Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Official Report 1067KB pdf

---

Fire Service

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-09705, in the name of Katy Clark, on fire service cuts. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes, with concern, reports that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) has ordered the temporary withdrawal of fire appliances at 10 stations across Scotland, including Greenock Community Fire Station in the West Scotland region; understands that the Fire Brigades Union has expressed deep concern that this reduction will risk the safety of both firefighters and the wider public; further understands that the SFRS is expected to receive a flat cash budget settlement from the Scottish Government over the next four years, and that the service claims it must make £36 million in cuts as a result; believes that this follows a decade of cuts, the reported loss of 1,100 firefighter jobs, and, it understands, a 14% increase in average response times per incident; notes SFRS Chief Officer Ross Haggart’s comments that there is also a £630 million backlog in the service’s capital investment; further notes reported freedom of information (FOI) findings that 75% of buildings in Scotland’s fire estate are assessed as being of “bad” or “poor” suitability, and that around 45% are assessed as being in either “bad” or “poor” condition; believes that the combination of withdrawn appliances and what it sees as a dilapidated fire estate puts firefighters, who are exposed to health risks from encountering dangerous fire contaminants in their job, at further risk; further believes that firefighters work hard to ensure the safety of people in Scotland’s communities; notes the view that firefighters deserve to be well-equipped, well-resourced, well-protected and well-paid to do the job that they do, and further notes calls for the Scottish Government to come forward with emergency funding for both day-to-day spend and capital budgets, in order to prevent further cuts to staff and equipment, and to modernise the fire estate.

17:25  

I welcome the opportunity to raise the serious concerns that are currently facing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I thank all those members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place, and I put on record my gratitude to the Fire Brigades Union Scotland for its briefings and its tireless campaigning work.

Last week, FBU Scotland published “Firestorm: A report into the future of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service”—a state-of-the-nation report on the fire service, in which almost 1,500 serving FBU members in Scotland participated. It makes for grim reading.

In the past decade, there has been a real-terms cut of 22 per cent to fire service budgets, which amounts to around £64 million in real terms, going by the Scottish Parliament’s inflation calculator. More than 1,200 jobs have been lost, which is about 15 per cent of the entire workforce. In addition, according to Chief Officer Ross Haggart when he gave evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, another 780 jobs are at risk if the Scottish Government proceeds with the planned budgets.

When I speak to firefighters, they tell of fewer firefighters on every shift, and fewer available for each incident. They often speak of how, when the first appliance has arrived and there are insufficient firefighters available to proceed to fight the fire or deal with the incident without acceptable risk, there are delays while they wait for more colleagues to arrive.

Is it not right that, while the Scottish Government will say that the number of fires has gone down in recent years, the reality is that this is the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and the recent inclement weather and floods have shown the importance of having a fire service with diverse responsibilities that can respond to the needs of the people?

The member is absolutely correct that the challenges that the fire service faces from the climate are going to be greater. In addition, as I will demonstrate in my contribution, the response times to incidents have been increasing as a result of budgetary pressures.

The number of available appliances across Scotland has also diminished, and the chief officer says that dozens more appliances will have to be withdrawn if the current planned real-terms cuts proceed. Many stations are in a state of disrepair because of the lack of adequate capital budgets.

The impact of all that is clear. Last year, it was revealed that the average time to attend 999 calls was eight minutes and eight seconds—a significant jump from the six minutes and 50 seconds that was recorded as an average in 2013. That is far from the stated policy intentions that were set out when the service was centralised. The policy memorandum that accompanied the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill in 2012 said that the intention was

“not cutting front line services.”

Chief Officer Ross Haggart has indicated that, as a result of the flat-cash budgets, the service will be required to make savings of £36 million in the next four years to balance its budget.

In September, second or third appliances were temporarily withdrawn from 10 fire stations across Scotland as part of an £11 million package of cuts for this year. The number of high-reach appliances was reduced, and that means more risk.

Since then, concerns have been raised about the increased time that high-reach appliances take to attend incidents in, for example, Ayr, East Kilbride and elsewhere. Freedom of information answers that were recently released to my office show that full-time fire appliances were “off the run”, or unavailable, 6,272 times in 2022, which represents a 138 per cent increase since 2013. In his evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, Mr Haggart told us that if further cuts proceed next year, the SFRS might have to reduce the number of appliances by a further 17 per cent.

Firefighters have also had a pay cut of about 12 per cent in real terms during the past 10 years. We know that those workers put their lives on the line for us. Earlier this year, firefighter Barry Martin died as a result of injuries that he sustained in the Jenners fire. Research shows that firefighter cancer rates are 1.6 times higher than the rates for the rest of the public as a result of exposure to dangerous contaminants, and yet, in many cases, firefighters in Scotland do not have adequate spaces in which to wash, or adequate equipment.

In the “Firestorm” survey, many firefighters say that they have access only to baby wipes after incidents. Several describe decontamination as the “biggest issue” for staff, with others submitting that they are “extremely” worried about their health. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has a duty of care to its employees, and a duty to provide safe systems of work. I understand that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is working on guidelines, and I ask the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to provide an update to ensure that the service is meeting its legal obligations as an employer.

Research by my office found that three quarters of stations are assessed as being of “bad” or “poor” suitability. Indeed, not a single station in the region that I represent is assessed as “good”. Tackling those issues will take sustained investment, and yet there is already a capital backlog of £630 million.

The fire service has faced a decade of cuts. Response times have increased, and the chief officer says that they will continue to increase if the proposed cuts go ahead. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is failing in its duty as an employer to provide a safe system of work. I call on the Scottish Government to bring forward an emergency funding package.

We move to the open debate. There is a lot of interest in the debate, so I would be grateful if members could stick broadly to their time allocation.

17:33  

I commend Katy Clark for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Since the changes were announced earlier this year, I have been contacted by many people across my constituency, including serving and retired Scottish Fire and Rescue Service officers, FBU members and members of the public. Like all the people who have contacted me, I was concerned about the changes that were proposed and are now being enacted.

I will focus my comments on my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. I share the FBU’s concerns about the Greenock fire station. Following the announcement of the proposals, I, along with a few MSP colleagues, wrote to Chief Officer Ross Haggart, and I met Area Commander David McCarrey and serving FBU members and retired Scottish Fire and Rescue Service members. More recently, I attended a meeting with Assistant Chief Officer David Farries that was organised and attended by the minister.

I have listened to what each person has had to say, and I have read intently the written correspondence that I have received. Although I understand the SFRS’s rationale for removing the aerial rescue pump and replacing it with a dedicated high-reach appliance at the Greenock fire station, I do not agree with it. It was explained to me that the aerial rescue pump is deployed often but used infrequently. That might be the case, but I feel that when the dedicated high-reach appliance is deployed and is needed to fight a fire from above, a pump will be required to supplement that. I also have concerns about a greater reliance being placed on the retained crews and their appliances.

This afternoon, Parliament debated the “Rural & Islands Housing Action Plan”. Inverkip and Wemyss Bay, two villages in the south-western part of my constituency, are covered by the retained crews from Gourock, which is also in my constituency, and from Skelmorlie, in Kenneth Gibson’s Cunninghame North constituency. For context, there is a proposal to build 650 properties on the old Inverkip power station site. I do not support that proposal, as I believe that it will have a long-term detrimental effect on Inverclyde’s economy.

That development, alongside the 400 additional homes to be built at Spango Valley—which I support, as there is already a railway station on site—will increase the future challenges for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s retained crews, in addition to the full-time crew at the Greenock station.

At the meeting that the minister hosted, I asked the assistant chief officer if the Scottish Government were to give the SFRS extra money today, would it use that money to reverse the recent changes in stations, including Greenock? The answer was no, the money would be used to invest in and modernise the service, as the assistant chief officer stated that the changes are not about saving money. That clearly indicates to me that the decisions are being taken as an operational matter, not by the Scottish Government.

Following the meeting, I responded to the FBU, setting out my position. In its response, the FBU agreed that there is a need for modernisation, but made the point that, if that extra money would not lead to the “temporary” changes being reversed, they would, in fact, not be temporary. I hope that the minister can address that in her closing comments.

From my conversations with serving SFRS officers, recently and during my 16 years as an MSP, I know that the service has been working well to reduce the number of fires through increased preventative work. There are 11.3 firefighters per 10,000 of the population in Scotland, in comparison with 6.1 in England. Between 2011-12 and 2021-22, the number of fires recorded in Scotland dropped from 32,339 to 27,771—a 14.1 per cent reduction.

That demonstrates the role of our fire and rescue service in keeping my constituents, and people across Scotland, safer. However, there might be a perception among some members of the public that there is less need for personnel or appliances as a result of the reduction in the number of fires. I do not agree with that. I want the preventative work to increase, as I believe that it has contributed to that reduction.

The assistant chief officer told me that he was comfortable with the level of cover that we have in Inverclyde. I am in no way questioning his belief in that respect, but I also in no way question the position that has been taken by the local officers who have shared their concerns with me.

I firmly believe that our emergency services are critical to community safety, and I thank every single one of them for their actions in helping to keep my constituents, and everyone else in Scotland, safe.

17:38  

I thank Katy Clark for bringing the debate to the chamber. We owe our gratitude to the brave emergency workers who put their lives on the line to protect us. When incidents such as the recent blaze at Ayr Station hotel occur, firefighters step up to keep us from harm. They deserve our thanks, and as much support as possible from the Scottish Government—[Interruption.]

Ms Dowey, could you move your microphone up just a little bit, please?

I was pleased to meet firefighters locally at both Ardrossan and Ayr stations to talk to them about the work that they do, to offer my support and to make sure they know how valued they are. The fire at Ayr Station hotel was just one incident in which Scotland’s fire service came to save the day, but there are so many others happening all the time, from house fires to road traffic accidents and industrial incidents.

We can only imagine how much worse those situations could turn out if we did not have such brave front-line officers, if there were not enough of them, if they did not have the equipment that they need, if they had to wait for specialist appliances to come from far away, or if they were operating out of crumbling stations. Unfortunately, we do not have to imagine those situations, because they are happening right now. SNP cuts have left Scotland’s fire service on its knees. People do not have to take my word for that—they just need to read the recent “Firestorm” report.

Response times to incidents will inevitably get worse. Why? Because firefighters no longer have the resources that they need. The recent “Firestorm” report from the Fire Brigades Union revealed a service in “crisis.” It found that we are already down 1,200 firefighters under the SNP.

Does Sharon Dowey acknowledge that the £36 million in savings that is based on the assumption of inflation pay increases is from the resource revenue that is predicted for the next five years and is not the actual budget?

The Scottish Government has the biggest block grant that it has ever had. Where it wants to spend that money is its political choice. When we are doing the budget, we will need to ensure that the fire service is suitably funded.

In the next few years, the service could lose nearly 800 more jobs. We hear a lot of comparisons between Scotland and the rest of the UK but, as the FBU pointed out,

“The FM’s comments regarding firefighters per head of population fails to recognise the divergence of risk across the home nations. In 2021-22, which is the latest data set, Scotland suffered 5,068 fires per million of population, a significantly higher level of fire incidence than Wales at 3,456, and England at 2,702.”

A decade of underinvestment means that it would now cost £800 million to bring stations and the wider infrastructure up to the required standard. The FBU report found that morale is at a terrible level as firefighters struggle to cope with the scale of the SNP cuts. Firefighters are dealing with the consequences of that in their daily work, but we could all easily suffer the consequences of those cuts. Any one of us could be trapped in a nightmare situation and need their help. We do not often think that those things will happen but, when they do, we all want to know that the fire service will be there to protect us, that there will be enough firefighters with the resources and equipment to ensure our safety, and that they will reach us quickly.

If the SNP keep on this path of cutting fire service budgets every year, there is no doubt that it will increase the risk to public safety. No matter the amazing efforts that firefighters go to, such cuts will increase the danger of accidents and unfortunate incidents. I urge the SNP Government to think again and reverse the cuts, give firefighters the support that they deserve, invest in the service so that it can be there to protect people when trouble strikes, put public safety high on the agenda, and make sure that, in an emergency, our front-line services can respond swiftly.

17:43  

I say to Katy Clark: thank you for your tenacity and determination in once again raising the grave concerns, not least on public safety grounds, about the cuts being inflicted on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

I say to Siobhian Brown that the policy of the Scottish Government, of which you are a minister, was to remove the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service from local democratic accountability. That was the policy. That was the political choice. You therefore cannot turn up to Parliament and plead that you are not accountable and that these are operational matters. You are the only line of democratic accountability that is left to the people who we represent. That was the choice of your Government, so you cannot wash your hands of it.

Through the chair, Mr Leonard.

The Fire Brigades Union’s outstanding new report, “Firestorm”, reminds us that when the single fire service was created, the Scottish Government promised that it was about

“stopping duplication of support services”

and

“not cutting front-line services”

but that is precisely what we are witnessing today, so let no one try and tell us that these are operational choices. They are political choices: the political choice to impose a disastrous flat-cash settlement on Scotland’s Fire and Rescue Service; the political choice over the last decade to cut in real terms the fire service budget by 22 per cent; and the political choice with the result that over 1,000 jobs have been axed, another 800 are now at risk and the retained duty system is in crisis.

So, when we are told that the removal of high-reach appliances is about a modernisation of the service, we do not believe it. When we are told that the removal of appliances is temporary and not permanent, we frankly do not believe that either. We see it for what it is: another attempt to subvert then sidestep the democratic process. So I say to the minister that we are not having it; the fire crews, such as those that I met at the Hamilton station recently, are not having it; their trade union is not having it; and our communities are not having it either.

Then there is the information technology system catastrophe. In recent months, I have taken up with the minister the reckless waste of public money on a new command and control IT system for the service with the value of over £12 million. I have been told that those are also operational matters, but at least £1.7 million has been squandered in milestone payments for a system that was first ordered in June 2014 and was supposed to have been delivered in March of this year, but which was scrapped in December of last year, and now over £18,000 has been spent on external legal fees alone.

With next to nothing to show for it except for mounting legal costs, that is a failure on a monumental scale, and the Government is asking us to place our faith in the same people who now want to cut back on appliances. I know that the Scottish Government will blame Tory austerity for much of that, and it has a point, but whatever Jeremy Hunt announces, this Parliament has in train a process of setting our own budget—a budget of over £40 billion.

So, this evening I call on the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to do her job. Protect our communities. Keep them safe. Stand up for your department. Stand up for this service. Listen to what is being spelled out by the Fire Brigades Union. Fight your corner and let us have some decisive political leadership before it is too late.

17:47  

I thank Katy Clark for securing the debate. Before I begin, I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, Katy Clark and everyone in the chamber. I will have to leave very shortly after speaking, but I am glad to be able to participate and I am grateful to you for your understanding.

In my role as justice spokesperson for the Scottish Greens, it has been a huge privilege to work closely with members of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the FBU. I am grateful to all of those personnel who have spent time with me talking about the service, showing me around different fire stations and teaching me so much about the vital, life-saving work that they do. I never fail to be inspired and uplifted by the commitment that they show to their work, to each other and to the people whom they serve, because our firefighters—firies, as we affectionately know them—are among the most trusted public sector workers in Scotland. They are welcomed into our homes and communities. We trust them to keep us safe.

So I say thank you to all our firies and operators. Thank you for being there when we need you. Thank you for your commitment to your work. Thank you for walking into danger when most of us would choose to run away. Thank you for being on the phone, talking to us when our worst possible nightmares are happening in front of our eyes. We owe our Scottish Fire and Rescue Service personnel our lives.

We have heard from other members that the service is already under strain, with too many appliances off the run, shifts not being fully covered, watchers having to travel further afield to support other stations, more and more of that happening than ever before, longer response times, low staff morale, stress at work and more.

In conversation with firies, I have heard so many stories of near misses: things that nearly went wrong, which would have had tragic consequences, but did not—just—which was thanks usually to firies’ ingenuity, commitment and dedication. Those near misses do not feature in the modelling or statistics that the service has undertaken or provided. They are not captured in the data, but they are very real.

I also know that the service is having to adapt to deal with the increasing risk and severity of wildfires and floods due to climate change. We have seen the realities of that so clearly in recent weeks and months.

Earlier this year, I led a debate on the FBU’s DECON campaign to raise awareness and get action to ensure that our firefighters can decontaminate effectively after incidents so that they do not put themselves, or their friends and family, at increased risk of cancer, heart attacks and other diseases and conditions. I commend Professor Anna Stec for her excellent and on-going work on that. Firefighting is a carcinogenic profession, and we need to treat it as such.

One part of the service that is not often talked about are the control operators. People might not know this, but those operators will stay on the phone with callers while they wait for firefighters to arrive at an incident, for as long as it takes, and even if that means the worst outcome for the person on the phone. All of that is taking its toll on the mental and physical wellbeing of our fire service staff, and all of that puts pressure on already stretched resources.

The service needs to evolve and adapt to deal with new challenges and threats, but service redesign and resource allocations have to be done in collaboration and partnership with those on the front line. We should not have to wait for a disaster or tragedy to happen to ensure that they have the resources that they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. Instead, we must—must—invest in our fire and rescue service.

I was proud to host the launch of the FBU’s “Firestorm” report last week. I urge the minister to heed the warnings in that report, because they are warnings. We owe our firefighters, and the communities that they protect, nothing less.

17:52  

I congratulate Katy Clark on her motion, which I was pleased to sign. I am delighted that she has brought the debate to the chamber.

I agree with nearly everything that my old sparring partner, Richard Leonard, had to say in his—as usual, energetic and convincing—speech.

The reality is that Governments are responsible for the difficult business of setting spending priorities. That is the reality. Before we hear rebuttals from the front bench about how, if you are going to spend more money here, you have to take it from there—the same old tired argument that we get from nationalist and Green ministers continually—the reality is that the public expect the Government to set true priorities. They expect the Government to do the right thing by them.

Despite the wilder claims of members in this chamber, there will always be greater demands on public spending than Governments have the resources to satisfy. There is no bottomless pit of money, and to suggest otherwise is to be fundamentally dishonest with the public. I say again that the public rightly expects Governments—here and at Westminster—to do what is right, based on the information available to ministers.

Government is about taking on difficult challenges and stopping pretending that they do not exist. We do not negate the fact that the Government has to make difficult decisions, but given the way that SNP and Green ministers bleat on about how difficult it all is, I wonder whether they have not grown tired of being in the business of Government and making those tough decisions. They certainly come across as a Government that has run out of steam completely.

Fundamentally, I believe that the first duty of Government is public safety. Sensible spending priorities begin with the basic obligation of public safety and properly funding and investing in essential public services. That means the blue-light services: the first responders; the people who are there to protect and save life, and to put their own lives on the line to serve us all.

Therefore, why does this Government refuse to prioritise those services? Senior officers in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are telling us that the service is catastrophically underfunded, but last week, for example, during First Minister’s questions, the First Minister claimed that he and his ministerial colleagues know more about what is happening in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service than the people who work in it.

That is the same ignorant dismissal that is given in response to the voices of concern that are raised in other essential services that the public expect us to fund properly—most notably, Police Scotland and the Scottish justice system—all of which are in crisis.

Surprisingly, I actually agree with Mr Kerr on his point about putting more money into the emergency services. That is probably the first time that he and I have agreed on something during our time in Parliament. However, I go back to his earlier comments that Governments have to take difficult decisions on spending priorities. What budget would he take money from to put more money into the emergency services?

I think that I have agreed with Stuart McMillan on other issues. He is being somewhat ungenerous in what he says. However, I have to say to him that he has brought out the same tired old line about how difficult it is to be in government. If you cannot stand the heat of the kitchen, you get out of the kitchen. If you cannot be in government to make governmental decisions and set priorities, you get out of ministerial office, because making those decisions is what you get paid the big money for, and there have been, frankly, too many examples in recent weeks of ministers in this Government lightly dismissing the concerns that people are raising about the state of our public services.

I have run out of time, but I suggest that members look at the example of what the SNP has done to the Fire and Rescue Service. This debate has given us just a snapshot of what is in the report, which has been quoted quite a few times in the reflections of colleagues. I say well done to Katy Clark on uniting all of us in all the parties to demand that the Government sits up, pays attention and does something more to fund our essential public services.

Fire stations are closing, tenders are being withdrawn, staff are not being trained adequately, response times are stretching dangerously and morale is in decline. None of that is sustainable, so it is time for this SNP Government to prioritise the national interest—and not its nationalist interest.

17:57  

I thank my colleague Katy Clark for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for her comprehensive description of the state of Scotland’s Fire and Rescue Service. I do not have time this afternoon to address the issues of the capital backlog or the health and safety of firefighters, so I will focus on the recent changes that were introduced to the fire service in my area.

The motion highlights the

“temporary withdrawal of fire appliances”.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service used the word “temporary” to describe the withdrawal, and the First Minister also referenced that last week in the chamber. However, from my conversations with those in the fire service, it is clear that that is not the case, and the continued claim that the withdrawal is temporary is, at best, a misunderstanding and, at worst, disingenuous.

What is happening to the withdrawn appliances during the temporary period? Are firefighters who are relocating as a result of appliance withdrawals—including on compulsory transfers—doing so on a temporary or permanent basis? Describing those changes as temporary has allowed them to happen quickly. Such a significant change would require a consultation, but the scale of the budget cut has required immediate reductions to capacity. The public will be consulted on the changes only if there is an intention to make them permanent, and it is anticipated that that will happen. However, what is being done to assess the impact of those changes ahead of that?

The erosion of funding for Scotland’s Fire and Rescue Service over a number of years brings us to this point. The case for the shift to a single service in 2013 was that it would protect the front line but, since then, we have seen massive job cuts, slower response times and changed conditions of service. The policy aim of a single service was to protect and improve local services, despite financial pressures. Can the Scottish Government really argue that that has been delivered?

In Mid Scotland and Fife, we have seen second and third appliances removed at Methil, Glenrothes, Perth and Dunfermline. Kirkcaldy’s height appliance was withdrawn literally hours after it was deployed to respond to a fire at the former Kitty’s nightclub at the start of September. After that serious incident, are we really supposed to accept that that appliance is no longer necessary?

Across my region, within the past 12 months, there have been a number of larger fires including at the New County hotel and the Shore recycling centre in Perth, at Kitty’s in Kirkcaldy and at the Poundstretcher on Leven high street. The fire at a block of flats in Lochgelly earlier this month was devastating for residents and for the local community. Thankfully, all those who were in the flats were able to get out safely, but their homes have been ruined and their lives have been turned upside down as a result.

That dreadful fire demonstrates the vital importance of the fire service in keeping communities safe, but it also underlines concerns about the changes to the service. To extinguish the fire, a high-rise platform from Dunfermline was deployed—it is now the only such appliance in Fife—with an additional height appliance brought in from outside the region.

Although the fire service states that appliances attending high-rise incidents have always been sent from multiple stations, the removal of the local appliances from Fife will have an impact, whether in the response time or in the remaining cover for surrounding areas. We saw the latter with the fire in Lochgelly, when another fire took place in Leven. Because all the crews in Fife were dealing with the very serious fire in Lochgelly, a crew had to be sent from Dundee to go to Leven.

Assessment work earlier this year found that the time taken for second appliances to respond to emergencies would be 2 minutes 40 seconds longer for urban areas in Fife, but we know that for those trapped in a fire and needing rescue every one of those seconds will count. That delay also puts increased pressure on the first-responder appliances and the firefighters who are having to make urgent decisions about what their response will be.

From speaking to those on the front line, it is clear that the changes that have already been made have put them under additional pressure in carrying out what is already a very difficult job. If we continue in the same way, it will only get worse. I urge the Scottish Government to listen to those on the ground and to improve the funding settlement urgently.

As I indicated at the outset, there is a great deal of interest in this debate. I am conscious of the number of members who still wish to participate, so I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3. I invite Katy Clark to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Katy Clark]

Motion agreed to.

On that basis, I can now confidently call Jamie Greene, to be followed by Mercedes Villalba. You have up to four minutes, Mr Greene.

18:02  

I thank Katy Clark for bringing the debate to the chamber, and also the FBU for its “Firestorm” report. When I attended the FBU’s event last week in Parliament, I spoke to some of the reps from the union. One seemed a bit surprised to see me; he said, “We don’t often get folks from your benches around here.” However, I want to be clear to him and all his members that he has perhaps an unlikely friend on the Conservative benches. Let me assure every one of them that we will always stand up for their hard work and their sacrifices to our constituents, no matter what our politics and differences may be.

Of course, the issue that we are debating primarily stems from the issue of capital underinvestment over a prolonged period. That is not a new issue. We have been talking about that for a long time in Parliament. It did not become a £600 million-plus backlog overnight; it took many years of chronic underinvestment, which I think the Government has acknowledged.

We had a debate earlier this year, which Maggie Chapman brought to the chamber, in which we spoke about the DECON campaign. We spoke about the horrendous situation that many front-line firefighters are in—the lack of basic facilities to shower clean, the lack of fresh water, the lack of facilities for female firefighters, the inability to decontaminate properly and the toxins that they are taking home to their families. It is all unacceptable and we all agreed that it was unacceptable at that time.

The then Minister for Public Safety, to her credit, acknowledged that and understood that that level of underinvestment had gone on for some time. When we grilled the minister further on the budget, and on the potential for a flat-cash settlement for four years, if that was a real potential scenario, she made it clear to us that

“the current level”

of funding

“will be protected”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2023; c 50.]

The problem is that it has not been protected, because if it had been protected properly, we would not be having this debate; we would all be in the garden lobby having a glass of wine.

The “Firestorm” report that the FBU brought to us would not have been required in the first place, had those budgets been protected. Far from the budgets being protected, we are now seeing impossible decisions being masqueraded as operational matters for the fire service. They are operational in the sense that the fire service is having to make them, and we know why they are having to be made because committees of this Parliament have grilled fire chiefs, year after year, about what the consequences of a flat cash settlement would look like.

I do not disagree with anything that Stuart McMillan said in his speech when he spoke about his concerns for the Greenock station—I share many of those concerns. However, I do not agree with him about the difference that extra cash would make with regard to making amends. We know the difference that it would make because, when asked, interim chief fire officer Ross Haggart told me and the Criminal Justice Committee what the result of a flat cash settlement would look like in real terms. His response was worrying to the committee and it should be worrying to us today. He said that, after a four-year period of flat cash,

“About 25 per cent of the whole-time firefighting establishment would probably become unaffordable”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 26 October 2022; c 42.]

That also takes into account 5 per cent pay rises for the next two years.

I say to the minister that we are not asking for money for the sake of it. The devastating consequence that capital underinvestment has is the removal of appliances, the removal of retained full-time positions, a lack of training and a lack of investment in important upgrades for the stations. The issue is not just about pay rises, although pay rises are important; the money has to go to the infrastructure. If the money is not spent, years down the line, that £600 million will become £1 billion very quickly, and no Government on earth is going to find £1 billion down the back of its sofa these days. The local effect that that has on each and every one of our constituents is worrying and devastating.

We are not making a political point. Those are the views of the firefighters themselves. They told us all that—it is all in the report. I read the report page by page, cover to cover, and I hope that the minister did, too. We cannot ignore them, because all our blue-light services are there for when we need them. and we should be there for them when they need us.

18:06  

I thank Katy Clark for securing tonight’s important debate on the subject of fire service cuts. Like many in the chamber, I am compelled to speak tonight by my alarm over reports that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has ordered the temporary withdrawal of fire appliances at 10 stations across Scotland. One of those appliances is set to be removed from Kingsway East fire station in Dundee, in my region. Although those changes are reportedly temporary, firefighters and their trade union, the FBU, know all too well how easily temporary solutions become permanent, and, like them, I am extremely concerned by the proposals. I fear the impact that they will have on my constituents and the significant risk to firefighters and the public that those changes will cause.

I also fear the impact that a reduction in appliances will have on staff numbers—staff whose essential skills and expertise could then be lost from the service for ever. We know that recruitment and retention are already an issue in the fire service, which has lost 1,100 firefighters in the past 10 years, with a further 780 job losses still to come, according to the SFRS’s financial projections. Having fewer firefighters means longer response times and greater risk to the public and to the firefighters responding to emergency incidents.

In the event of any major incident in Dundee, there is concern that there simply is not the cover needed to keep our firefighters safe and protect the public. It is simply not good enough to refer to appliances elsewhere, because mobilising appliances from other stations has an impact on the service’s ability to respond quickly, and it could leave those other areas vulnerable.

We simply cannot allow further cuts to this emergency service. It is imperative that the Scottish Government provides immediate and sustained investment in the SFRS to enable it to retain all 10 appliances and maintain the personnel required to staff them. However, when I wrote to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to urge her to act, she was unwilling to meaningfully engage, stating that

“Operational decisions on the number and location of appliances are entirely a matter for the SFRS Board and Chief Officer”.

However, those operational decisions do not take place in a vacuum—they take place within the context of budgets. It is the minister’s Government that sets the fire service’s budget.

This summer, the SFRS published its organisational statistics for 2022-23, which show several concerning trends that further highlight the impact of shrinking budgets and firefighter numbers. That report does not even include the further cuts that have taken place over the course of the summer. Let us be clear: the problems facing the fire service are the result of chronic underfunding over a sustained period. The service has been operating with a massive double-digit cut in real terms in its budget over the past 10 years, which is why it is in the position that it is in now.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is an emergency service. It requires urgent investment from the Scottish Government, not cuts. I stand with firefighters, I stand with the Fire Brigades Union and I stand with the public, and we are saying: stop the cuts.

18:11  

I am honoured to contribute to today’s important debate on fire service cuts. I thank Katy Clark for bringing this matter to the chamber.

As we have heard from members from across the parties today, fire services play a vital role in keeping our communities safe by responding to emergencies and providing medical assistance. They are always there when we need them most, protecting lives as well as property. We all recognise that they often go far beyond their duty. In my community, they play a huge role in water safety and rescue teams. In East and West Dunbartonshire, we have 45 stations with 460 officers and 120 volunteers, all of whom are true community safety advocates.

Just this year, I was lucky enough to attend a Clydebank fire station open day where I met some of the real-life superheroes in our community from the west of Scotland. There were also Army cadets in attendance with their vehicles, the Scottish Ambulance Service and members of the community. All in all, it was a fantastic day and perfect for educating the community. There were lots of activities for people to watch and get involved with, including fire engines with water hose displays, fundraising activities and a live chip-pan fire display, which caught the attention of everyone at the event.

It was great to hear about the impressive multiagency approach to school education, and the timing could not have been more appropriate. In West Dunbartonshire, more than 170 deliberate fires have been recorded so far this year. That figure is already more than the annual figure for 2022. Play areas, school grounds and nurseries were among the sites that were being targeted. Those are areas that our children play in, and we expect them to be safe.

Although the open day certainly raised community awareness about the dangers of fire, it also showed everyone the risks that our fire service personnel take every day just to protect us. As the motion outlines, they deserve to be well equipped, well resourced, well protected and well paid to do the job that they do. However, we know that the Scottish National Party has cut the service’s budget to the bone.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is expected to receive a flat cash budget settlement from the SNP over the next four years. A flat cash settlement will mean that the fire service will have to make millions of pounds’ worth of cuts, which the Fire Brigades Union has warned will threaten the lives, livelihoods and homes of everyone in Scotland. We all need to remember that the service is already stretched to breaking point. The number of personnel is down, leavers are on the rise, attacks on service personnel are up and the number of vehicles at their disposal is down. The majority of buildings that are assessed are of poor suitability, and there is a huge backlog in services capital investment.

I am delighted to have had the opportunity to outline why the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is vital to my community. Quite the opposite of SNP cuts, our fire service needs to see significant investment. Those in the fire and rescue service risk their lives every day to protect our communities and to make them a better, safer place to live in.

I urge the Scottish Government to provide a fair funding deal for our fire and rescue service, and to return to the negotiating table with unions as soon as possible, so that the lives, homes and livelihoods of Scots are not put at risk. Our fire and rescue service deserves better treatment than this.

18:15  

I am grateful to my Scottish Labour colleague Katy Clark for securing this debate. From listening to Ms Clark and other speakers, it is very clear why the debate is so necessary.

I am also grateful to Maggie Chapman for hosting last week’s FBU Scotland event, which launched the “Firestorm” report. For me, “Firestorm” is more than a report; it is a call to action, and Government must act. The truth is that firefighters do not feel supported or valued. Scotland’s firefighters feel abandoned and ignored. After last week’s First Minister’s question time, I fear that they will feel more frustrated than ever.

To recap, last week, hundreds of firefighters, FBU members and other supporters gathered outside the Parliament and demanded that MSPs and ministers listen to them, understand and act. Instead, we heard in the chamber the same predictable spin from the First Minister. We need honesty, because the cuts are costing lives.

The reality is that there has been £57 million of real-terms cuts since 2012-13; 1,200 firefighter jobs have been scrapped; response times have increased; five control rooms have been closed; and an increasing number of fire appliances are unavailable. I am glad that the “Firestorm” report has been published, because that is not the voices of ministers or MSPs; it is the voice of serving FBU Scotland members. I urge all colleagues to read it, because it is about a menu of cuts, lack of recruitment, crisis in retained service, decline in training standards, and the necessity of responding to the climate emergency. All that and more has created the perfect conditions for a devastating firestorm.

Like colleagues, I am here because the issue is affecting constituents in my local community now. Mercedes Villalba talked about Dundee; in my case, it is about Hamilton, where we have lost our temporary appliance. We do not know when we will get it back, and that is having an impact on crews and their families right now—Richard Leonard can also speak to that. We had a devastating fire in East Kilbride recently—six homes have been destroyed and six families have been put at the heart of this issue. Luckily, no lives were lost, but we have heard that the cuts have had an impact on response times, so public safety is being compromised.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not well equipped to respond to the demands of the climate emergency. Our firefighters need appropriate personal protective equipment and other equipment and training to tackle wildfires. We need to expand capacity to deal with the predicted increase in flooding incidents. The capital budget must be increased significantly if the service is to meet the demands of net zero targets.

I know that members of the FBU are proud of the work that they do, but are they proud of us? I do not think so. There should be no ifs, no buts and no more fire service cuts.

18:19  

I start by paying tribute to all the firefighters who work hard and play a vital role in keeping our communities safe. It is clear from the comments in tonight’s debate that we are all aware of the important role that the service plays, through working in partnership with others to prevent and respond to emergencies, in improving the safety and wellbeing of people throughout Scotland.

The bravery and passion of our firefighters have never been in question, and I do not recognise the negative picture of the service that has been painted by others this evening. I am confident that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has delivered and will continue to deliver the highest standard of service in order to keep our communities safe.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I would like to make a little bit of progress, if I may. I have a lot to address, given all the contributions to the debate.

I turn to some of the issues that have been raised, starting with the budget. Since 2017-18, there have been substantial year-on-year increases in funding to support a modern and effective fire and rescue service. In the budget for 2023-24, the Scottish Government provided the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service with a total of £14.4 million in additional funding, bringing the total funding to £368 million this year, despite the challenging financial environment that we are in due to United Kingdom Government austerity and inflation. It is clear that all our public services have been hit by the inflationary pressures. That has meant that the SFRS has had to look at making efficiencies to deliver a balanced budget. That is the case across every single portfolio at the moment.

Although we have a cash increase of £1.7 billion in the 2023-24 budget, the impact of sustained inflation meant that, in real terms, the block grant at the time the budget was set was 4.8 per cent lower than it was in 2021-22. The UK Government’s autumn statement must take more substantive action to increase investment in the services that people rely on. It must feed into our budget so that we can better align spending and deliver for people and organisations across the whole of Scotland.

As long as Scotland’s public finances are tethered to the decisions of the Westminster Government, we will always be working with one hand behind our back. We must balance the budget each year, and we are committed to doing all that we can, within the powers at our disposal, to ensure that public finances are on a sustainable path. In relation to future budgets, as members know, that will be part of the annual budget.

Thanks to continued UK Government austerity, these are difficult financial times, and money is likely to continue to be tight for the next year. Limited levers are available to us to increase our spending power in the face of the UK Government’s failure to ensure that public spending responds to the real challenges that everyone’s lives are facing. We recognise that that means taking tough choices to ensure that our resources are focused on the three critical missions that are outlined in the policy prospectus, and driving reform to secure value for money for the taxpayer.

The financial position on capital funding is equally challenging. I am sure that we would all like to see the fire service—along with transport infrastructure, schools, prisons and hospitals—receive additional funding. That illustrates the difficult choices that need to be made on the allocation of scarce resources. We have maintained the SFRS capital budget at £32.5 million, and we will continue to strive to provide the SFRS with the funding that it needs to ensure that firefighters have the equipment and buildings that they need to keep people safe.

I turn to pay and firefighter numbers. I am pleased to say that, in February 2023, firefighters accepted an improved two-year pay offer of an increase of 7 per cent for 2022-23 and 5 per cent for 2023-24, to run to the end of June 2024. We are maintaining front-line services with a higher number of firefighters than there are in other parts of the UK. On 31 March 2022, there were 11.3 firefighters per 10,000 population in Scotland, 6.1 in England, and 8.4 in Wales.

A number of members have brought up the issue of the number and location of fire appliances. The number that is needed to keep communities safe is obviously an operational matter for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. [Interruption.] I hear Richard Leonard’s points, but it would be totally inappropriate for me to get involved with operational matters. I am sorry. I am involved with its budget from the Scottish Government, but not with operational decisions.

I am aware that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has recently withdrawn 10 appliances. It is important to highlight that those changes are not all about saving money. By withdrawing appliances in a planned and measured way, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service can ensure that full crews are available, so more appliances can always be available to keep communities across Scotland safe.

Those operational changes were implemented at the start of September. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has said that they were chosen to minimise the impact on communities.

In some areas, as we know, there has been an overprovision of resources in comparison with the rest of the country. It is right for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to look to deliver effective and efficient services that deliver value for money for taxpayers and the public purse. His Majesty’s chief inspector of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has provided independent assurances that those temporary changes are based on a robust analysis of activity level, historical demand and the ability to supplement any initial responses within an acceptable time.

I say to Stuart McMillan and Mercedes Villalba that I was in Aberdeen this morning for the annual performance review of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and that issue was brought up. The service committed to a full public consultation on any permanent changes.

On Claire Baker’s comments about whether the situation is being reviewed, the service is constantly reviewing, and I have had an assurance from the SFRS on the withdrawal of the 10 appliances.

It is also important to note that the changes are being made in the context of the reduction over the past 20 years in fires and fire deaths in all domestic premises.

Although a review might be taking place, if that review comes back and says that those appliances are needed, will the Scottish Government fund that?

That is an operational matter for the SFRS. It would not be for the Scottish Government. The SFRS is reviewing the situation. In September, after one year, it will go to a public consultation if—[Interruption.]

Minister, I ask you to resume your seat for a second.

As all members know, whether to take an intervention is up to the member who is on their feet. Their doing so is not an invitation for other members to start bilaterals across the chamber.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have a lot to get through.

Fires and fire deaths in all domestic premises have reduced in the past 20 years. Statistics that came out today show that there were 26,825 fire incidents in 2022-23, which is a decrease of 3.5 per cent on the previous year; that there has been an 11.9 per cent decrease in the number of primary fires over the past 10 years; and that dwelling fires have consistently reduced over the past 10 years, with a 26.1 per cent reduction since 2012-13.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to address some points that members have made. Is that all right? I do not know how I am going for time.

I can give you additional time.

Thank you.

I want to respond to Katy Clark on the capital backlog. As I have mentioned, even though we had a flat cash settlement, we protected the capital investment this year at £32.5 million. Five fire stations are being refurbished this year. We will continue to work with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to identify the capital funding that it needs for its buildings, fleet and equipment.

In response to Richard Leonard, as I have said, it would be inappropriate for me to get involved in operational matters, but the Scottish Government is responsible for the budget.

Maggie Chapman asked about the FBU’s “Firestorm” report. The majority of the points that are raised in it, including on the allocation of resources and the recruitment, retention and training of firefighters, are matters for the SFRS to consider and address. However, having read the report, I can say that the Scottish Government agrees with a lot of the issues that it raises—such as keeping the community safe—and believes that bullying and harassment are always unacceptable. We want our firefighters to receive fair pay. The Scottish Government believes in a lot that is in the report.

I met MSPs during the recess and have met the SFRS for the past few months. Mercedes Villalba did not accept my invitation to meet, but I extend it again. I am more than happy to meet her.

I will address Pam Gosal’s point of getting around the table with the FBU.

Do so very briefly, please.

I met the FBU in June, I met it today, I met it last week, and I am meeting it again next month. Not getting around the table with the FBU is not an issue. I am always having discussions with it.

I will conclude. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service continues to perform well, and I firmly believe that it is in everyone’s interests to have an efficient and effective service. The Government will ensure that fire and rescue is a priority, both now and in the future.

I finish where I started, by commending all those who work in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and by thanking our firefighters for their dedication and work, day and night, to keep people and communities safe.

That concludes the debate. I close this meeting of the Parliament.

Meeting closed at 18:29.