 The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 15036 in the name of David Stewart on protecting frontline fire and rescue services. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak butters now as soon as possible. I call on Mr Stewart to open the debate. Mr Stewart, you have seven minutes or thereby please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I thank all the members who have stayed behind this evening to support the debate and those who have signed my motion as well. You have got my thanks. For those members who have not signed my motion, I am always a great believer in sinners that may repent in the future, so I am looking forward to a few sinners in the chamber this evening signing up at six o'clock. I expect, Presiding Officer, that there is not one person in the chamber today who underestimates the job that our firefighters do day after day responding to industrial disasters, terrorist attacks, flood responses, chemical spills, keeping our communities safe, both in the event of a fire and, of course, by their preventative work, which is vitally important as well, and their crucial role in attending road traffic accidents and much, much more besides. When the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was created, the Scottish Government gave a clear and categorical assurance to Parliament that the introduction of the single service would not result in the loss of front-line jobs. Yet on 28 April last year, chief officer Alasdair Hay advised the Justice Committee that the service and an effort to live within its budget had worked with the Fire Brigade Union to create a resource-based crewing model that would reduce the 3,890 whole-time firefighter posts to 3,709 reduction of 181 posts. The service had to reduce its cost base by £48.2 million in the first three years, a situation that was made much more difficult by not being that exempt, which I will touch on again in the future. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is the only fire and rescue service in the UK that pays that on goods and services, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service pays around £10 million per annum on that, which is equivalent to 350 firefighter posts. In November last year, the Fire Brigade Union submitted a written statement to the Justice Committee noting its grave concerns that budget cuts will have a detrimental impact on 999 response times. The union states that there has been a continual year-on-year reduction in the number of front-line firefighters since the decision to introduce a single fire and rescue service is taken in 2011 due to sustained periods of recruitment freezes. It states that there is now over 400 fewer full-time firefighters than there was in 2010 and almost 300 fewer than there was when the national service was introduced in 2013. However, we were assured by the Scottish ministers that that would not happen. The FBU claimed that unrelented pressure to save money is impacting on front-line services and states that these reductions have inevitably affected the staffing levels and the ability to adequately crew all the front-line fire appliances all the time. I understand, Presiding Officer, that a decision was taken by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to remove up to four front-line appliances each day, in part from the west service delivery area, which is firmly known as South Clyde Fire and Rescue Service. In January 2014, the decision was taken to reduce the number of fire control rooms in Scotland from eight to three, with the control rooms in Inverness, Aberdeen, Fife, Falkirk and Infries marked for closure, while Johnston, Edinburgh and, indeed, remain open. Together with my colleague Rhoda Grant, I fought hard against the closure of the Inverness control room, which services the Highlands and Islands. I know many of my Labour colleagues, and MSPs from across the chamber also fought against the closures in their respective areas. That decision still provokes controversy. It has been argued by some that control room staff are front-line staff, too, being the first point of contact for members of the public in an emergency situation. While we have been assured that technology is in place to save a lot of those closures to take place, I would ask about the loss of local knowledge built up by front-line staff. In my own region of the Highlands and Islands and the areas that members will know the size of Belgium, years as special as geographic and logistical knowledge has been built up by staff, that knowledge will soon be lost to the service in the Highlands and Islands, as the Inverness control room closes. The police control room at Bilston Glen, recently criticised in a watchdog report, was unable to take 999 calls for several hours last month due to technical difficulties in the early hours of the morning, which meant that 999 and 101 calls had to be delivered to other centres. It was fortunate that, on this occasion, no tragedies resulted. If a similar technical difficulty was to occur with fire, lives would almost certainly be lost. The FBU believes that the key motivation behind the creation of a single service was to protect and improve local services, and I am quoting, despite financial cuts by stopping duplication support services such as control rooms and not cutting front-line services. However, those front-line services have been cut in a bid to balance the books. Front-line fire numbers have reduced by around 10 per cent over the past five years. As the FBU states again, any further reductions of firefighters beyond that shall have an acceptable impact on public and firefighter safety and the ability to deliver the key benefits of reform, improve front-line incomes, equitable access to specialist resources and improve engagement with local authorities. In June last year, my Labour colleague Ian Murray, MP, delivered an amendment to the Scotland Bill to ensure a review of the controversy surrounding that liability for the fire service in Police Scotland. Those liabilities arose in the Government's reorganisation of both services. At the time, the Treasury explicitly advised the Scottish Government that its approach would mean the emergency service losing that refunds, but, to cite the warnings, the Government pressed ahead with reforms, costing Scotland's fire and police services— I am on the last minute, but, if the Presiding Officer allows, I will. Of course. I am very grateful to Mr Stewart for taking intervention at a late stage. I just want to ask Mr Stewart, does he not recognise that the Labour Party also supported the Government in the reform of police and fire services? I do appreciate that, at the time, there were issues around the long-term business case that members have made, but, indeed, the fact that the Labour Party supported the reforms, and therefore— Mr Stewart? That point is not in dispute. The point is to get the vat right. If I can just quote what my colleague Rhoda Grant wrote to the Treasury, and he said, in 2011—this is a Treasury official—the Scottish Government was explicitly advised of the potential consequence of changing from regional police forces to a single authority of part of the proposed revised funding model for Police Scotland. At the time they took the decision to make those reforms, they would have known that they were no longer eligible for vat refunds as a result. That was expensive, Presiding Officer, for £10 million a year. In the last few seconds, in my conclusion, it is clear that the job of Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is to keep our communities safe and safe lives. They need adequate resources to do that. We have a service of dedicated, skilled front-line staff. I include fire fighters and, of course, control room staff as well. I call on the Scottish Government to take immediate steps to protect the future of front-line firefighters and the services support staff. Do not just take my word for it. YouGav service showed that 82 per cent of respondents thought that the Fire and Rescue Service was doing a fantastic job. Please support those heroes in our fire services, and I ask the Government to look again at the model that they are currently carrying out. I move to open debate. Four-minute speeches. I call on Graham Pearson to be followed by Chris John-Alla. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me first begin by acknowledging that the current Minister was not in post at the time much of the arrangements came into play, and, to that extent, it might be helpful to share some of the experience of that time. There is no doubt that, from the outset, the Government knew that £10 million was to be paid in VAT. Although, unfortunately, there was no business plan provided and Ministers gave an assurance that that £10 million would be recovered at some time in the future, I think that we know, prior to that date, and our experience since, that that prediction was without any basis, in fact. Indeed, we are still no closer to having the VAT issue resolved today than we were a decade ago when this whole journey began. And, irrespective of that £10 million, the key issue that we deal with today is that we are aware of the pressures that exist on the fire service, and there is an unreasonable target set in terms of cuts, which ensure that not only do they need to pay the £10 million, but they need to find a way of replenishing savings from an ever-smalling baseline within which to make savings. As a result, the economies of scale have evaporated. The slimming down of so-called support services has been completed. We now have, as my colleague David Stewart alluded to, 400 fewer full-time firefighters now than existed in 2010. Indeed, within that number, there are 300 fewer since 2013. I am happy to. I thank the member for taking the division. First of all, I think that Mr Stewart said 350, and not 400. I don't know if I've got it or not. Is he really adding the VAT exam? Who does he blame for what's happening now? Does he blame the SNP Government or does he blame the Tory Conservative Government? Can I say that I don't enjoy the notion of who to blame? It's who's responsible, and the person who is responsible in this or the entity that is responsible here is very firmly the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has brought about a 20 per cent cut in the budget for the Scottish fire service, when indeed the global budget would suggest a cut of nearly 10 per cent would have been the kind of figure that was applied. That's before anybody takes account of the priority that one achieves in attaching to the fire service and what it does for us. In addition, the fire service has taken on additional work. It has responsibility for responding to cardiac arrests. It has a greater involvement in the terrorist threat and the response to the terrorist threat. It is involved in training in relation to climate change. It also engages in the junior firefighter schemes, which are so important to youth re-offending. They are involved in a great deal of fire inspections and enforcement. Rather than looking to blame someone, we don't blame the current minister. I think that we need some realism now from the entire Scottish establishment that says that if we have emergency services and these emergency services act on our behalf to save life, protect property and to provide a safer environment, we would ask, as David Stewart eloquently does in his motion, that the Government should review the current situation, realise the impact that it has on front-line services and, instead of adhering to political one-liners, adopt a realistic approach in acknowledging that we have gone too far and begin to support the fire service and the men and women who work in that service to ensure that they achieve what they want to do on our behalf, deliver a world-class service for Scotland and its communities. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Christian Alart before I by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you, President Officer. I did not sign the motion and I'm not repenting. I don't consider myself a sinner. For several reasons. One first reason is if David Stewart said 350, a few of five fighters, his motion says 300. Now we've got Graham Pearson who comes up and he says it's 400. So we've got to be factual first of all. What is it? There's one thing I know is that the fire chief, when he came in front of the Justice Committee, he said that the £10 million we are losing that Westminster are keeping, the Treasury is keeping in London, that will fund 350 firefighters. That I know, the free one second, if you remember the one second, it says 300, fewer, fewer firefighters on the motion, on the labour motion of Mr Stewart. The chief said we could have 300 firefighters. To my mind, the math is very easy, it's 50 firefighters extra it could fund. So we are a lot better when you think we are. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The figures that we're talking about here depends on the date that one measures the various establishments that we talk about in terms of the shortfall of firefighters. The key issue, would the member accept that it was always known in the business plan for what it was worth that £10 million would be paid in VAT because of the precedent that would be set if that rule was changed? Now I'm going to come to David Stewart, because he asked us, he tells us to repent and we are sinners. And then he tells us that one of the reasons is the VAT. I'm sorry, I've got the motion in front of me, no way does it say the VAT. How come? Is the VAT issue not important enough? When again the fire chief was asked by the Justice Committee, when he asked, you know, how big was the issue of the VAT? He said it was massive. That's a word he used, massive. But it's so massive that Labour, Mr Stewart and the Labour MSP do not put it in the motion. Fair enough, he did speak about it, but he knew at the time he wrote it, because we all knew this right from the start that there were a possibility that the UK Government, the Conservative UK Government will withdraw some money from Police Scotland and from the fire services, fire and rescue services. We knew that it could happen. We asked and we were very, very strong in asking not only the Scottish Government, but this Parliament, not only this Parliament, but the Justice Committee we asked and we are asking again to make sure we get that money back. So I can't understand where is the question when we're talking about a detrimental effect and how come is the Scottish Government to respond? Let's talk about the numbers of firefighters. You know, there is a new model, a new model for Scotland today. That new model that the fire services, the rescue services have, they have put a number to it. A number of whole-time firefighters is 3,709. As far as I know, we're still exceeding this. So again, I'll ask, you know, how come it's not in? And more importantly, in the VAT, what the two Labour members forgot to say is all the exemption that the Conservative, the Westminster Parliament are giving to other organisations. The firefighter service in Scotland, the fire and rescue service in Scotland is the only one fire service in all of the UK who has to pay for the VAT. It's ridiculous the number of the other organisations as the BBC, the Metropolitan Police, and of course, there are the Olympic Legacy Organisation and the Transport Agency Highways England, and both were granted VAT exemption after 2013. When Pat Winters, the chair of SFIRS board, wrote to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and every Scottish MP, the Roper I got was that all this regulation, an example organisation, but that SFIRS is not one of the exception organisations. Why? No reason was given. And as I said, presenting you for yourself, this is a massive issue. And if I can finish on something, it's to, maybe what I would have said is to say how much we've got, all the Chamber will support our firefighters. Particularly after the flooding, we are testing the people in Balata, the firefighters in Balata. What do we turn on all time in Balata, in Inverardy and across the Wynishire, doing a fantastic job. So, we've got my thank you. Thank you so much. Now I call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Mary Scanlon. Can I first apologise to you and the minister, because I'm due at a meeting of the cross party group on violence against women at 5.30, but I did want to speak in this debate. I congratulate Dave Stewart for introducing the motion, which gives us an opportunity to raise important issues on behalf of firefighters, who, as we all know, put their lives on the line every day, not out of heroism, but through an absolute commitment to their profession and our communities. I would also like to express support and respect for the Fire Brigades Union, not only for the great work that they do in this country, but for their ethos of international solidarity, as illustrated, for example, by their on-going work supporting the firefighters of Nablus. The least firefighters deserve is to feel that their service is supported, valued and prioritised, and I agree with Christian Allard that the VAT issue is important, but it cannot be used as an excuse for not addressing the problems highlighted in the motion. In the midst of the recent habit caused by Storm Desmond, the FBU issued a call for cuts to services to be halted, and they said that a significant reduction in firefighter numbers would hamper fire and rescue service responses to major events, as well as having an effect, obviously, on more routine work. We have dealt with the numbers that various people have, and, as Graham Pearson says, it is 400 down since 2010 and 300 since the thinkle service set up, and the result of that has been an increasing reliance on overtime and appliances being taken out of service, as Dave Stewart reminded us. Matt Rack, FBU General Secretary, put it this way. The Scottish Government told us that shifting to the single fire and rescue service would protect front-line services, but since then we have seen further cuts and job losses. Firefighters are proud to serve our communities, they want to be out there saving lives and making lives safer for people, but cuts on this scale inevitably undermine what we are trying to do. We have to address the problems. We can have different views about who is to blame, but that is not really the issue. The issue is highlighting the problems and the Government taking responsibility for this area, where they are clearly the responsible Government involved in action to address the problems. In a report to the Justice Committee, which has also been referred to by Dave Stewart, the FBU go in in more detail to some of the problems. It is not just the numbers of firefighters that they emphasise, they talk, for example, about the control room closures with fewer staff dealing with more calls and the increasing incidence response times, which leads them in that submission to call for national response standards. The increasing incidence times are obviously mainly related to reductions in personnel, but there is also an issue about lack of appropriate equipment. I was interested to read a report called response and resilience review of specialist equipment. That was presented to the City of Edinburgh Council, a committee of the City of Edinburgh Council, in February of last year. It was interesting to see and describe some of the problems with the equipment, some of it below an acceptable standard that we were told for a national fire and rescue service, and also an interesting point about inconsistencies in the type and standard of equipment across from our regional service areas. Of course, there will be positive advantages from the single service in dealing with some of those inconsistencies, so no one is saying that that in itself was a bad move, although it clearly has had unfortunate consequences in terms that have been highlighted during this debate. The other issue that comes out in that report is the significant training requirements. Again, if personnel numbers are being squeezed, it is difficult to find the necessary time for that. Those are important issues that need to be brought forward. I congratulate Dave Stewart for doing that. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that five fires are equipped, resourced and valued. I support the motion that Dave Stewart introduced. Once again, I apologise for having to leave, but the Speaker at 5.30 is the Minister's boss, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, so I am sure that he will forgive me for going to that meeting. I congratulate David Stewart for securing this debate, and I would say that I am not going to argue over the figures. I was not entirely sure about the figures, but I supported the motion in order to allow us to have a full discussion in the chamber, as there are clear issues with the single fire and rescue service. It used to be that water was the solution for a fireman. It now seems that water is the problem. We should not talk about firefighters because this is a fire and rescue service, and I commend each and every one, man and woman, who came to the rescue in Inverury, Ballater and elsewhere in Scotland. I correct my colleagues and talk about fire and rescue. They are not just there to put out fires. I say to Christian Allard who is at fault. Graham Pearson was right to knock that one down. No, I am not taking intervention. I suggest that Christian Allard read the Audit Scotland report. He would see the figures in the Audit Scotland, which have in fact been acknowledged by his own Government. Then he would not need to argue, but very quickly. I just wanted to ask. The member said that she signed the motion of Mr Stewart. Had the VAT been on the motion, would she have signed? The VAT was well known before the police merged and it was well known before the fire and rescue service merged. I gave you my explanation about the number of firefighters that you were arguing about, and I have no more to say, but I think that it is appropriate to have this issue addressed today. I just say in my role in the Audit Committee that we have looked at the fire and rescue service and at the same time that they are trying to make substantial savings. The key message in May last year from Audit Scotland was that the fire and rescue service did not have a long-term financial strategy. That is urgently required and there is a potential funding gap of £42.7 million. Forget the VAT, let us look at the realistic state that we are in. Given that last year staff costs amounted to 79 per cent of the budgeted gross expenditure, it is understandable that the Fire Brigades Union staff and fire and rescue service are concerned that the service has to consider more serious front-line cuts in order to address the significant funding gap. There is a 31 per cent real terms fall in the budget from 2012 to 2020, so who is responsible for that? I think that you should know, Mr Rallard. The net savings expected up to 2027 is £328 million. It is all in the Audit Scotland report. When the chair and the chief officer of the fire and rescue service came to the audit, I spoke about retained firefighters and David Stewart will understand that in the Highlands we have a higher number of retained and voluntary firefighters than anywhere else in Scotland. Vacancies of more than 30 per cent and of the three around Inverness were highlighted at the time. The retained firefighters wages and conditions of service was set up in the 1950s. Pat Waters and Alasdair Hay promised that they would review the service, given that people have to give a commitment of 90 hours to 120. They would come back to the audit committee by November and were still waiting, but I see the minister saying that it's been done. I certainly haven't heard about it and it was me that asked about it. This is an opportunity to look forward for the fire service, but now that I've criticised them, I'd like to commend them on the initiatives taken with the Highlands and Islands airports to look at staff firefighters at the airport, qualified to work as retained duty firefighters and another success in Loch Inver, where the station had significant problems in maintaining crew numbers and, after an extensive local consultation, 12 potential new entrants came forward. It would take too long to look at all the vacancies throughout the Highlands, but if the exercise can be done in Loch Inver, it can also be done in places such as Betty Hill, Bonnerbridge, Bucky, Canoch, Forrest, Grantown and many others that all have between five and ten vacancies. That's becoming a serious, serious level. As we approach the third anniversary of the single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, I want to put on the record my absolute respect and admiration for every person at the front line and every member of staff, and I think that they have to be commended for the wonderful, fabulous work that they did recently in a very sensitive manner, if I may say, throughout areas of Scotland affected by flooding. Thank you very much. I now call on Leslie Brennan after which we'll move to closing speech from the minister. Four minutes or thereby please. Thank you Presiding Officer. I just wanted to make a couple of points. It was really good that Dave was able to secure this debate today. I think obviously the huge budget cuts facing the fire brigade and at the same time the increasing demand, the demographic demand with older people and we've seen that with successful campaigns such as the sloppy slippers campaign where older people swap their old slippers or new slippers to try to minimise falls and flooding, but also at one of the local community planning partnerships that I attended in Dundee, the Fire and Rescue Service representative there had mentioned increasing demand due to welfare reform. You've got three different aspects that are increasing demand by the same time they're facing shrinking budgets. I was just going to echo what Mary Scanlon had said about the Audit Scotland report that was published last year and it reveals a £43 million cut. 80 per cent of their revenue budget is on staff. I thank very much the member for taking the division. First of all, I would congratulate her to have two debates on the same time the red and species afternoon now on every debate. No, just a question. She congratulated Mary Scanlon and I'm a bit confused. It seems to be very an alliance between the Conservatives and Labour on that particular motion. Does she think that it's strange that the VAT was not put in the motion? Is it to get the backing of the Conservatives? I was reiterating what Mary Scanlon had said about the Audit Scotland report, so I'm not even discussing about the VAT. I think that the £43 million is the main issue. It's the Scottish Government responsible for the £43 million cut. The FBU has estimated that they've seen a reduction in £449 fire and rescue services, which is a 6 per cent cut. When we're looking at increasing demands, the concern is that, when they're going to be more stretched, prevention then goes down on the list. That's what I want to raise. My concern is that the budgets are shrinking, but they're facing increasing demands. May I begin by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with the praise for the men and women of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that we have heard in the staff meeting speeches from all members. I know that there will be differences of opinion that I'll probably cover in the rest of the debate, but I'd certainly welcome the strong and heartfelt support across the chamber for the very hardworking and very brave men and women of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Members will be aware that reform of Scotland's fire and rescue services was proposed by this Government and Parliament agreed the Police and Fire Reform Bill back in June 2012, a position that was supported by the Labour Party. I don't make that point to cause rancor in the chamber, but it is important in the context of the VAT issue. I think that we all knew in the chamber that VAT would be an issue, and yet other parties, not necessarily all parties, supported the bill. I'll just make that as a factual point. What are the aims of fire reform was, of course, to protect and improve local services. The VAT was an issue long before the Scottish Government proposed the merger of the Police Service and the Fire and Rescue Service, so that it should have been sorted out and accommodated for, rather than complaining about it three years later. I was making a slightly different point in truth. It was just to say that, collectively, we were all aware of this issue. It's not a surprise to accept that, but equally, parties did support the bill knowing that VAT would be an issue. To be fair, I think that all parties were aware that we were contesting that issue throughout, and that's not to criticise Ms Scanlon, but it's just to say that it's a nature of the debate. One of the key aims of fire reform was to protect and improve local services, despite financial cuts that we faced as a Government. I do, again for the record, point out that, while Blame has been a portion around the chamber, we would not perhaps be in the situation that we are, but for the funding squeeze that we all face at this moment in time, which necessitated difficult choices being made. However, we wanted to stop duplication and improve front-line outcomes. The point that we make during the debate is that the fire service has taken a disproportionate amount of cuts in their particular service. Had it been cuts across the board of a similar level, they wouldn't have faced the cutbacks that they currently face. I understand the point that the member is making, but we have a period of over 10 years as a continued reduction in the number of firefighters in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services and the legacy services, so there has been a long-running issue. However, one of the objectives of reform was, of course, to try and remove duplication and to try and take out costs where they could be taken out and to try and protect front-line firefighters' jobs, indeed. I just want to say in connection to that, and I don't want to get into semantics, but just to say that the commitment that was given to protecting front-line services is not front-line jobs, but clearly all of us had in mind trying to protect front-line jobs as best we could in the reforms. Three years have passed, and after the creation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the Scottish Government continues its commitment to the aims of reform, but despite the UK Government's continued approach to austerity, the Scottish Government has protected the SFRS revenue budget in cash terms as part of the forthcoming 2016-17 budget. Should that be approved by Parliament, this is an outcome that the services chief officer, Alasdair Hay, described as being manageable and not necessarily desirable, and I accept that but manageable, and one that will enable SFRS to continue to play a vital role in protecting our communities. The Scottish Government, for its part, has consistently argued for an alternative to UK Government's austerity measures, and I would like to repeat the assurance that we remain committed to investing in Scotland's infrastructure and public services. If I can make some progress, I will bring the member back in. I would also remind the chamber that SFRS is the only, as Christian Lard said, the only fire service in the United Kingdom that is unable to recover VAT. I know that we have covered that extensively in the debate, but it is liable for an annual cost currently slightly in excess of £10 million per annum, and HM Treasury has rejected our repeated request for SFRS to be able to recover VAT. Indeed, the Deputy First Minister raised this issue with the chief secretary again a little over a week ago, and this place is unnecessary additional financial pressure on the service at a time when our financial resources are already stretched. I would just say in aggregate that, over the period that Audit Scotland looked at, the funding gap, as it put it of £43 million that Leslie Brennan referred to, and I congratulate on our speech. I am not sure if it is the maiden speech or not, but welcome to the chamber, Leslie Brennan, and I look forward to debating with you over the months ahead. However, the financial resources are stretched, and if you take that £10.3 million over a number of years, it is a substantial way to plug in the £43 million gap. I will bring in Mary Scanlon, if she wishes to. I was just going to say that the £43 million gap, according to Audit Scotland, there are no protected areas, so you are not even protecting the front line services according to Audit Scotland, which has been confirmed by ministers. Can you now tell us if the long-term financial strategy that the Auditor General said was urgently needed last May, is that now in place? The long-term financial strategy is under development by the Fire and Rescue Service. It is a matter for the Fire and Rescue Service. It is responding positively to Audit Scotland's report. It is worth bearing in mind, from a sedentary position, to remind Mary Scanlon that, as I say, the SFRS has delivered the savings expected, and they continue to respond very effectively to everything that is asked of them. The chief officer described the 2016-17 budget as a manageable settlement. However, I reiterate the point that the Fire and Rescue Service is delivering the long-term financial strategy that is asked of them, and they will see that in the course of the forthcoming year, alongside a revised framework for the Fire and Rescue Services. Despite all the pressures, the creation of a single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been a success. We are moving sight of that here today. There has never been a single occasion since the inception of the service that I am aware of, where it has not responded with the required resources to an incident, and that will continue. We need to only look at the very recent extreme weather events, as members have indicated, to find examples of where the SFRS has been able to strategically position and mobilise its resources across the entire country, according to rapidly changing risk and demand, without wrangling over whose resources are used and how this money is recovered between different legacy areas. That is extremely important. The service was able to pre-deploy water rescue teams from Inverness, Elgin, Perth, Dundee, Sterling and Motherwell to where they were most needed in the north, in communities such as Ballot or that Christian Allard referred to, and assisted with hundreds of evacuations and rescues. I very much welcome the warm comments that members have said today. However, I am of course grateful for the deployment in my own region, in the south of Scotland, in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, as well. I saw a witness for myself and did crews from Edinburgh, and I believe Wes Lodian, who came down to help out in Hawick and other communities in the Borders. The speed and efficiency of the service's response, under the most challenging of conditions, is an excellent demonstration of how the single service has delivered real and meaningful benefits to communities across Scotland. Indeed, the newly refurbished control room at Tall Cross worked highly effectively both during Storm Desmond and Storm Frank, so we can be confident that the team there is highly experienced. Just to reiterate that teams have been redeployed, there have been no compulsory redundancies in the control room closures to date, and staff from Fife have been redeployed down into the control room in Tall Cross to bring that front-line experience that members refer to into being in the new control room arrangements. This is also a testament to SFRS's hard work to protect and de-enhance its own front-line resources in the face of financial pressure. It has invested significantly in new equipment across the country, including state-of-the-art appliances, and rural communities in Fife, Highlands and Dumfries and Galloway have all benefited significantly from that. I recognise the point that Mary Scanlon made about the retained duty system. It is clearly an area that we both share and are interested in. We have discussed previously the review that is on-going under the fine rescue service. I hope that it will conclude after the parliamentary election, but it will conclude in the near future and give us some clear messages about the future shape of RDS. We will respond as positively as we can to those recommendations. However, the work of our retained duty system has also enhanced if we can work collectively to persuade employers to make their staff available for retained duty positions. Quite often, the funding is in place, but it is difficult to obtain recruits to fill the vacancies. That is a key issue that we all look to try to address. The fine rescue service and the fire brigade union have agreed an operating model, as has been referred to by members. Christian Larr is quite right. The figure that I understand in November was 3,748 firefighters, so it is slightly above the model figure. However, not only does the service currently have more than that figure, it has also undertaken targeted recruitment campaigns and agreed an interim mobility policy with the fire brigade union, which allows firefighters to be moved to locations should it be required, particularly targeting recruitment problems in the north, in Aberdeen, and to try to fill gaps in the process. The benefits of reform are apparent. Last May, a report from Audit Scotland confirmed a number of things. The fire reform process has been effectively managed. SFRS has maintained effective local engagement with the communities during the reform process. The creation of SFRS has had no impact on the public and its performance is improving. Furthermore, it will be difficult to argue that the creation of a single service has resulted in a reduction to front-line services when SFRS firefighters are currently involved in a national trial that aims to increase survival rates of patients who suffer out of hospital cardiac arrest. There is just one of several ways in which the fire and rescue service is evolving. I welcome members' comments on that evolving role that the service is playing. I think that our colleagues in the fire and rescue service deserve our full sum praise. I do accept that there are political differences that we have today, but I do welcome the United Front for showing and praising our firefighters. I will finish if I may. I am conscious of time with a quote from the chief inspector, a recently retired chief inspector of our majesty's fire service inspector, who at the Justice Committee in April last year said that, if eight fire and rescue services and a college had been trying to find nearly £50 million of savings, what would the situation have been? He ended by saying that, in his judgment, we would have been in a far worse position than we are in. The Scottish fire and rescue service has done a pretty remarkable job of bringing in the reform, maintaining business as usual and making progress. I thank them. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Thank you all for taking part in this surprisingly inflammatory debate. I now close this meeting of Parliament.