Chamber and committees

Incidents such as the ones that I have just described continue to happen. Community safety is not achieved through slogans or vague statements about division and hostility. I would much rather debate visible policing, effective public services, holding dangerous perpetrators accountable and, most importantly, how we protect victims. That is how we restore confidence in politics and trust in Government.

I move amendment S7M-01084.2, to leave out from first “supports” to end and insert:

“believes that the first duty of government is to protect the public and that public safety must never be compromised by political choices, financial pressures or a lack of capacity within the justice system; further believes that there must be consequences for committing crime and that those who commit acts of violence, intimidation, hatred, disorder and other offences must face swift and meaningful punishment; notes concerns that the scale and pace of asylum and immigration arrivals in some communities has placed pressure on local services and community cohesion, and calls on the Scottish Government to review the housing rules which have contributed to that pressure; gives its full support to the police and other law enforcement agencies in taking firm action against those who openly flout the law; rejects early release policies that put dangerous offenders back into communities because of pressure on the prison estate; calls for bail laws to be reviewed so that the protection of victims, particularly women and girls, is given greater weight; condemns unacceptable court delays that leave victims waiting years for justice and undermine confidence in the system; calls for sufficient police numbers and resources to maintain visible, effective frontline policing, and believes that safe and cohesive communities depend on upholding the rule of law and ensuring that criminal behaviour has consequences.”

16:15

The Scottish Government’s motion will apparently build

“Stronger, Safer and Inclusive Communities”.

To be fair, I agree with the premise, as we all want people to feel safe in our towns, cities and communities. Where the Scottish Government is sadly misinformed, however, is in believing that warm, comforting words and a motion can resolve years of built-up tension in our society.

The motion before us lays it bare—it

“rejects attempts by the small minority of people who create fear, division and hostility within Scotland’s communities in person and online”.

The Scottish Government has to be clear about who it is referring to, because vague and unexplained criticisms do not bring people together; instead, they lead to disconnect, division and hostility. They create exactly the finger pointing that the Scottish Government claims that it wants to avoid. Instead of debating what we all want to achieve—which I think is clear—we should be debating how we achieve it.

In the previous parliamentary session, my colleague Pam Gosal brought forward proposals for a domestic abuse register. Is the Government considering that, to tackle violence against women?

Where is that in the motion? It is not clear. We are talking about various different people who are raising concerns about various different issues, but we should be debating how we achieve the differences that we want to make. That means perpetrators of serious crime not being released back into our communities prematurely under early release schemes. Our police officers need more support, not only to deal with workload pressures but to be visible, present and properly resourced on our streets. The Government needs a serious and credible plan to reduce the number of crimes involving sexual violence against women and girls.

I have spent a lot of time in the chamber over the years talking about the neglect that the SNP Government has imposed on communities such as mine in Central Scotland and Lothians West. We have seen the undermining of public services that are already under enormous pressure and which are clearly not working as they should. That typically happens in working-class communities, where people are struggling with the cost of living, childcare costs and the lack of good, skilled employment. Where is that reflected in the motion? Ministers cannot lecture communities about cohesion while failing to maintain the cohesion of the public services that those communities depend on.

I want to talk about two specific cases from my region, and I hope that they will give members an indication of why so many women do not feel safe in our communities. The first case relates to an individual, Robert Davie, who was found guilty of offences including rape, indecent assault and serious assault following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2024. Those offences took place against a woman in the Falkirk area over a period spanning the years 1994 to 2022—and that relates to some of what the minister said earlier about how violence against women and girls usually involves someone whom the woman might know. Robert Davie was sentenced to five years in prison and given an order for lifelong restriction. This is a man who has demonstrated that he is a real danger to women.

However, it is not always the case that women know who the perpetrators are. We also have the case of Muhammad Sheikhi. He was staying at the Cladhan hotel in Falkirk in 2025, when he targeted two women after they left two different nightclubs in the early hours of a Sunday morning. He was an illegal immigrant, and he sexually assaulted both women. He was subsequently arrested, jailed for four years and ultimately placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely, with an order preventing him from contacting the women for 10 years.

There remains a fundamental question about what happens next. If someone who is not entitled to remain in this country commits serious offences of that nature, the public—in my view, quite rightly—expects that individual to be denied permanent access to our country. People who commit serious offences involving violence against women and girls must face the most serious of consequences.

Those are two very different cases, but they have one thing in common: violence against women and girls. Standing here today, we must ask ourselves why women do not feel safe in our communities. Why do women feel the need to look over their shoulder when they are walking home at night? Why do young women have to think about whether it is safe to go out and enjoy themselves?

I also acknowledge the work that Katy Clark has undertaken in this area.

As many members across the chamber have outlined, I am deeply concerned about the decision that has been taken by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to proceed with the service changes, despite significant opposition from members of the public and concerns raised by the communities that we represent.

Cumbernauld fire station is crewed by two whole-time appliances, both of which are staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The conclusion of the review means that the second appliance at Cumbernauld fire station will instead operate on an on-call basis during evenings and weekends, with crews available remotely via a pager service. The proposed changes could lengthen the response times of the first and second appliances. I think that we can all agree that, in an emergency, every second matters. Any increase in response times could limit the ability of firefighters to reach incidents quickly, tackle fires effectively and carry out rescues in an incident. I believe that the changes have the potential to have a real impact on safety, not to mention on the firefighters, who are understandably concerned about their future as emergency responders.

There is currently a petition regarding the proposed changes at Cumbernauld fire station, which has already gathered 3,739 signatures. That demonstrates the strength of feeling within the community. However, Cumbernauld fire station does not solely service Cumbernauld. The station also provides cover for Moodiesburn, Chryston, Muirhead, Stepps and Kilsyth, all of which would have to be covered by just one appliance under the proposed changes.

The impact does not stop there. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s area would also be impacted. Last week, an appliance from Cumbernauld responded to a fire at a local business in Airdrie, alongside an appliance from Coatbridge. It is entirely foreseeable that, if the proposals go ahead, the uncertainty around the availability of on-call crews, combined with the possibility of other incidents taking place at the same time, might mean that appliances that could otherwise be deployed to incidents in Airdrie or elsewhere are simply not available. If that happens, response times will increase. That could lead to worse outcomes and, in the most serious circumstances, devastating consequences. I do not think that any one of us wants to be in a position where we have to come to the chamber with a question for the Scottish Government about something that has happened in spite of the fact that we already raised it in the chamber as a possibility.

We keep hearing from the Scottish Government that these are simply operational decisions for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but surely we have now reached the point where Scottish ministers must intervene. When decisions about the availability of emergency responders have the potential to impact public safety, the Scottish Government cannot shirk responsibility.

The Fire Brigades Union has been clear about its concerns that cuts to the fire service will mean a loss of emergency responders and a loss of equipment. When the chief fire officer tells us that there has been a real-terms reduction of around 18 per cent in the resource budget since 2013, we must ask whether those decisions can genuinely be viewed as purely operational matters.

We understand the issues that have been raised so far. Ben Macpherson was right to raise the issue of RAAC, which we all understand and want to be dealt with. However, there is a need for the Scottish Government to accept responsibility.

At the end of the day, the question that we need to ask ourselves as a Parliament is very simple: are we genuinely confident that the changes will maintain the level of fire and rescue service cover that our communities deserve? If the answer is no, the Scottish Government must use this opportunity and act now.

18:20

Last week, I asked whether Neil Gray was informed of the serious concerns raised by NHS Scotland Assure relating to the replacement Monklands hospital in March. Someone in the Scottish Government was informed and knew that the replacement project could not proceed. Can the First Minister tell Parliament who knew and why the announcement to delay the hospital was not made until after the election, given that it was clearly running two years behind schedule?

I, too, begin by welcoming Alyn Smith to his position and recognising the work that Ben Macpherson has done in this portfolio area. I was impressed by how quickly Alyn Smith reached out to my office for a discussion on his new portfolio, and I very much look forward to meeting him and his officials in due course. However, the new minister does not have his troubles to seek. We know that the sector is under increasing pressures at the moment, and it is time for the Scottish Government to show leadership in this field, not just to grow our economy and provide people with jobs, but to ensure that there are opportunities and a future for generations to come.

I wrote to the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 7 August on the back of the recent investigation by the Scottish Mail on Sunday, which reported that the Scottish Government was warned by national health service officials about several significant issues relating to the replacement Monklands hospital. That happened in March. Did the former health secretary know about NHS Scotland Assure’s concerns back in March while he was out campaigning for a new Monklands hospital in his Airdrie seat? Why is the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs letting the former Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care off the hook?

No, not just now.

Willie Rennie was right that we need long-term solutions, and that involves growing our economy, more investment and more jobs. James Adams was right to say that some policies that the Government announces will receive cross-party support but that there are also areas where the Scottish Government has promised families the world and failed to deliver. I am talking about the free stuff that is not actually free but paid for by taxpayers, such as laptops and bikes; and, now, there is the offer of a free school bag. I wish that the Scottish Government would divert its attention away from the props and focus on the back-office changes that need to happen to close the attainment gap or reduce in-work poverty—changes that could divert more resource to our classrooms, give working families more control over the money that they earn and help families to make the decisions that they believe are right for their children.

I appreciate that that would not necessarily grab the headlines, but governing is not always about grabbing the headlines—it is about results and meeting targets. The Scottish Government needs to stop focusing on propaganda and start using resources better by directing them towards the areas where they would be most valued and where we can make the greatest difference.

The Scottish Conservatives support the Lib Dem amendment because we understand the issues in the childcare sector. I hope that we can work cross-party on that, particularly in relation to the cross-boundary aspect, but also on what happens when families who have twins—or more—are looking for childcare.

If we are serious about tackling child poverty, we have to be serious about childcare and about growing our economy. It is not about what looks good in a press release—it is about what works for families.

16:35

Will the member take an intervention on that point?