Planning and Preparedness for Commonwealth Games 2026

1. During July and August 2026, the XXIII (23rd Edition) Commonwealth Games (the Games or CG 2026) will be delivered in Scotland under a markedly different governance and funding model from the Games hosted in Glasgow in 2014. These Games will be hosted at four venues across the Glasgow area. Responsibility for delivery, including safety and security at venues, sits with the privately constituted Games Organising Company (GOC), with no co-hosting agreement in place with the Scottish Government (SG). The SG has explicitly determined that the Games will be delivered at no cost to the public purse, with public sector organisations expected to recover all additional costs incurred.

2. The Games were last hosted in Scotland in 2014 (CG 2014) at which time, and in common with other SG sponsored events, a co-host agreement had been formulated and implemented several years prior. A co-host event agreement would commit SG to providing public resources and funding as safety and security arrangements for an event were set out on a multi-year planning horizon. In the absence of a co-host arrangement for CG 2026, SG signed a letter of assurance at Ministerial level that set out its support for the Games, but explicitly stated that while public sector organisations will support games delivery this should not be at the expense of the public purse.

3. For CG 2014, SG had overall responsibility for safety and security of the event, but delegated responsibility for its resourcing and implementation to Police Scotland. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), and prior to the establishment of that entity, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service, played a crucial role in providing layers of resilience for the Games safety via its arrangements for Command, Control and Coordination (C3). The CG 2026 are markedly different in that the GOC has responsibility for putting in place suitable arrangements for safety and security for the upcoming events that will be hosted across Glasgow. At the point of our inspection fieldwork there was no formal cost recovery plan that public services could reference and use to calculate and monetise the capacity that they would utilise in support of the Games. This is important to note, as the lack of this formal document has led to a level of discourse between the SFRS and the GOC whilst they sought to reach agreement on cost recovery for necessary C3 arrangements.

4. Within this context, HMFSI has inspected the planning and preparedness of the SFRS to assess whether appropriate arrangements are being put in place to safeguard public safety while maintaining Business as Usual (BAU) operational resilience. Our overall conclusion is that SFRS has approached planning for the Games in a robust, professional, risk-based, and proportionate manner. The Service has demonstrated strong governance, adaptability to respond to compressed planning horizons, experienced planning leadership, and a detailed understanding of both operational and reputational risk.

5. However, the inspection also identifies systemic risks arising from the Games delivery model, including delayed provision of critical planning information, prolonged negotiations over cost recovery, and a divergence in approach by the GOC to C3. These issues have required SFRS to continuously adapt its planning assumptions and introduce bespoke arrangements to protect operational resilience, while placing greater reliance on BAU arrangements and contingency measures than would normally be expected for an event of this profile.

6. Within the constraints imposed by the CG 2026 delivery model, we believe residual but manageable risk remains, and that this requires ongoing attention from senior Service planning personnel. HMFSI concludes that, subject to completion of outstanding actions, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is appropriately prepared for the Games.

Key Findings

7. HMFSI identified a number of areas where the SFRS has demonstrated notably good practice in planning and preparing for the CG 2026. These examples provide assurance for the Games and offer the opportunity for transferable learning for future nationally significant events.

Professional, Proportionate and Risk-Based Planning

8. The SFRS has approached Games planning in a measured and proportionate manner, aligned to the reduced scale of the 2026 Games while remaining cognisant of their national and international profile. Planning assumptions have been continuously revisited to reflect evolving information and external constraints, demonstrating organisational agility and sound professional judgement. The Service has avoided both over-planning and under-resourcing, instead focusing effort where risk and consequence are identified as being highest.

Strong Internal Governance and Clear Accountability

9. The governance arrangements established for CG 2026 planning are clear, structured and effective. The use of an internal Tactical Action Group (TAG), with senior officer oversight and escalation routes to the Strategic Leadership Team, provides appropriate assurance and decision making authority. Roles and responsibilities within the planning structure are well understood, and HMFSI found evidence of active challenge, scrutiny and senior ownership of risk.

Integrated Prevention, Protection and Preparedness Capability

10. The creation of the Prevention Directorate has delivered tangible benefits for major event planning. HMFSI observed improved alignment between civil contingencies planning, operational preparedness, as well as fire safety enforcement and audit activity. This integrated structure supports a more coherent view of risk and enables more collegiate and informed decision making, particularly where venue operations, temporary structures and changes in building use are concerned.

Comprehensive Risk Identification and Management

11. The SFRS has applied a high standard of risk management to CG 2026. The Games Risk Management Plan and associated Event Risk Register (ERR) are comprehensive, clearly structured, and actively managed. Each identified risk has an assigned owner and mitigation strategy, with oversight retained at TAG level. This demonstrates a mature approach to risk governance and assurance, particularly in the complex, multi-agency environment that the Service is operating within for CG 2026.

Mature Multi-Agency Working and Information Sharing

12. HMFSI observed strong professional relationships between SFRS and key partners, including Police Scotland (PS), the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS), Glasgow City Council (GCC) and venue operators. Information sharing arrangements are well-developed and reflect long-standing collaborative practice within the Glasgow area. These relationships have assisted SFRS in alleviating some of the planning constraints created by delayed or incomplete external agency documentation.

Experienced Planning Workforce and Organisational Memory

13. The SFRS planning team contains personnel with significant experience of delivering large scale and high-profile events, including the 2014 Commonwealth Games, UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) and recent international sporting and entertainment events. HMFSI found that lessons identified from previous events have been actively applied, with existing planning products adapted rather than recreated. This use of organisational memory supports efficiency, consistency and resilience under compressed planning timelines.

Commitment to Maintaining Business as Usual Resilience

14. Throughout planning for CG 2026, SFRS has maintained a clear focus on preserving BAU service delivery and national resilience capability. HMFSI found no evidence that Games planning has compromised statutory duties or operational readiness. This focus reflects appropriate professional appreciation and an understanding that public expectations of emergency service response remain unchanged during major events.

Constructive but Firm Engagement with External Stakeholders

15. HMFSI noted positively that the SFRS engaged constructively and, where appropriate, assertively, with the GOC on issues of cost recovery, C3 and operational assurance. The Service evidenced a willingness to adapt where reasonable, while clearly documenting residual risk where compromise was agreed. This approach reflects strong professional integrity and clarity around statutory responsibilities.

Reflective Approach and Openness to Scrutiny

16. The SFRS demonstrated a high degree of openness towards the inspection team of HMFSI throughout this inspection, providing unrestricted access to documentation, personnel and planning tools. The Service’s willingness to identify risks openly, rather than minimise or defer them, reflects a healthy learning culture and commitment to continuous improvement.

SFRS CG 2026 Ongoing Considerations

17. HMFSI makes the following observations of ongoing considerations to strengthen CG 2026 assurance and to inform future national event planning:

• The SFRS should formally review, and document lessons identified from CG 2026, with particular focus on C3 under a privately led delivery model; cost recovery mechanisms; and management of external agency information flows. This review should be shared with the SG and other event planning partners to inform future event governance.

• The SFRS should ensure that final confirmation of C3 staffing and escalation arrangements is completed and tested no later than six weeks prior to Games commencement, including contingency arrangements for concurrent incidents.

• The SFRS should finalise and implement its CG 2026 Communication and Engagement Strategy at the earliest opportunity, ensuring that all operational personnel understand expected roles and the BAU assumptions that will be in place for these Games; and, that communications messaging is consistent with SFRS risk assessments and CG 2026 C3 arrangements.

• The SFRS should ask the SG to consider developing a standardised national framework for public service support and cost recovery for privately delivered major events to reduce uncertainty around future cost recovery, and the risk this involves to organisational budgets.