Hansard

As we come to the final stages of the debate, there can be no doubt that members are unified around working together to support our emergency services—not one member has said anything different. We do not often see members in the chamber agreeing with each other, but they have done that in this debate.

However, we should recognise that we are doing that in the comfort of the chamber. We find ourselves in a comfort zone here today, using words that, in many respects, come easy to us. We do not risk our lives every day when we come to work and do a job that we enjoy. We do not find ourselves in the position of having to seek counselling services because of the job that we do, although we might occasionally joke about that. We should recognise, though, that the debate that we are having here today relates to people who have to seek that kind of support. The position that we are in as we debate our emergency services is in marked contrast to the challenging situations that the people in the emergency services often find themselves in.

The tragic events in George Square last month and at the Clutha Vaults in 2013 certainly gave me a different perspective. I was in Glasgow on the very street where the bin lorry accident took place 15 minutes later, which gave me a different perspective on what happened. When the reports came through about a major incident, as well as having a sense of concern about the fact that there could be fatalities, I felt alarm because I did not know whether family members were involved. I think that all of us have similar concerns following such events.

The feeling about such incidents intensifies when they happen in a town or city that we are familiar with. There are momentary feelings of panic as we seek information about the movements of loved ones and make frantic calls. The emotions of first responders to major incidents are not like that, though, because their emotions are involved in using the professionalism and expertise that are available to them to deal with the incident. We should acknowledge the professionalism and training of such individuals, who are prepared to do anything. We know that first responders were on the scene almost immediately at the George Square and Clutha Vaults incidents, because there were many witnesses to that. We should also recognise again today that the first emergency workers to attend the Clutha Vaults and George Square incidents undoubtedly saved lives. We should acknowledge the role that they played and the challenges that they faced.

The work of emergency workers is carried out every day. There are no Christmas day or new year’s day holidays for the 24-hour-a-day services that are provided 365 days a year. All of those in the emergency services, whether firefighters, paramedics or police officers, provide a valuable service all year round. Every time they get a 999 call-out, they show the same proud professionalism that ensures that they deliver a good public service.

As well as recognising the emergency services who attended the events that I have referred to, I want to mention the members of the public who gave assistance. Many witness accounts of the events referred to members of the public giving comfort to the injured while trying to deal with the challenging scene that surrounded them. We should give them recognition for that. I also want to mention the church leaders who played a crucial role in comforting bereaved family members who had experienced severe trauma.

Like other members, I support the Government’s motion, but I think that members should also support Hugh Henry’s constructive amendment. Far too often, we have debates in Parliament on issues that need to be taken forward that just deliver “warm words”, as Hugh Henry said. Surely we as a Parliament should be looking at how we can learn from the experiences of individuals in the emergency services, who have so much to offer.

I appreciate the challenges that our various parliamentary committees and their members face, but surely the challenges that the Justice Committee faces are nothing in comparison with the challenges that our emergency services face. Surely we can look at ways to ensure that those individuals’ experiences are carefully considered so that they feel that we are making a difference.

I was first elected to the Parliament in 1999. I recall meeting during the first session fire officers who advised me that they were being targeted by youths lobbing bricks at them while they were attending 999 calls, and that adults with airguns were using the fire appliances for target practice. As a result of the experiences of those individuals, I lodged an amendment to a bill. Later, we passed the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, and in the following years we have passed a number of other pieces of legislation to protect our emergency services.

I would not have been able to bring forward those proposals if I had not heard from the fire officers who told me about the challenges that they faced. I also heard from paramedics, who told me about some of the challenges that they faced in Glasgow city centre. I was horrified to hear that people who had committed themselves to public service were being targeted. They have benefited from the legislation that the Parliament has come together to deliver, and many communities, including in the area that I represent, have benefited from the zero tolerance approach. Why can we not ensure that we give those individuals opportunities to amplify their concerns to our various committees?

This has been a good debate and it has been worthy of the Parliament. However, in the spirit of the newly elected First Minister’s comments about working together and co-operating, I ask the cabinet secretary to consider Hugh Henry’s amendment carefully and to give the emergency services opportunities to contribute to the Parliament.