Scotland's fire service 999 response times hit 10-year high
The Scottish government has increased the SFRS capital budget to £47m but there are calls for this to be increased to resolve issues with the ageing fleet and estate issues.
READ MORE:
A firefighters' union has also warned the service is "already on its knees" as proposals to close more than a dozen stations in Scotland is currently being considered.
The latest data outlines that responses to 999 calls have slowed almost every consecutive year between 2014 and 2024, including for calls where it was considered there was a high risk of casualty.
In 2014, it took an average of six minutes and 51 seconds for a 999 call to result in the fire service arriving on site. By 2024, this had increased to a median of eight minutes and 20 seconds – an increase of 21%.
There was a similar increase among cases classified as 'possible life risk incidents', meaning there was a high risk of encountering a casualty.
In 2014, it took a median of 7 minutes and 13 seconds for a 999 call to result in the fire service arriving on site. By 2024, this had increased to 8 minutes and 42 seconds – a 20% increase.
Scottish Tory MSP Sharon Dowey condemned the SNP's 'continual contempt' for the fire service and public safety, describing their cuts as 'an abject dereliction of duty'.
The party's community Safety spokesperson Ms Dowey MSP said: 'Our firefighters do an incredible job, but the SNP's savage and sustained budget cuts are putting public safety in jeopardy.
'It's little wonder that emergency response times have hit their slowest rate in ten years, when the nationalists have imposed a real terms cut of £57million and the number of firefighters has dropped by one thousand within a decade.
'On the SNP's watch, 18 fire stations have no running water, most fire engines are over 10 years old, and many stations are in poor condition with several set to be closed.
'Their continual contempt for our fire service and failure to maintain crucial firefighter numbers is an abject dereliction of duty which will almost certainly have resulted in lives being lost.
'It is crucial that SNP ministers step in now and urgently protect the public by giving the fire service the resources they desperately need.'
House fires have fallen to an all-time low and over the last two decades, deaths caused by fire have fallen from 89 to 42. The casualty rate has also dropped from 1,951 to 815.
However, in contrast, firefighters are dealing with more floods, wildfires and rescues.
Wildfire incident in Scotland. (Image: Peter Jolly) A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'We continue to support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) with substantial year-on-year budget increases that enable our firefighters to deliver a high standard of services and keep our communities safe.
"This year's Budget includes £412.2 million for SFRS – an increase of £18.8 million and Scotland continues to have more firefighters per capita than other parts of the UK.
'Whilst the deployment of SFRS resources is an operational matter for the Chief Fire Officer, their targeted approach to risk and allocation of resource overtook the focus given to response times some years ago - and the service continues to respond to every emergency incident with the appropriate level of resource.'
The SFRS has been contacted for comment.
The figures come as the SFRS is proposing the closure of up to 13 stations across Scotland, new arrangements for night and weekend cover at others and the permanent withdrawal of 10 appliances nationwide.
Five stations in Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Musselburgh could be shut down or merged.
The 23 options, being published on Wednesday, involve more than 30 fire stations in 14 local authority areas, and the service has warned that more change is likely in years to come.
The consultation will remain open for 10 weeks, with the SFRS saying it wants 'as many people as possible' to submit their views on the proposed changes.
The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) says the service is 'already on its knees' after a decade of what it calls real-terms cuts.
Responding to the proposals, FBU Scottish secretary John McKenzie previously said: 'Our members and the Scottish public have suffered more than enough cuts to the fire service.
'For over a decade, real-terms budget cuts have increased risks to public safety, with firefighter numbers slashed and response times increasing as a result.
'The service is already on its knees because of these cuts. That has led to increases in response times and when this time is lost, tragically lives will also be lost.
'This is unacceptable and any proposals to further compromise our service and public safety must be rejected."
The SFRS has said any changes would only be made if they ensured safety.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
MP calls for Ofcom probe after BBC uses GB News clip of Nigel Farage
In an edition of BBC News shown on Thursday, July 10, the corporation used footage shot by the alt-right GB News of Reform UK leader Farage on a boat trip in the Channel monitoring migrant crossings. Max Wilkinson, the LibDems' culture and media spokesperson at Westminster, has written to Melanie Dawes, the chief executive of watchdog Ofcom, urging her to open an investigation. READ MORE: 'Skewed': BBC slated for pushing small boat crossings as top Scottish story Wilkinson said in his letter to Dawes that he believes that the BBC breached section 5 of the Ofcom broadcasting code, which states that the corporation must not 'give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy'. The LibDem MP goes on: 'As I'm sure you are aware, numerous parliamentarians and media commentators have expressed concern that Britain's national broadcaster is currently giving disproportionate coverage to one political party, namely Reform. 'The BBC's weighting of Reform's reactions to national and international news is disproportionate to the small number of seats they hold in Parliament. 'It is in this context that I write to request your review of yesterday [Thursday] evening's broadcast. Yesterday afternoon, Nigel Farage's boat trip to the Channel was carried by GB News, amongst other outlets. I understand that the BBC was not originally one of those outlets. 'However, the BBC still carried Farage's comments for the 6 O'Clock News, clipping GB News' own broadcast for their programme. GB News went on a boat trip with Nigel Farage into the Channel, and the BBC used the footage (Image: GB News) 'My issue is not with the reuse of other broadcasters' material in and of itself but with the lengths gone to by the BBC to carry the voice of one politician, lengths that we imagine would not be proportionately extended to other political parties. 'However, I would also add that licence payers' money seems poorly spent on the BBC if that outlet is 'cutting and pasting' other broadcast outlets' content, rather than fulfilling its duties to research and report news independently and impartially.' Wilkinson claimed that the BBC were 'making special allowances' in order to feature Farage, warning that it risks 'delegitimising its platform; undermining its reputation for impartiality; and undercutting its commitment to providing a distinct, unbiased news service'. 'I am concerned that this approach blurs the lines between independent broadcast journalism and partisan political coverage,' he wrote. READ MORE: BBC issues correction after Scottish Government driving test claim 'It is for these reasons that I ask you to open an official investigation into this issue. I hope you will take appropriate action, should you agree that the BBC's due impartiality requirements have once again not been met.' The LibDems won 72 Westminster seats in the 2024 General Election, while Reform UK won five. However, Reform have more recently been polling above Labour and the Tories in UK-wide surveys. BBC guidelines say that both should be taken into account when deciding on the prominence to give any one party's views. The BBC News broadcast which sparked the complaint is not available on the corporation's iPlayer. Ofcom and the BBC have both been asked for comment.
Scotsman
10 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why betting it all on offshore wind is a high-risk strategy for Scotland
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Zonal pricing, on which a remarkable number of instant experts have emerged over the past 48 hours, was always illusory as a route to cheaper electricity for Scotland or anywhere else. Harken, however, to Dave Doogan MP who is apparently the SNP's spokesman on the economy at Westminster, who tweeted: '[Energy Secretary] Ed Miliband has ruled out zonal pricing in the UK… Labour will never stand up for the people of Scotland. We need independence.' To emphasise his point, Mr Doogan accompanied his tweet with a crude montage of Mr Miliband wearing a Union Jack pith helmet. At least nobody can accuse Dave of subtlety – only of abysmal ignorance, not least about his own party's position on the subject. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Like many others, myself included, SNP ministers went through a learning curve on zonal pricing. It took them a bit longer due to the obvious attraction of any claim that Scotland is being done down. The fact opposition has been led by Scottish interests was a problem for that approach, though nobody seems to have told Dave. The lesson from the debate over zonal electricity pricing may be that building more wind turbines far away from population centres is not a good idea (Picture: William Edwards) | AFP via Getty Images SNP confusion about zonal pricing The case made by SSE, Scottish Power, Scottish Renewables, trade unions and many others was not all that complicated. If generators of power in Scotland were obliged to sell for a lower wholesale price because of location, they were less likely to attract the large-scale investment required to build offshore windfarms in the first place. Or, as Kate Forbes MSP – she's your deputy leader, Dave – put it: 'Zonal pricing is going to be hugely challenging as we could end up in the position where we don't get industrial opportunities and consumers don't get lower bills.' Asked directly if he still supported zonal pricing, John Swinney – being a bit more sleekit – refused to say yea or nay. But the Scottish Government's silence yesterday was deafening. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While zonal pricing made headlines, there might have been greater significance elsewhere in Mr Miliband's statement on energy. The commitment to an overall review of wholesale pricing takes us to a starting point which should have been reached years ago. A coherent approach would have involved co-operation between Scottish and UK Governments, as well as the regulator Ofgem. None of that happened. The result is that we now have, particularly in Scotland, a catalogue of uncertainties, on which vast sums of money and dubious political assumptions depend. Zonal pricing would have added an additional uncertainty but taking it off the table does not mean the others have gone away. The need for reappraisal is urgent even if conclusions might be unpalatable. Importance of UK market I am a long-term supporter of renewable energy and when in government did my fair share to promote it. The Renewables Obligation was probably the most successful mechanism of its kind anywhere. Scotland was able to contribute disproportionately because of our onshore wind resource. But I also always argued for a balanced energy policy which is the crucial ingredient missing from current debate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The blithe assumption that Scottish interests are best served by unlimited reliance on offshore wind needs to be challenged and scrutinised before further commitments are made. Mr Doogan and his ilk would do well to remember that Scottish renewables generation is based on the premise that there is an eager and willing market in the rest of Britain. That market has to be competed for, rather than taken for granted as one crucial sentence about the forthcoming review made clear: 'Reformed national pricing will send a clearer upfront signal ahead of the point of investment decision about the relative system value of investing in different locations, which can be accurately priced into those investment decisions.' Roughly translated, this points towards generating power closer to areas of highest demand. Or, as Professor Dieter Helm – a genuine expert – put it: 'Perhaps the real lesson from the zonal pricing debate is that some of the wind generation should not have been built in the north of Scotland in the first place, and perhaps not more should be built there now.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad That possibility cannot be dismissed lightly. Until there is a far clearer picture about the future pattern of generation, to serve the interests of net zero and lower bills, how much sense does it make to behave as if no such uncertainty exists? Turning Scottish backs on nuclear? Offshore wind developments on the scale envisaged only make sense if there is access to markets. Otherwise, we end up with billions in 'constraint payments' to generators who can't generate. Pump-storage hydro can mitigate that problem (and please let's get on with it) but only in part. Rationally, how much does the market actually need? Large-scale offshore wind is just as feasible around other parts of the UK which are far closer to population centres. As I write (albeit on a sunny day), solar is providing a third of Britain's electricity, which would not have been foreseen even a few years ago. A quarter of our power is coming in via interconnectors while wind accounts for just 2.3 per cent. My instincts tell me that much of the ScotWind programme may never be built because lower cost alternatives will emerge. We need to speed up these projects and also ensure recognition of their particular importance to peripheral areas where this is a one-off economic opportunity. Ofgem won't do that so politicians must. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We must think again about whether it makes sense to run down gas or turn our Scottish backs on nuclear (in each case, the answer is 'no'). We still need a balanced energy policy in which Scottish renewables play a significant part.
The Herald Scotland
11 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scottish Greens at the crossroads – principle or pragmatism?
Fergus Ewing, the former SNP Minister, previously dismissed them as 'wine-bar revolutionaries'. To each and every taunt, Green politicians tend to respond with a gentle, faintly supercilious smile. Read More: In truth, the most fervent advocates of Greenery can occasionally seem a mite smug. Like religious adherents, they can sometimes give the impression that their path is the way to truth, while others are self-deluded. Only very occasionally, mind. And they mean well. They genuinely believe, as they set out in their 2024 election manifesto, that 'we are hurtling towards climate hell.' Such a conclusion tends to lessen the scope for nuanced politics. But, alongside that, there is also an intriguing conundrum confronting the Scottish Greens right now as they elect their next leaders and contemplate the pending Holyrood elections. Are they content to be, principally, a party of voluble protest? Or is there pragmatism too – an opportunity to cut deals with other parties, such as the SNP or Labour, in pursuit of interim Green objectives? As The Herald has ably chronicled, there are those in the party who argue that the Greens must present a fully radical agenda, who distrust Holyrood compromise, including the Bute House pact previously struck by the retiring leadership. Equally, though, there are prominent Greens who lampoon such talk as 'heroic Bolshevik insurgency' – which achieves precisely nothing for the people of Scotland. Politics is frequently a question of balancing principle, pragmatism and power. Just ask those Labour MPs who found it impossible to back their leader's demands for welfare cuts. Again, commonly, that balance becomes trickier as a party gains more salience. It is relatively easy to be pure of thought when what you say and do is immaterial. That tends to change when there is the prospect that your contribution could alter Parliamentary arithmetic, could advance or thwart legislation, could sustain or oust a government. Then you have to choose. To compromise. You have to acknowledge that you cannot implement every line of your manifesto. Not least because the people did not vote for you in sufficient numbers. Be clear. The Greens will not abandon principle. They will still, on occasion, sport that knowing smile. But perhaps they may once more seek a mandate to enter negotiations with others. Is that feasible? Are the Greens not burned by Humza Yousaf's abrupt decision as First Minister to end the Bute House pact and kick them out of government? Seems not. One senior source dismissed the notion that they were 'nursing some raw fury at the SNP.' I was told that there is a good 'transactional' relationship with Team Swinney, as evidenced by the negotiations over the Scottish Government budget. The Greens know that John Swinney does not share their overall outlook. For example, he believes firmly in pursuing GDP economic growth while they do not, insisting that was excluded from the Bute House deal. First Minister John Swinney (Image: PA) And, yes, perhaps the relationship with Nicola Sturgeon was deeper. She is arguably closer to the Green perspective. After all, in a lecture, she previously set out the concept of assessing 'well-being', rather than simply economic wealth. But it seems the Greens could still work with John Swinney, where necessary. There is, I was told, 'sufficient mutual trust and respect.' There could also be a deal with Labour, arithmetically. But core Labour policies might be problematic – not least their eager advocacy of nuclear power. For now, the SNP seem more likely partners. After all, both parties support Scottish independence. Albeit with differing degrees of vigour. Frankly, I do not believe that Green politicians get up in the morning with the first thought that they must end the Union. Their waking focus is on the environment and climate change. Still, the Greens insist that they back independence, placing it in the context of those environmental aims. They say that an independent Scotland would be better placed to alter energy policy and tackle the climate crisis. And there is another thought lurking at the back of Green minds. They note that John Swinney has faced a degree of internal SNP criticism from those who believe he is not sufficiently fervent in pursuing independence. One source suggested to me that this might present an opportunity for the Greens to highlight their independence credentials. Frankly, to prise votes from the SNP. However, as with Mr Swinney, it seems the Greens want to get away from discourse over the independence process. To build support instead for the proclaimed advantages of the notion. Again, though, the Greens will not shed their iconoclastic image. They will continue to position themselves as challenging the wealthy establishment. An opportunity to do that presents itself with President Trump's possible Scottish visit. Many leading politicians will be torn between mounting protests and arguing Scotland's interests, if given a chance. No such dilemma confronts the Greens – who will be firmly behind the barricades. But, still, there is the lure of pragmatism. I expect the Greens to enter the next Holyrood elections with a litany of claimed achievements and a taste of what more could be feasible, if they are granted influence. Always a degree of grandiloquence on the climate. But a focus on cutting costs for working families. Rent controls, free bus travel for young people, secured by the Greens in partnership with the SNP. This leadership election will determine who is primarily making that case. Patrick Harvie is standing down as co-convener. Lorna Slater is seeking re-election. As I write, MSPs Ross Greer and Gillian Mackay are also in the frame. Others may emerge. En passant, I should note that the winners will not necessarily be one woman, one man, as in the past. That reflects revised equality guidance. But political balance will still be at the core of this contest. What direction will the Scottish Greens pursue? And could it lead them back to shared power at Holyrood? Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC
