after attending an incident, and the potential impact on firefighters’ health? That is an example of what can happen when there is inadequate funding for emergency services.
Again, I can give you the time back, Ms Chapman.
Absolutely, we need to make sure that we are investing in the decontamination facilities that all firefighters need. I will speak particularly about the FBU’s DECON campaign, which the Parliament has debated before and which I have been proud to support.
In comparison with the general public, firefighters are 1.6 times more likely to die from cancer, five times more likely to die from a heart attack and nearly three times more likely to die from a stroke. That is not a coincidence—it is an occupational scandal. The science is clear. Fire contaminants—toxic carcinogenic substances that are released during fires and are in some of the firefighting equipment—are killing firefighters slowly, long after the flames are put out. The World Health Organization recognises firefighting as a carcinogenic occupation. Professor Anna Stec’s research has reinforced what firefighters have known for years: their work is poisoning them.
The DECON campaign is not radical; it is responsible. We need annual health monitoring, recording of exposures, proper decontamination facilities, clean kit, clean stations and safe systems of work. Some progress has been made—as Beatrice Wishart highlighted—and that should be acknowledged; however, without sustained, ring-fenced investment, these measures will remain patchy, unequal and inadequate. If we know the risk, and we fail to act, that failure is on us.
This debate is also about the future and about potential. There is a shared commitment between the FBU and the SFRS to role expansion. Firefighters already prevent, protect and respond. With the right training, staffing and funding, they could do even more, thereby alleviating pressure on the Scottish Ambulance Service, supporting the national health service and strengthening community safety and resilience.
However, let me be absolutely clear: role expansion cannot be a back-door cost-cutting exercise. It cannot be done on the cheap and it cannot be imposed on a service that is already stretched to breaking point. An agreement in principle was reached in 2022, but what has been missing ever since is Government backing. Political leadership means turning warm words about public sector reform into real investment that allows reform to happen safely, fairly and effectively.
We cannot talk about a fire service that is fit for the future while firefighters work in stations that lack basic dignified facilities, while more than 100 stations do not meet minimum toilet standards, while hundreds lack proper changing areas, and while capital investment lags hundreds of millions of pounds behind what is needed. We cannot talk about climate resilience while not investing properly in the very service that responds to floods, wildfires and extreme weather events.
Our firefighters do not ask for praise; they ask for the tools to do their job, the numbers to do it safely and the protection that they deserve in return for the risks that they take. The Parliament now faces a choice: we can continue down the road of managed decline—consultation by consultation, closure by closure—or we can choose investment over cuts, prevention over reaction, and justice over neglect.
Keeping Balmossie open, backing the DECON campaign in full, funding role expansion properly, rebuilding stations, recruiting firefighters and reducing response times—that is what a fire and rescue service that is fit for the future looks like. Scotland’s firefighters step up every day—it is time for us to do the same.
13:02
I thank Maggie Chapman for securing the debate.
In her motion, the member quite rightly mentions the DECON campaign, and I very much associate myself with her remarks about it. The campaign has indicated and highlighted the excess mortality rates in relation to cancer, heart attack and stroke, which we would all agree are an obvious concern for us. When the evidence starts to emerge, including through academic research, it requires a response. There are recommendations in the FBU report, and I am keen to hear the Scottish Government’s response to them.
Maggie Chapman is also right to highlight, as she did in her contribution as well as in her motion, the impact of climate change. I have spoken in the Parliament before about having seen the effects of climate change locally in my constituency. Last spring, we saw a major wildfire at Palacerigg, which required a significant response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The service certainly rose to the occasion, and I am grateful to it for doing so.
The Scottish Government held the wildfire summit, and I am grateful for the Government’s update to MSPs on the work that has arisen out of that. It would be useful to hear from the minister about what might emerge from that, if she is able to provide us with an update.
I will focus my remarks primarily on the fire service delivery review, as it impacts my area. As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I am grateful to the Fire Brigades Union for coming along to speak to us about its perspective on the review, and I look forward to having the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service speak to us before any final decisions are made. I know that a decision has been delayed, which reflects what has been, as members might have expected, a significant response to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s consultation, and I look forward to being able to question the SFRS on aspects of the review.
The proposal in my area is, thankfully, not to close the fire station; indeed, I would have been surprised if there had been a closure, given the size of my community. However, there is a proposal to move from two full-time appliances to one operating full time—which would be welcome, of course—and another operating full time during the day on weekdays only and then being operated by retained firefighters at night time during the week and at weekends.
Understandably, that has generated concern in the community, with the primary concern being about any delay to a second appliance arriving and the pressure that that might place on the crew of the first appliance that arrives on site. There is also concern about retained firefighter availability—we are already seeing that, with the Kilsyth and Stepps fire stations not always being available—and about the challenges with recruiting such personnel.
I have a particular concern about the review process, which I have expressed to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and which I now take the opportunity to place on the record in the Parliament. We benefit from having a national service—for example, we do not, as I have seen, have the same challenges with cross-boundary transfer—but I do not think that the Fire and Rescue Service’s proposals have considered that. For example, changes that are being talked about in Glasgow could impact my area—and, of course, vice versa—and I do not think that that has been considered.
I am glad that Maggie Chapman has brought the debate to the Parliament, and I am glad to have been able to place some of my concerns and those of my constituents on the record. I am keen to see where the review lands and, in that regard, I look forward to being able to question the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service when it comes before the committee.
I place on record my thanks to all existing fire service personnel and all those who have served in the past. They deserve our greatest thanks.
13:07
I will start off with a couple of apologies. First, I apologise to Maggie Chapman. If I had known how you were going to address the debate and how it was going to pan out, I would have supported your motion, and I apologise to you for not doing so.
Please pass your apology through the chair, Mr Mountain.
I also apologise to members for having to slip away before the end of the debate. I forewarned you of that, Presiding Officer, and agreed it with you in advance.
I thank Maggie Chapman for bringing the debate to the Parliament because, as she rightly said, whenever we call for a firefighter or fire engine, it is because we need them. At that stage of need, we realise just how important they are.
That is why I have always campaigned across the Highlands for a local call centre. The difficulty of ensuring that we deploy our retained firefighters to the right places in the Highlands is often quite stark. I dread to think how many Kinlochs are dotted round the Highlands; when we call for a fire engine to go to Kinloch, it might end up near Tongue, near Skye or elsewhere. That is an important point that we have missed.
I must also compliment the Fire Brigades Union, which has been vocal in bringing these matters to the Parliament. I was going to say that I admire its militancy, but I think that that is the wrong word; perhaps I should say that I admire its tenacity in the way in which it has brought the issues to the Parliament.
Indeed, I thank it for doing so, because, in the Highlands, there have been various issues, especially in the past year, that have required a huge amount of support. I do not need to remind the Parliament that there were probably more than 70 wildfires across Scotland last year, the majority of which were in the Highlands. One of the biggest—which was in the Highlands—raged for weeks.
That proves that there is a lack of the equipment that we need to fight such fires. I strongly believe that there should be a centralised resource of equipment to enable firefighters to get to the hill. That could, and should, include equipment such as Argocats, which are hugely expensive—up to £30,000, in fact.
I also want to touch on certain issues relating to retained firefighters that I see when I travel around the Highlands. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude, but the problem is that we do not make it easy for people to become retained firefighters. Their training requires them to take quite long periods off work, which is an onerous commitment for their employers—even though it is vital for their communities—and I hope that at some stage the review can look at how that training could be made easier, not in terms of what the people involved have to do, but time-wise.
Furthermore, I hope that we can ensure that the training is appropriate, given that certain things that firefighters might have to deal with in one area, such as fires in flats, are not things that firefighters on, say, the west coast of Scotland have to deal with. The training should be made more appealing, too.
The other thing that has been definitely brought to my attention is the lack of facilities for firefighters when they return from fires. Too many fire stations have no showering facilities. It was only midway through last year that Inverness fire station ended up with suitable facilities for firefighters, so that they did not have to go home, reeking of smoke and carrying back to their families and homes the contaminants that they had been exposed to during that day’s firefighting experience.
That sort of thing is fundamentally wrong; I can say from personal experience that there is nothing worse than going home in soot-covered clothes and smelling of smoke. It takes days to get it out of your clothes and out of the house, and we should not impose that on firefighters’ families. Therefore, I hope that the review will cover that issue, too.
I support the motion, and I call on the Government to support our firefighters, for the simple reason that, when we need them, they have to be there—and they have to be properly equipped.
13:11
I thank Maggie Chapman for lodging the motion in Parliament, which I am delighted to support.
A few weeks ago, one Friday afternoon, I sat down with firefighters at the Cumbernauld fire station. It is a station which is set to be downgraded under the so-called service delivery review, with proposals to cut firefighters’ hours, with proposals to cut the number of fire appliances and with proposals to cut emergency cover on the night shift—even though the population that the Cumbernauld station serves is rising; even though, as one long-serving firefighter told me:
“Every bad incident I’ve experienced has been at night-time. It is when the risk is greatest”;
even though, as another younger firefighter told me:
“The very first video you are shown when you start your training is about time critical: the difference that two to three minutes can make”;
and even though, as Scott Fleming, the local Fire Brigades Union representative, told me:
“There are fewer house fires: but the fatalities from house fires have not dropped.”
So, even though these are the experiences, this is the evidence and these are the facts, the minister will tell us that these are purely operational matters for the service to decide, when, in truth, these are life-and-death matters, and so political and moral matters for this Government and for this Minister for Victims and Community Safety to decide.
There are other considerations, too. We also spoke that Friday before Christmas about the new fire station that had been promised when reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was discovered at the station, which was built back in the 1970s. We spoke about it, because that new replacement fire station has now been shelved, because of the same service delivery review. I have to say that it beggars belief that, as we marked in Parliament just last month, 70 years ago, an earlier generation could build an entire new town in Cumbernauld; now this Scottish National Party Government in this generation cannot even build a new fire station in Cumbernauld.
And what of this week’s budget? Well, as the Fire Brigade’s Union’s Scottish secretary, John McKenzie, has explained,
“the capital budget increase of less than £1.5 million”—
that is for the entire Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—
“is utterly inadequate and sits against an £818 million capital backlog, leaving fire stations not fit for purpose, some held up by scaffolding and many without adequate toilets or running water.”
Meanwhile, the Government continues to throw millions extra for a new information technology system for the Fire and Rescue Service at the US-owned multinational corporation Motorola, having already wasted millions on a botched IT system splashed out to the French-owned multinational corporation Systel.
And just last week in Parliament, I revealed that, while the SNP Government’s budget for the removal of dangerous, highly flammable cladding in the wake of the Grenfell tower tragedy was £35 million last year, only £6 million of that was spent. It is another example of how little this Government regards community and fire safety, how little it understands the risks posed to firefighters and the public by these unsafe buildings, how lightly it takes its serious duty of care to these residents—especially those who are most at risk: children, those with a disability, the elderly and the frail—who are still waiting more than eight years after the Grenfell tragedy, simply for their homes to be made safe.
It is high time that we ended this indifference, this callous disregard. It is time that we saw action and that we saw new investment in our Fire and Rescue Service, in our firefighters, in our communities. That is what I will continue to campaign for, inside and outside this Parliament.
13:16
I thank my Green colleague Maggie Chapman for securing this debate. I also express my thanks to Scotland’s firefighters and their support staff for their continuing dedication, professionalism and courage in keeping our communities safe across Scotland.
Many constituents have been in contact with me about their concerns about the proposed closure of Marionville fire station. Marionville fire station is located just along the road from the Scottish Parliament, less than a mile from the city centre. It serves a densely populated area and provides cover to a large part of Edinburgh, including the growing populations in the north and east, the Forth ports and the Scottish Parliament. It forms part of the broad response network that keeps our communities safe through rapid emergency response and prevention work. My constituents are deeply concerned about the proposal to close Marionville fire station and relocate its services to Newcraighall, with the likelihood of increased response times for those of us who live and work in the city centre. My constituents do not consider that to be a minor adjustment; they think that it is a dangerous backward step.
The proposal comes at a time when east Edinburgh’s population is growing at an unprecedented rate, increasing demand on services. Local fire services also cover major venues such as Meadowbank stadium, which holds 1,300 people, and Easter Road stadium, which has capacity for 20,000 people. Local people feel that the risks in our area are increasing, not decreasing. They worry that removing such critical resource from the heart of Edinburgh will stretch already limited resources, increase response times and put public safety at risk. Fires can go from manageable to fully developed in a matter of minutes, and closing the station could place significant pressure on the surrounding stations, two of which are already among the busiest in Scotland.
With climate change bringing more severe wildfires and other emergencies, the demands on our fire service are only going to rise. We are all too aware of the danger and damage caused by fast-spreading wildfires, and we witnessed such scenes on Arthur’s Seat last summer. Dry vegetation acted like kindling, and shifting winds drove flames towards paths, wildlife habitats and homes. We need to ensure that crews are based where they can respond quickly to such incidents, as delays in response times can dramatically increase risk to people, property and the firefighters themselves.
I share the concerns about increases in response times, the withdrawal of appliances and the loss of jobs. Any reassessment of resources must be done collaboratively with the firefighters themselves, the Fire Brigades Union and the communities affected. The Scottish Greens will continue to push for fair work principles and decontamination systems, ensuring that those who protect us are well supported, well compensated and safe in their work. Every station should have the staffing, training and equipment that it needs to keep our communities safe.
The Scottish Greens stand with our firefighters. Those courageous people put their lives on the line for the safety of our homes and the wellbeing of our communities. They do an extraordinary job and they need the resources to match the challenges that they face, such as long and exhausting shifts, contamination from fires, road accidents and, of course, more wildfires. This is not just about the bricks and mortar of the Marionville fire station building; it is about lives. It is about ensuring that when the worst happens, help arrives quickly and effectively. Let us work together to protect our fire service and the people who depend on it.
13:20
I begin by reiterating my support for the motion and my gratitude to the thousands of firefighters and support staff who keep my constituents, and all of us, safe.
Securing meaningful and sustained funding for the fire service is a crucial issue for the North East Scotland region that I represent, particularly in Monifieth and Broughty Ferry, which—as Maggie Chapman mentioned—are served by Balmossie fire and ambulance station. Like many communities across Scotland, Monifieth and Broughty Ferry have been impacted by an increasing centralisation of powers and services of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and by almost two decades of continued austerity and underfunding from the SNP Government.
In 2023, stretched budget funding resulted in one appliance at Kingsway east station in Dundee being removed. That was played down at the time as a short-term measure by both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but, three years later, we still have no resolution to the downgrading of the service at Kingsway east. Now, with the current proposals on the table, we face the same dangerous situation at Balmossie. That will result in slower response times and a greater risk to life and to the community. The community in Monifieth and Broughty Ferry feels—rightly—that the battle has already been fought and won once before, when previous attempts to close Balmossie were overturned as a result of sustained public pressure led by the Fire Brigades Union. Yet, once again, the service is under threat.
I therefore ask the minister today how she can defend these brutal cuts. Does she seriously believe that they will leave anyone in North East Scotland safer? My constituents need and deserve a fire and rescue service that can meet the challenge that we face from increased wild fires, flooding and extreme weather. Instead, under the SNP, we have had two decades of managed decline of our public services; reductions in the number of front-line firefighters; exposure to occupational hazards; and inadequate training equipment. Under the SNP, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has seen a real-terms resource budget cut of tens of millions of pounds. Those cuts mean that much of the estate and the equipment are now unfit for the service.
Further cuts will, therefore, surely risk lives, because neglect and lack of investment leave the SFRS unable to implement best practice in reducing cancer and other disease risks that disproportionately affect firefighters.
At every opportunity, the SNP Government has chosen quick cuts to balance a broken budget over the lives of workers. That has happened against our interest, against the public’s interest and against the will of us all, because the public do not support these cuts. The public do not support the changes that the SFRS has put forward; they do not want to see any reduction in services; and, most of all, they do not want their local fire stations, such as Balmossie, shut down.
My constituents want a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that is properly funded and well resourced to face the risks that climate and environment breakdown are causing. However, if the past two decades are any indication, it is clear that they will not get that from this minister or this SNP Government.
13:24
I, too, thank my colleague Maggie Chapman for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also recognise the dedication, professionalism and courage of firefighters and support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service across Scotland and especially in the Highlands and Islands. They protect lives, communities and nature, often across vast distances and in very challenging conditions.
However, appreciation alone will not sustain the service. As we have heard, the SFRS resource budget has been reduced by £58 million per year in real terms since 2013, with the loss of more than 1,000 firefighter posts. Those figures translate directly into stretched cover, pressure on crews and difficult decisions about stations and appliances. Those pressures are now being highlighted by the service delivery review.
In the Highlands and Islands, the context is stark. Inverness is the only permanently staffed full-time fire station in the entire Highlands. Alongside it are 51 retained duty system stations and nine community response units covering huge geographic areas and often operating in severe weather and on difficult terrain. Retained and community firefighters are essential for keeping people safe, but they must be properly supported to do so.
In my conversations with firefighters across the region, I have heard repeatedly about the reality on the ground. Some rural stations, I am told, do not have basic facilities—no toilets, no showers, no proper changing areas and patchy internet access. After incidents involving smoke contaminants or floodwater, that is simply not acceptable. Dignity and health at work must apply equally, regardless of the location.
The nature of the job is changing. Firefighters are increasingly being called out to flooding, extreme weather and climate-driven emergencies. Wildfires, in particular, are becoming more frequent and more severe, yet firefighters have told me that the training is inconsistent. Although some crews have received specialist wildfire training, others have not, yet they are still being mobilised to attend wildfire incidents. One firefighter described to me how they had attended multiple wildfires where they and their colleagues were unable to fully engage because they had not been trained in techniques such as back burning. They told me that that is frustrating for someone whose vocation is service.
I have also heard concerns about all-terrain equipment not being fit for purpose, which limits firefighters’ ability to operate safely and effectively in remote landscapes. At the most basic level, firefighters have raised issues about the quality of standard kit, including socks that wear out quickly and need to be replaced very frequently. Those details may sound small, but they speak to morale, comfort and a wide pattern of underinvestment. That is why the work of the Fire Brigades Union is so important.
I recently visited the decontamination unit in Inverness fire station. It is important to note that the unit was largely funded by the efforts of the FBU, which demonstrates both what is needed and what can be achieved through determination and partnership. That matters, because firefighters face a cancer mortality rate 1.6 times higher than that of the general population. The FBU’s decon campaign includes calls for annual health monitoring and proper recording of exposure, and it deserves our full support.
I agree with the need for role expansion, which enables firefighters to act fully as emergency responders in this climate-altered world. However, role expansion without resources is not reform; it is risk transfer. If we want a properly funded Fire and Rescue Service, we must be serious about how we raise revenue. Measures such as taxing private jet use and introducing a mansion tax are a fair way to strengthen the public purse. With independence, Scotland would have the full powers that are needed to tax wealth and properly fund the SFRS and other vital public services.
Firefighters are ready to serve. Our responsibility is to ensure that they are properly funded, properly trained, properly equipped and properly valued.
Before I call the next speaker, in order to allow other members to participate, I am prepared 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.—[Maggie Chapman]
Motion agreed to.
13:29
I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for securing today’s debate, because it could not be more important. As colleagues from across the country have highlighted, we need a fire service that is fit for purpose, now and for the future. With the growing impact of the climate emergency and extreme weather, the need to have an effective fire service for my constituents has never been more vital, especially after the fire last summer on Arthur’s Seat and other fires that have happened across the city.
As Lorna Slater highlighted, the proposal to close Marionville fire station has been met with widespread opposition from the community and from our firefighters. We know that the building has RAAC, but closing Marionville without a replacement facility in the area will leave our brave firefighters overstretched and underresourced.
The proposed closure makes even less sense when we consider that it is not even the option that the SFRS had recommended. In the 2020 options appraisal report for Marionville station, which I acquired through a freedom of information request, neither of the options that were evaluated even considered not replacing the station. The report recommended exploring the idea of maintaining the operation of the current station while building a replacement station on another site. Last year, it emerged that there are two potential council-owned sites in the area. Therefore, we need to know whether the SFRS has discussed those options with the council.
Five years after the options report, why has no station been built? Why do we now face the prospect of Marionville being closed with no plan to replace it? Those questions are especially important because there is a growing number of homes in the area and developments at the port of Leith.
Since the creation of the SFRS, Scotland has lost almost a sixth of our firefighters, and Scottish Government budget cuts have left the SFRS with one hand tied behind its back. As the FBU’s excellent briefing notes show, that has created huge pressures on firefighters, and response times have increased. That is not acceptable. My constituents are now facing the consequences of those cuts, potentially losing a fire station without getting a replacement in their area. The closure of Marionville is opposed by a staggering ratio of 10:1 in the local community, which has been consulted and was clear that we need the station to be replaced.
The SFRS needs to support our local communities. If the Scottish Government wants to ensure that our fire service is fit for purpose, it must invest in services, not cut them. It must give the SFRS the tools that it needs to grow our fire safety infrastructure. We should not be in the situation of losing key stations after a summer when there were major fires.
The problem is not just wildfires; our communities will also face more flooding incidents in which people will need to be protected. Last month, a Scottish Environment Protection Agency report estimated that 400,000 homes and buildings are now at medium risk of flooding. This week, we learned that the Scottish Government’s budget will cut funding for the flood resilience strategy from £14 million to under £1 million. Worryingly, there is no clear budget line for flood defence scheme funding in the local government budget. Although the budget will increase funding for the SFRS, there is still an £800 million capital backlog, as Richard Leonard highlighted. That is utterly unacceptable.
I will continue to work with our local community, MSPs across Parliament and councillors to ensure that our vital emergency services in Edinburgh and the Lothians are not hollowed out. The Scottish Government and the SFRS must urgently listen to the communities and—as is being asked for across the country—give us the investment that Edinburgh and the Lothians urgently need. I hope that the minister will take up the issue with the SFRS and talk with her Cabinet and ministerial colleagues. We need to make progress, not to go into reverse.
13:33
I thank Maggie Chapman for securing this much-needed debate. The estate of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not fit for the future. According to the Fire Brigade Union’s “Firestorm” report, as of 2023, 75 per cent of buildings in Scotland’s fire estate were rated as having “bad” or “poor” suitability. Having visited Crewe Toll fire station in Edinburgh and spoken with firefighters, I am aware of the poor condition of our fire estate.
However, the SFRS does not have the capital budget that is required to rebuild or upgrade the stations. The SFRS recently told the Criminal Justice Committee that, if its capital budget does not grow significantly by 2031, it will be short of £119 million.
The SFRS’s solution is to consider closing stations, including Marionville in Edinburgh, after RAAC issues were identified. The service explains that rebuilding the facilities would be too costly. However, many members of the community, while recognising the financial pressure that the SFRS faces, strongly oppose those decisions, arguing that the cost of addressing RAAC is being used as a justification for closure, which exposes the community to significant safety risks.
In the recent consultation on proposals to close the Marionville station, opponents outnumbered supporters by a ratio of 10:1. I am one of those opponents and remain convinced that Marionville must remain open.
In the “Firestorm” report, the FBU estimated that the SFRS had a capital investment backlog of around £800 million, and, since then, the SFRS has reiterated those figures to the Criminal Justice Committee. However, the SFRS’s capital budget is only £47 million for 2026-27. Beyond that specific figure, the Scottish Government has ignored the requests of both the SFRS and the FBU for the budget to be allocated on a long-term basis rather than annually as is the case currently. We welcomed long-term funding for the culture budget, so why can we not have that for our life-saving fire services?
The SFRS told the Criminal Justice Committee last September that its ability to manage change, including making strategic investments to enable longer-term savings, is made more challenging because it is limited to working within an annualised budget. The SFRS cannot make long-term strategic plans for its capital investment and is forced into short-term savings while the backlog of capital investment continues to mount.
Last September, the FBU told the Criminal Justice Committee that, without the required real-terms investment, the SFRS will continue to close stations in its attempts to reduce its capital backlog. That is the cost of the Scottish Government’s mistake. If it refuses to increase the capital budget to the SFRS and continues to set that budget annually, more stations will be threatened with closure, like Marionville.
The existence of a station in a community makes a vital difference. The shorter the journey between the station and the incident, the better the chance that lives are saved, traumatic burns are prevented and buildings are saved from being reduced to dust. I thank our dedicated firefighters and service staff across our nation for carrying out their dangerous work and ensuring that our communities are safe. However, I urge the Scottish Government to allocate sufficient funding for our fire services to be fit for the future.
13:38
I thank Maggie Chapman for securing this important debate on whether the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is fit for the future.
I welcome the focus on response times in several of the speeches. As we know, there has been a significant increase in response times under the Scottish National Party, which, of course, increases risks.
Maggie Chapman’s motion rightly highlights the challenges that the SFRS faces due to the climate emergency, including increased frequency and severity of flooding and wildfires. As a number of members have said, last year, we saw the risks posed by the climate emergency right on Parliament’s doorstep, with yet another wildfire engulfing Arthur’s Seat. This week alone, we have seen the impact of flooding on many communities across Scotland, but the Scottish Government has chosen not to support our firefighters so that they are properly equipped to respond to those challenges in future.
Since 2013, the SFRS resource budget has decreased by £58 million a year in real terms, and around 1,250 firefighter jobs have been lost. The resource increase that is offered in the Scottish Government’s budget, therefore, goes nowhere near far enough to reverse the damage that has been caused by more than a decade of cuts and job losses in the fire service. The proposed resource increase also falls short by more than £11 million of what the SFRS has set out as being required in order to recruit the new firefighters who will be needed over the next three years.
As Richard Leonard and a number of other members have said, the capital budget increase of less than £1.5 million is also completely inadequate, given the £818 million capital backlog that the SFRS faces.
A number of members have spoken about the conditions in some fire stations, including the lack of showering facilities. I recently highlighted to the Scottish Government that many fire stations in my West Scotland region are still in a state of disrepair. In the past six years, Greenock, Gourock and Port Glasgow stations have had to conduct essential repairs and maintenance amounting to more than £1 million due to the condition that they were in. Dreghorn fire station, which is the main fire station service in Irvine, was also found to be in poor condition. This is a Scotland-wide challenge and, given the Scottish Government’s failure to properly invest in tackling the capital backlog in this budget, I fear that those fire stations will continue not to be fit for purpose.
Some members have focused on the service delivery review, which could lead to the closure of 13 fire stations, the permanent withdrawal of 10 appliances and changes to fire cover, leading to increased response times as a result. I reiterate my call to the Scottish Government to commit to a debate in Government time so that Parliament can have its say on any proposals before they proceed.
With regard to the expansion of the firefighter role, I thank all members who have signed my recent motion calling on the Scottish Government to make progress on that issue, particularly in the light of the shared commitment of both the FBU and the SFRS. Members have highlighted the FBU’s DECON campaign, and I reiterate my calls for greater action from the Scottish Government to protect the health and safety of firefighters. I reiterate that there is a legal obligation on the Scottish Government and on the SFRS as an employer to provide a safe system of work to firefighters.
I conclude by placing on record my thanks to the firefighters and staff—there are around 7,600 of them—for the vital work that they do in keeping us safe.
13:42
I thank Maggie Chapman and all the members who have contributed to this important debate.
As the minister with responsibility for fire and rescue, I express my appreciation for the staff of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, who work tirelessly to keep our communities across Scotland safe. I welcome to the public gallery representatives of the FBU, along with representatives of the Fire and Rescue Services Association whom I met this morning when we had some very helpful conversations.
I want to get a few points across about the service delivery review first, because the debate is very broad. As we know, the nature of the emergencies to which the SFRS responds has changed significantly over the years. As an example, the number of dwelling fires has reduced by more than 20 per cent since 2013.
I heard what Richard Leonard said about his conversations. I do not know whether the figures that he mentioned are accurate, but that is not the information that I have been given. The statistics show that there has been a 33 per cent reduction in non-fatal fire casualties between 2009-10 and 2023-24, but there has been a 32 per cent reduction in fatal fire casualties over the same period. It is very important that we get that across.
I had a look this morning at a graph on page 18 of the incident statistics document. If the minister looks at the statistics, she will see that they show that there has been a drop between 1990 and 2014, but from 2014 to the present day the line is pretty much flat: the number of fatalities has not dropped in the same way.
I will also say this: this is not just about house fires. Colin Brown of the FBU told me:
“Overall casualties and fatal casualties from all incident types have risen sharply”.
Minister, I can give you the time back.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.
I am just going on the information that I have in front of me today. I will write to the member about that point.
I would also say that, although house fires and casualties have reduced, the number of incidents such as flooding and wildfires has increased, of which we are all acutely aware. That is why it is right that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service carefully considers how to adapt to changing risks in order to remain effective and efficient, to ensure that firefighters are in the right place and at the right time. I am sure that all of us in the chamber, regardless of our political colours, would agree with that.
I do not think that there is anybody in the chamber, including among the representatives of the SFRS and the FBU, who does not think that there needs to be some change. The fire service cannot go on as it is, because the risks certainly are changing. However, part of the problem is that, given how and where things are being targeted, the review is clearly being viewed as an austerity measure, not as a strategic piece of work in the round.
I think that we all agree that we need to have conversations about how we address the changing nature of the role of firefighters, including how they deal with floods, wildfires and the like, but that is not what the service delivery review is doing. The review looks like it is targeted, and it looks like it is an austerity measure.
We are going to need briefer interventions, if they are to be taken.
I totally appreciate and understand what the member says. I have regular meetings with the SFRS, which has made it very clear to me—I know that this has come up at committee, too—that it would be considering the proposed changes even if it had all the money. I get independent advice from His Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate in Scotland, and the chief inspector has said to me that he would be very concerned if the SFRS was not considering reform.
I understand that people are concerned about austerity, but I have had those conversations about how the review can deliver over the next five years. I am told that it is not about austerity, although I understand that people think that it is.
I will try to make a bit of progress, if I can. The SFRS’s public consultation on its service delivery review concluded in September. However, the SFRS board has requested that further work be undertaken on the independent analysis of the consultation responses, along with a fresh and independent look at the equality impact of the possible options for change. That work is on-going, and that is why things have been delayed. The SFRS is not able to provide a precise timetable for when the work will be completed. I would like to clarify that the SDR is a change programme, which will be implemented over a five-year period.
The minister must be concerned about not only the continued increase in response times, but the prediction that they are going to increase if current policies are continued. She must surely be considering, as one of the aspects of the review, whether any changes will bring down response times.
Of course—I will come to response times further on in my speech, if I may.
Deputy Presiding Officer, can I get some time back?
I can give you the time back for the intervention.
I have made it clear that I view the decisions on where the resources should be placed as a matter for the chief officer and the SFRS board. It is not appropriate for me, or for any politician, to attempt to intervene in those operational issues.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service needs to be effective and efficient. The nature of risk is changing and, with that, there needs to be change in how the SFRS configures its response capability. In saying that, I state that I will, of course, have to be absolutely assured that public safety will not be unduly compromised as a result of any changes that the SFRS makes. However, I know that the SFRS will properly assess the impact of any change, and I will continue to seek assurance from it on that matter.
I will move on to public sector reform and reduction in firefighter numbers. It is important to remember that, through the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, this Government introduced a major piece of legislation on public sector reform to create a single national fire and rescue service in Scotland. That was done to reduce duplication and to save money while protecting front-line service delivery, and the SFRS has achieved that. The previous model was simply not sustainable.
The reduction in the number of firefighters consists of 661 whole-time firefighters, 515 on-call firefighters and 63 in operational control. However, the majority of those on-call posts are actually vacancies, and the SFRS continues to work to fill those posts wherever possible.
As part of the measures to reduce duplication, the SFRS has moved from having eight control rooms to having three, which is why there has been a reduction of 63 control-room staff. On whole-time firefighters, the SFRS has also reduced duplication in the number of middle managers while ensuring that the vast majority of the 356 fire stations across Scotland remained operational.
On broadening the firefighter role, I meet Fire Brigades Union Scottish officials regularly, and I recognise that they have a sound working relationship with SFRS senior managers. In those meetings, they are effective in lobbying for additional funding, and I know that the firefighters will be disappointed that we have not been able to afford the significant additional cost of broadening their role. Although there are clear public sector reform advantages in firefighters doing more to keep our communities safe, the tough choices that the Government faces—
Will the minister give way?
Yes.
Very briefly, please.
I express my disappointment at the recent Scottish Government budget announcement with regard to funding for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Notwithstanding the constraints on the Scottish Government’s budget, does the minister agree that there is a case to continue calling on the United Kingdom Government to consider how borrowing and the use of reserves can be offered to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?
Yes, I agree that that would be very helpful during these financially challenging times.
I will move on, as I know that we are short of time. On decontamination, I acknowledge the FBU’s work on its DECON campaign, along with Maggie Chapman’s efforts in raising that important issue in the Parliament. The safety and wellbeing of firefighters are a priority for both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Scotland is leading the way in that area. The SFRS continues to work very closely with Professor Anna Stec in developing research on health screening for firefighters, supported by a £450,000 investment from the Scottish Government’s CivTech programme. To reduce the risk of contaminants, there has been significant change in a wide range of process and practice, and the SFRS is investing in additional personal protective equipment and facilities for firefighters, to reduce further risk. We will continue to work with the SFRS on that issue.
On climate change, we continue to work to support the full implementation of the wildfire strategy. In the number of wildfire warnings that were issued and the scale of summer wildfires across Scotland, 2025 was a record year. The potential increase in the risk of wildfires and flooding is one of the main drivers of the on-going service delivery review, which is looking to ensure that the SFRS has the right assets in the right places to deal with the current and future risks. In the prevention of and response to wildfires, the SFRS works in close partnership with all partners in the Scottish Wildfire Forum, including Forestry and Land Scotland and a wide range of landowners.
The issue of increased response times has been raised. As I have said previously when it has been raised with me, it is a complex issue. Many factors are involved. Those include geography; crews attending other incidents; extra time when a 999 call is taken, to ensure that the right resources are deployed; extra time for crews to enter an appliance, so that they can travel in safety; and extra time in travelling to incidents, due to traffic conditions and street furniture. Each of those elements can be relatively small but they can easily add up to the 90-second increase that has been quoted by the FBU.
Although the time that is taken to arrive at an emergency can be important, we should concentrate on the right resources being deployed to provide a successful outcome, and the SFRS continues to respond to every emergency incident with the appropriate level of resources. The latest statistics, which were published in October, are very encouraging. There was a 7.4 per cent reduction in the overall number of incidents that were attended by the SFRS last year, and I welcome the 4.9 per cent decrease in fire incidents.
A few weeks ago, I was at the Tollcross operational fire station and had an opportunity to see how things worked on the ground when 999 calls came in. I encourage any MSP to do likewise if they have the opportunity, to get a deeper understanding in how response times work.
I will end as I started, by commending the SFRS and its staff. I fully support its work to reduce fires, support local communities and promote safety.
That concludes the debate.
13:54 Meeting suspended.Previous
Point of Order