Official Report 250KB pdf
We move to item 3 on the agenda, on the Fire Sprinklers in Residential Premises (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the witnesses on our first panel: John Blackwood, the secretary of the Scottish Association of Landlords; David Bookbinder, the policy and practice co-ordinator of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations; Alister McDonald, the deputy chief executive of Bield Housing Association; and Sandy Lorimer and Gary Black, the team leader and building control manager respectively of the Scottish Association of Building Standards Managers.
We support the principle that properties should be made safer. The Scottish Association of Landlords believes that every landlord has a duty to do that. However, the bill does not take every situation into account. The bill would affect all properties that have been licensed as houses in multiple occupation, so it does not take into account the wide range of fire risks in large HMOs and small HMOs. Technically, licensed HMOs are probably among the safest properties that exist.
The SFHA also considers that safety is of primary importance, especially where vulnerable people are concerned. However, the arguments for requiring the installation of sprinklers specifically in HMOs and sheltered housing are not convincing given the existing statistics and research. The recent Building Research Establishment study, which was published last month, suggests that there is a case for requiring fire sprinklers in care homes and large multistoreys but not necessarily in other types of building.
I have nothing to add to David Bookbinder's comments.
In general, the Scottish Association of Building Standards Managers supports the extension of the use of fire sprinkler systems as an additional measure to protect life and to reduce property damage. However, we are concerned that the bill might not be the best tool to enable that to happen.
As building control officers, we are seen as the guardians of health and safety within buildings. If the bill were to be enacted in its current form, our position might be compromised in the sense that, because much of that retro work would not necessarily be the subject of a warrant, we would not have any involvement in it. As such, although we see a lot of good in the proposals, we see the bill as the wrong vehicle for carrying them out.
Will you comment on the level of consultation that took place during the development of the bill? Was the consultation carried out reasonably well, or could it have been improved? Were your organisations properly consulted?
It is perhaps unfair for the SAL to comment on that because we only came into existence at the time when the consultation was issued. We were certainly not contacted, but I do not think that that is the fault of the member in charge of the bill. Since then, we have taken the time to meet Michael Matheson to discuss the issues with him one to one. I hope that we will be able to comment on that later.
On behalf of the SFHA, I have to hold up my hand and say that, although we were consulted during the first consultation two or three years ago, when a wide range of options was under consideration, we were unfortunately unable to prioritise our work to respond at the time. However, as John Blackwood has said on the SAL's behalf, we met Michael Matheson recently and found that helpful and constructive.
We have received evidence and submissions from various groups, including the City of Edinburgh Council, which argued that decisions to require the installation of sprinklers should be made on a case-by-case basis following a risk assessment. The council asserts:
We would support that view. Essentially, that reflects the findings of the Building Research Establishment report, which has been published in the past three weeks. That research has been under way for about two and a half years. It is serious and effective research, and its findings—to reiterate what David Bookbinder said—are that sprinklers would be effective in care homes and multistorey flats and that, in other circumstances, there should be case-by-case assessment. That third category is precisely what the City of Edinburgh Council is highlighting. We and the SFHA would support legislation based on factual evidence.
Do you feel that not enough was done in consultation to prove that point? Do you think that the bill is aimed at those who are at the lowest risk?
I think that the bill would have benefited from waiting for the outcome of that research, which was on the go when the bill was introduced some time ago.
I agree with that. Much of the evidence that we have provided to the committee is based on consultation with the City of Edinburgh Council, so I am well aware of the council's argument. It makes a valid point. As I have outlined in our written evidence, a three-bedroom ground-floor flat with a front and a back door would have the same requirement for a fire sprinkler system as a double-upper on a third and fourth floor, but surely there is a huge difference in the fire risk that is posed to those two properties.
Do you think that the criteria for risk assessment are not reflected accurately in the bill?
Yes; they are not accurately reflected in the bill.
Do Gary Black and Sandy Lorimer agree with that?
We agree with that.
In reading the research that has been undertaken, including the BRE paper that has just been referred to, the considerable work that has been done through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the work that the National Assembly for Wales has done, I have arrived at a rather mixed view. The piece of research with which I feel most comfortable—and I invite you to explain why I should not be comfortable with it—is that which Mr Matheson has provided concerning the 15 years' experience in Scottsdale, Arizona, where the change in building regulations has increased the number of houses that have sprinklers to more than half. There have been no deaths in the houses that have sprinklers but there has been a continuing pattern of deaths in those that do not have sprinklers.
I take the point that, if a fire sprinkler system were in place, one might not need to install special fire doors or whatever. However, that would mean a dramatic change to the current HMO licensing regime. There is a fundamental principle involved that it is far better to prevent fires and to deal with them in the early stages of detection than to wait for a fire sprinkler system to kick in. There is an argument for focusing attention on detection and measurement systems and preventive measures as opposed to on fire sprinkler systems. However, the fire service and some local authorities might be better placed to comment on that than we are. The argument is not clear-cut.
Do you accept that, although it is undoubted that those types of building have been subject to the most scrutiny and are rigorously licensed—all of which is good news—the fire services would say that the risk arises from the people who stay in the buildings and that the elderly, who are less mobile and who might be confused, and the socially and intellectually disadvantaged are at a substantially higher risk of creating a fire? Do you accept that it is the nature of the people who live in accommodation that perhaps leads the bill in a particular direction? Is that a legitimate point in response to what you have just said?
With due respect, many people who live in HMO accommodation are not disadvantaged in any of the ways that you suggest. They are a mobile and intelligent community who are looking for short-term accommodation on at least a six-monthly basis. They are a migrant population, especially in many of the big cities in Scotland, so yours was not a fair comment on all occupants of HMO properties; you would find the reality to be very different. However, I take the point that elderly people and those with certain disadvantages are at more of a disadvantage in general.
Are you qualifying what the fire service says when it suggests that people in those categories are 10 times more likely to be involved in a fire?
I accept the point that more vulnerable people are more likely to be involved in a fire, but it is not fair to tar all HMO properties with the same brush. That is an unfair way of considering HMO accommodation, which does not take into consideration the whole gamut. We are talking about three-bedroom properties that could be occupied by three professionals and you are comparing those to a large HMO that could house homeless people or be comprised of bed-sits.
Therefore, do you suggest that a minimum occupation level—a dozen or more, to give an arbitrary example—would be one criterion that might be worth considering?
I certainly think that that is worth considering. The overall principle is that sprinklers are useful in certain types of accommodation and I do not think that many people would argue with that. Local authorities are already insisting that sprinklers are installed in certain HMOs and we do not have an argument with that. The argument is about whether they should be installed in all HMOs, which is a different argument altogether.
Does any other witness want to supplement what Mr Blackwood has said?
In general, we pretty much support and agree with what has been said. I refer back to one of the initial points that you raised about greater flexibility in using sprinklers. As far as the Scottish Association of Building Standards Managers is concerned, it is certainly the case that, if you want to use innovative design, you can have large open spaces. The only problem with that is that HMOs would not generally fall under such design criteria, as such buildings try to make maximum use of space.
I would like clarification on what you said about bigger open spaces. It appears that one of the issues that arise in care homes is that, for fire purposes, individual residents are advised to shut their doors at night, although their preference is to keep them open. In terms of building control and design, would the presence of a fire sprinkler system make it safe for doors to be left open if other appropriate design measures had been taken?
I would not have thought so. The doors must be closed to prevent fires from spreading.
There is a slight misconception about that. It is widely assumed that, if you put sprinklers in, you can do away with other things. I see sprinklers as an additional tool to combat fire rather than being something that is installed instead of something else. Existing fire precautions have been well tried and tested and work very effectively. Sprinklers are additional to that, and that is why we support the bill.
I would like to focus on sheltered housing. The bill would compel new-build sheltered housing properties, but not existing ones, to have sprinklers. The Scottish Federation of Housing Association's written evidence highlights the issue about the definition of sheltered housing. It also points out that a lot of properties in that sphere are "ordinary houses" that have been adapted, rather than new-build houses. Are the bill's provisions on sheltered housing the right ones? If not, how could they be improved?
The bill does not get such provisions right, because its definition of sheltered housing does not follow building regulations. As my colleagues will confirm, sheltered housing is not a defined category within building regulations. Generally, a new sheltered housing development would be classified as a dwelling, which would therefore have to meet the same requirements as other dwellings. If a sheltered housing development is a block of flats, it will have fire protection thanks to the method of construction—it will have fire warning systems for the residents and suitable measures that allow for escape and evacuation in case of fire.
Under the definition of sheltered housing that is provided in the policy memorandum, any adaptation that would require a change of use of the building would become a warrantable subject that our members would have to consider.
So an adapted property would be treated like a new-build property.
The effect would be the same. If there is a change of use, the building becomes the subject of a warrant. We would then be able to consider any of the requirements under normal building regulations.
If the bill were to be passed, would it cause a problem for a requirement for sprinklers to be imposed on some sheltered housing but not on other such housing?
As I see it, if any sheltered housing has a fire sprinkler system, that is a benefit—it has to be a bonus to have such a system. Requiring sprinkler systems in new build is probably the most practical way of dealing with the issue because requiring the retrofit of all existing sheltered housing developments would cause enormous problems. The difficulty is that we would never reach the houses that cause the biggest problems. Any new build will have all the latest safeguards, anyway.
In essence, that approach would not be any different from the way in which smoke detectors were first included in the standards. A huge amount of properties now have smoke detectors fitted, and all conversions now have them fitted. The question is where we start from. We need an easily controllable system to be in place in local authorities so that, slowly but surely, stock is improved. The quick-fix solution that would be provided for by the bill would be fairly problematic, as most of my colleagues here would probably agree.
Requiring the retrofit of properties could be almost as damaging as it could be helpful. Bearing in mind what I said, members will recall that such retrofits would not necessarily require a warrant. If a retrofit did not have a warrant, there would be a blunderbuss effect, because everything would have to be done immediately. We would land up with uncontrolled installations, which could well sacrifice much of the work that had been done previously to provide fire safety measures. For example, firewalls and ceilings could be punctured and the separation between properties could be sacrificed, because pipes have to be taken through properties. In such uncontrolled installations, there are no checks on who does the work and how it is done. That is a weakness.
The definition of sheltered housing in the bill's policy memorandum, which is drawn from the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, is not, as far as I am aware, a definition that applies in building regulations. That is not terribly helpful to the bill's attempt to introduce sprinklers.
In questioning our visitors, Stewart Stevenson drew out some of the answers to questions on property types that I was hoping to ask.
That is our greatest concern about the policy. Large cities are a good example, because there are areas with large numbers of HMOs. We know from experience that the people who live in such areas are not necessarily students or disadvantaged people. Although those people take up a large proportion of HMOs, many of the people in HMOs are part of the migrant population They may be looking to move to a city to take up a new job, and are finding their feet and taking some time before they buy a property or relocate their families. A lot of tenants are in that position.
Your evidence says that you hear through the grapevine about landlords downsizing. Is your organisation going to carry out any research to substantiate the claims that you make?
We intend to do that. One of the issues is the fact that the licensing threshold came down to more than two families in October. It is still too early to tell what impact that will have on the market, but we are already seeing landlords who had five and six-bedroom properties—which came under the licensing regime a couple of years ago—selling up and downsizing. My greater concern is what will happen in the long term. Over the next couple of years, we will see the real impact that HMO licensing has had on housing supply. Any further complication with the costs involved in installing fire sprinklers is only going to exacerbate the potential problem that we envisage. Some of our members are either selling up completely or thinking about buying a smaller property that does not need to comply. That will not bring them as big an income as they had before, but they are prepared to do that.
I note the quotations that you included with your submission. Do your members or your organisation see sprinkler systems as an investment for the future rather than as a deterrent to your members continuing to be HMO landlords? Sprinkler systems might be an investment for the future that would attract people to their properties because of the added security that they would bring.
That would rely on landlords investing that money, and on their having that money to invest in the first place. The majority of landlords nowadays are different from landlords of 20 or 30 years ago. A lot of landlords subsidise their properties for investment purposes and see them as a pension plan. They will have a mortgage on a property and many other outgoings, and although they have rent coming in, that does not cover the outgoings in the majority of cases. As with any pension plan, landlords expect to spend £100 or £200 a month on their product, so to speak; therefore, they already subsidise their properties. They do so because they will make money in the long term through capital growth, and there is nothing to indicate that the installation of fire sprinkler systems would enhance the capital value of a property or entice tenants to it.
Although the financial memorandum says that it will cost around £1,000 to £1,500 to install fire sprinklers in each property, you estimate the cost at around £7,000, plus annual maintenance, which is quite a significant amount.
To be honest, I cannot say whether a sprinkler system would entice tenants or whether it would be a disincentive—the jury is out on that at the moment. I do not see why it would be a great advantage for a prospective tenant of a property. I do not think that they would say, "Oh, yes. It has fire sprinklers, so I am going to take it."
Does the Scottish Association of Landlords agree with the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, Queen Margaret University College and various other universities that the bill will have a marked effect on properties for rent and that, with fewer properties available, rental prices are likely to rise?
I think so. The long-term effect could be to place a burden on the availability of two-bedroom accommodation, which would not be licensable. If the bill goes through, such properties would not have to have fire sprinklers, which would mean that more people would be looking for smaller units rather than living in large households—they might live just with a friend or with a partner in a two-bedroom property. There would therefore be a greater demand for such property, which would raise prices and rents. That would be a long-term effect.
Yes—the £7,000.
In fairness, in my discussions with Michael Matheson about that, it was impossible to come up with an average cost for an HMO in Scotland. It is fair to say that none of us can do that. The only thing that we could do was to take two typical tenement properties in Edinburgh with nothing unusual about them and to go to the marketplace—which is what anybody would do—by asking fire sprinkler installers how much systems would cost for those properties. We provided floor plans and details of the streets, and those figures were what came back. I am not saying that the figure of around £7,000 is the average price for every HMO in Scotland; I am just saying that our figures show typical prices for typical properties in Edinburgh.
Is it an accurate estimate by today's standards?
Yes, it is. That is what we would be charged. I hasten to say that it would be more than that, because the firms went to great lengths to say, "Well, if we find something that we have to alter, the costs will go up." In addition, joinery and decoration costs are not included in the estimates, which is understandable.
I would like to develop the point about cost. I find myself quite astonished by your costs, because I happen to have had to replace all the central heating piping in my house—the mice were chewing through the plastic pipes. The pipes have been replaced with almost exactly the kind of piping that would be required when fitting a fire sprinkler system. The work has probably involved slightly more than twice as much piping as would be required for a sprinkler system, and I have paid just over £1,000 for work to a house that is larger than either of the properties on which your estimates are based. However, I should say that my house is of a different construction—it is a single-storey building with a very accessible roof void—so I understand that I am not comparing apples with apples.
I checked out the cost of additional pipe work. Quote 2 would involve substantially less pipe work than quote 1, but the difference in price between the two quotes is negligible. That is because quote 2 was for a mist sprinkler system. Although such systems are not covered by the bill, they do not require the same amount of water pressure in the tank—they require compressed cylinders to be installed instead. I gathered from both firms that gave us quotes that the installation price is dependent on the size of the rooms—in other words, the number of fire sprinkler heads that need to be installed—rather than on the amount of pipe work that is required.
But the sprinkler heads cost £10 each.
Both companies went to great lengths to say that the cost depends on whether the head that is installed is of the super-de-luxe type or of the cheap type.
I have seen them all; the more expensive ones are about £12.
When the companies told me that there was a difference in price, I said that we did not want the dear ones and that we just wanted what would be required to do the job.
So the costs in your submission are typical for properties for which the installation of a fire sprinkler system would pose a particular set of problems. They are not typical of the properties that the bill seeks to address.
I think that both quotes are typical. One is for a typical three-bedroom HMO in a second-floor tenement flat—I believe that a top-floor flat could have water-pressure problems, which would add to the cost. The other quote is for a typical four-bedroom HMO. Both firms that quoted would not comment on whether they might find that other pipe work required to be installed once they ripped up the floors. Their calculations were based on the square footage of the properties and on the streets in which they were located.
The SFHA does not have a detailed breakdown of the age and type of the almost 600 HMOs that are owned and managed by housing associations in Scotland, but it is fairly safe to assume that most of them are not new buildings. By their nature, they tend to be older houses and many of them are in tenements. They are almost always on more than one storey. That will inevitably have an influence on the costs of retrofitting.
Mr Blackwood has had more success in getting quotations than we had. In the four weeks since we attended the Finance Committee meeting, we have tried to get quotations. We tried to find out what the typical cost would be by asking for quotations on three types of building: a sheltered housing development, a care home and a house in multiple occupation. To date, we have been unable to get quotations because, surprisingly enough, firms are not falling over themselves to do this work. When we have that information, we will be happy to share it with the committee.
It might be appropriate for me to say that I have in front of me a list of five national associations and their telephone numbers. If this list is anything to go by, there appears to be an active industry out there, so I am slightly surprised by what you say. That is only an observation.
If that list is from the Residential Sprinkler Association, it is the same as the one that we used.
No, the Residential Sprinkler Association is only one of the five names that are on my list. However, let us pass on, as it may not be helpful to pursue that point.
Is David Bookbinder aware of any evidence to suggest that the HMOs and sheltered housing in Scotland that are owned and managed by registered social landlords have a greater or lesser incidence of fire?
No, that is a difficulty that all of us have had with the bill. As far as I am aware, the fire statistics that differentiate between different types of housing do not also look at the classification of different types of building.
I suppose that you could not give us the same sort of estimate for HMOs as you did for sheltered housing. What is your gut feeling about that?
I would be more hesitant about saying that I had a gut feeling about HMOs. Now that the mandatory licensing scheme has reached its final stage, I feel confident that fire standards will be much greater in licensed HMOs than they were five or 10 years ago. It is early days yet and, as members know, we are at the end of the final phase of the mandatory licensing scheme. My gut feeling is that licensed HMOs are very safe buildings.
I will address my question primarily to the Scottish Association of Building Standards Managers. What impact will the bill have on the work of building control departments across Scotland?
As the bill stands, it will not have a tremendous impact on building standards. The emphasis of the work is on the point at which there is a change in an HMO tenancy. Establishing who owns the property falls to the local authority—usually the environmental health or housing department—after which responsibility to enforce falls to the police and the Crown Office.
In relation to building control and building warrants, is it possible that, for technical or policy reasons or because of the way in which the building is situated or constructed, a HMO would not be given a building warrant for the installation of a fire sprinkler system?
As I said earlier, whether or not a warrant is required is debatable. Most of the work that is done under the bill in terms of retro-fitting a system would not necessarily require a building warrant. Only one section in the regulations, which concerns the fitness of materials, would apply. In most cases, people would not need to come for a warrant, which is the worrying part about the bill. As I said, the work that is done could be more detrimental than helpful.
To conclude what Sandy Lorimer said, and to return to the question, if the bill is passed in its current form, we would not have the level of control that we would like to have and which would offer the proper protection, for which building standards and building control were intended in the first place.
Given that the bill will require the installation of a sprinkler system in an HMO when there is a change of tenancy, how will local authorities monitor and enforce compliance with that requirement? Would that be particularly difficult?
I do not see how they could monitor that.
Such monitoring would make much more sense if it was done at the licensing stage when the building was being inspected.
One of the submissions mentioned legionnaire's disease as a bacteriological time bomb. Will the SABSM comment on that?
Legionnaire's disease is obviously a threat but, from the building control point of view, we have no experience of it. Obviously, it is never good to have stored, stagnant water in a pipe for a lengthy period. That would happen with sprinklers, but I would not like to comment on whether it would lead to legionnaire's disease.
Our environmental health colleagues throughout Scotland are better placed to answer that question.
Do you accept that the issue is about whether the person would be roused? If a person is vulnerable—a middle-aged man who has drunk too much and fallen asleep—he might not be aroused by a smoke alarm system. No one is setting one system against the other, but my understanding is that a sprinkler system would dilute toxic gases and, when damping down a fire that might take hold because the person has not responded to the warnings, it would help to increase their likelihood of survival.
That is not my sphere of expertise. The aim is to suppress and control the fire. Sprinkler systems were originally intended to preserve buildings but it has been found that modern sprinkler heads are so effective that, in many cases, they can control fires and can put out small fires. If a fire is put out, the toxic gases and smoke that kills will also stop.
My point is that one system does not militate against the benefits of the other.
No. The SABSM is firmly in favour of the use of sprinklers together with other systems to ensure that we reduce fire deaths.
I thank the panel very much for their attendance—this has been a useful evidence session. If there are points that you want to clarify after the meeting, the committee will be more than happy to hear from you.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our second panel of witnesses in our consideration of the Fire Sprinklers in Residential Premises (Scotland) Bill. We appreciate your being with us today. I welcome Michael Bitcon, fire-master, and Kenny Moran, community fire safety officer, who are from Fife fire and rescue service. I also welcome Glyn Evans, fire safety adviser, and Kenny Munro, regional safety adviser, from the Fire Brigades Union. As is our normal procedure, we will go through a number of questions, and if there are points that you feel you have not had the opportunity to develop fully we will be more than happy to hear from you after today's meeting.
The FBU supports the principle of the bill and, as we said in our submission, we are wholly behind Michael Matheson's proposals. To a certain extent, our concern is that the bill does not go far enough, but we see the proposals very much as a jumping-off point. The Scottish Parliament could, if it were so minded, introduce sprinklers and thereafter—as experience grows in the use of domestic and residential sprinklers in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—extend their use. We welcome and support the bill on that basis.
We also welcome and support the bill: we will support any measure that can save lives. I have been in the business for 36 years and have seen many incidents in which sprinklers would have been beneficial. I come from Lancashire, as you probably know, and the cotton mills down there always had sprinklers, which saved the cotton mills and people's lives. We support the bill.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of experience of fire death in the home. Generally, we walk away saying, "If only they had some form of protection." There is absolutely no doubt that sprinkler protection would reduce dramatically the number of people who lose their lives as a result of fire in the home. We take the same view as the FBU—we see the bill as a starting point. In this day and age, it is unacceptable that people are losing their lives as a result of fire. Much of the evidence suggests that sprinkler systems will dramatically reduce the number of deaths.
Is there any evidence that sprinkler systems provide protection to firefighters when they are tackling fires?
There is no doubt about that. Many people do not understand that a large proportion of the people who die in fires in the home die as a result of smoke inhalation: it is not actually the fire that kills them. Sprinkler systems have a number of advantages. Such a system is part of a toolbox—an engineered system—so an alarm would still be raised, but sprinkler systems are the only tools that actually intervene. Such a system would go a long way to extinguishing the fire long before it was allowed to take hold. The alarm would be raised, so people within the area would be alerted.
You might be aware that the Scottish Building Standards Advisory Committee's fire sub-committee has concluded that promotion of fire detection systems is more effective than installation of sprinkler systems. What is your view on that?
I tend to disagree. A detection system or an alarm tells you only that there is a problem; it does not do anything to assist people who are at risk—the elderly, children and people with disabilities—to get out of a building. Only fire suppression systems intervene to reduce the size of fires and the production of smoke. By doing so, such systems give people more time to escape.
Your initial question referred to firefighters' safety. The last two firefighters who died in a house fire were from Gwent in Wales. They were caught in a flash-over, which happens when gas and toxic fumes ignite with an inrush of air, usually as a result of a door or window being opened. In that instance, the flash-over was the result of the failure of a window: both firefighters were burned to death. There is no doubt that sprinklers would have prevented that from happening and that, in general, they offer the fire service a degree of protection.
Although I have listened to what you have said to my colleagues, I should point out that in the past three weeks the Building Research Establishment report entitled "Effectiveness of residential sprinklers" appears to reach the rather different conclusion that such systems are cost-effective only in residential care homes—I presume because of the residents' reduced mobility—and in buildings that are more than 11 storeys tall, which I presume is due to the reduced opportunities for vacating them. How do you respond to that recent research, which appears to suggest that there may be better ways of spending money on fire prevention?
First, the document to which you refer states clearly that the potential for life preservation is greatly enhanced if sprinkler systems are in place. On the cost-benefit analysis, I cannot come to terms with the fact that we are putting a price on people's lives. My brief is to ensure that no person in this country loses their life because of a fire and I will do everything possible to achieve that aim. I do not want to be drawn into the debate about the cost of sprinkler systems. I do not agree that they are expensive. I believe that, as society begins to accept the benefits of sprinkler systems, their cost will come down. I am also unconvinced about the criteria that were used in the cost-benefit analysis. I do not believe that the analysis went far enough or that its conclusions took into account many of the hidden costs. I do not believe that the costs to fire services or local authorities were fully considered.
Can I turn that around a little? If the amount of money that would be required to install sprinkler systems were made available to improve fire safety, could the money be spent in a better way that would deliver more? If not, would spending it on sprinkler systems be the single most effective way to spend it?
Other than fire suppression systems, I cannot think of any means that would enhance the life safety of persons in their homes if a fire were to occur as much as sprinkler systems would. Many of the fire safety facilities in buildings are designed to enhance the means of escape, to allow people to get out of a building if there is a fire. If the types of people about whom we are mainly concerned—the disabled, the elderly and the young—cannot use the means of escape, of what use is it to them? A sprinkler system or a fire suppression system reduces the volume of fires, affords people greater protection and, as Glyn Evans emphasised, gives greater opportunity for intervention by the fire services.
Can I just pick up on that point? First, I have the statistics in front of me to ensure that I cannot be accused later of misleading the committee. In response to a parliamentary question at Westminster, Mr Raynsford said in a written answer:
Can I just check: do you mean 155(F?
Yes, 155(F. Thank you for that—155(C would be rather hot. As I was saying, sprinklers have the potential to detect the fire, to suppress it and to hold it—even if they do not actually extinguish it—at a level that is almost not life threatening. The reason I say "almost not life threatening" is that fires push out smoke and fumes, which it is necessary to contain in a given area. Sprinklers will do a job, but they must be viewed in association with other measures. They are not a panacea for all ills, but they are a very good antidote to fire, let us say.
The BRE report, which came out very recently, has reached a conclusion that appears to be unhelpful to the progress of the bill. I suspect that it would be helpful to me and to other members if a critique of it were to be made available. We can only explore the matter to a certain extent in the time available to us now.
I do not actually see the report as being unhelpful. I would say that the BRE/FRS report supports Michael Matheson's conclusions about the premises that he wants the proposals in his bill to catch.
I do not view any of the expenditure under the bill as a cost; I view it as investment in saving people's lives and in society, given the effect and impact that fatality has on us all. It is an investment in buildings and other heritage, too. For me—and I will push this—the way forward is to protect people and society and to protect buildings and heritage. I do not think of that as a cost.
I have considerable sympathy with that view, but it is part of the job of committee members to put to you the arguments that other people have deployed, so that you can respond to them. I hope that you understand that.
I do, thank you.
Still on the subject of cost and investment, we heard from housing organisation witnesses earlier that sprinkler systems would provide most benefit in older properties, where they would be much more expensive to install. Is that an accurate reflection of the balance to be struck?
We were in the public gallery, listening to the earlier debate, which we found very interesting. Essentially, you are discussing the difference between new and existing buildings. Michael Matheson's bill deals with new buildings but, as I said earlier, that is only a jumping-off point. I have been in this business for 34 years and I think that what happened with smoke detectors provides a good analogy.
I am not convinced by the argument about cost. We install central heating systems, particularly in old buildings, without a perceived problem. There is a need to make the sprinkler systems as efficient as possible so that the maintenance and upkeep costs are driven down. However, the annual maintenance costs for central heating systems, which I consider to be more complex than sprinkler systems, are not prohibitive. The landlords' argument that the bill would put an unnecessary burden on rents is not sound.
I have a question for Kenny Moran and Mike Bitcon. The submission from the City of Edinburgh Council states that two Scottish Executive reports produced in March and June 2002
The evidence that has been gathered suggests that if a person lives in a house in multiple occupation, the potential fire risk is greater. As I said, the hazard is greater because the fire loading is greater, so the potential size of the fire is greater.
Are there statistics to prove that?
Yes. I ask Glyn Evans to comment on them, but my understanding is that a person is 10 times more likely to be involved in a fire if they live in a house in multiple occupation than if they live in their own home. We must bear in mind the fact that the typical volume of combustible materials in a small area gives the opportunity for rapid fire development, if a fire occurs.
When the Building (Scotland) Bill passed through the Parliament, did you propose an amendment that was rejected to the effect that fire sprinklers should be included?
I cannot comment on that.
Did any of the fire services suggest such an amendment to the bill?
Again, I cannot comment on that.
We produced a comprehensive paper on the Building (Scotland) Bill, but I cannot remember whether it included reference to what we would term fire suppression systems. At the time, we were more concerned about whether the bill was developing in line with the building regulations in England and Wales. In all honesty, I cannot remember whether we suggested an amendment on fire sprinklers or not. We submitted comprehensive comments on the bill and I appeared before the committee that was considering it in the Parliament's offices on George IV Bridge.
The Building (Scotland) Act 2003 is a specifically Scottish act and the City of Edinburgh Council is very satisfied with it.
They are certainly much better than they were, because they give us the opportunity to examine those buildings and to enhance the fire protection within them. We must look back at why the standards came about. I emphasise that we were investing for our future. The measures in the HMO regime have made things better and have increased the chance of survival for people in an HMO but, although they have enhanced the potential for escape, a huge hazard still exists. If a fire were to occur in one of those premises, there is no doubt that there is huge potential for loss of life.
I appreciate what you say, but acts of Parliament take time to come into effect. I am apprehensive about saying that a new act of Parliament is necessary less than a year after an act—which the City of Edinburgh Council says covers all aspects of fire safety—has been implemented. If fire sprinklers are so important, why did our legislators not include them in the 2003 act? That is my concern.
My long experience in the fire service has taught me that the more I learn about fire, the less I know. Just over 10 years ago, we went through the same process with smoke alarms. Why did people not campaign for smoke alarms then, given that we now consider them to be part and parcel of our everyday existence?
I want to develop the issue. Are you aware of the "High Occupancy Building Risk Assessment Toolkit", which I got from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website this morning? It is produced by the Home Office's fire and emergency planning directorate. The rankings in the toolkit show clearly that HMOs are at higher risk. In table C.5 in appendix C, it is concluded that a
If we need people to be brief, I will let them know.
Okay, boss.
I think that you can reasonably conclude that we would agree with it. As its name suggests, it is one of a number of toolkits that are available to fire authorities to use in determining risk factors. It tends to support the research programme on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers that BRE/FRS carried out. There might be a gut feeling in the fire services that that research did not go far enough but, as I explained earlier, that was based more on the fact that there was a lack of data to analyse than on anything else. In short, we know of the toolkit, we support it and we understand why it is there.
As we hear evidence, committee members must be becoming supporters of the argument that sprinkler systems save lives. I am concerned about some of the comments that we have heard this morning on whether new acts of Parliament would be needed to introduce sprinkler systems, at least in all domestic premises. I do not think that a new act of Parliament would be necessary, but we would need to change the 2003 act. We could probably do that through regulations; I could check that, but I am pretty confident that that is the case.
As I see it, if one was minded to legislate for sprinklers, there would be two ways to do so. It could be done through a separate bill, as Michael Matheson proposes, which would become an act and would amend the building regulations. The building regulations have already changed dramatically; the new regulations are due to come into force on 1 April 2005, when there will be a switch to what are termed functional requirements.
I note that in the FBU submission you recommend the inclusion in the bill of a range of other premises. Is the bill good enough? I accept that you said that it would be a start, but will we be missing the boat—or the fire engine—if we limit it to such a narrow focus? Should we be concentrating on other areas to provide the improvements that we are seeking, rather than focusing only on HMOs and care homes? Is there evidence to support the claim that lives are being lost in those premises to a much greater extent than they are in a range of other premises?
You are absolutely right: we have provided a list of types of premises that we feel ought to be caught by the bill on the basis of the risks that we know exist in them. We are reassured by the fact that the bill includes a provision for Scottish ministers to extend the range of premises caught by the bill. As I said before, it is a matter of considering where and how to start.
You are not reassured by the inclusion of that provision, because in paragraph 2.3 of your submission you say that you believe that it would take another tragedy before ministers would use the power provided. Given that comment, I do not believe that the union is reassured.
I understand what you are saying. We are trying to balance the probability of what is achievable against what we would like to see. We would like to see the bill cover the proposed range of premises as well as those listed in paragraph 3.1 of our submission. If that were too much too soon for the Scottish Parliament, the fall-back position would be the power that Scottish ministers would have, if the Parliament passed the bill, to extend later the range of premises that are covered. We believe that the Parliament should consider seriously including our suggested range of premises. The bill deals with new and converted premises, rather than existing buildings. We are not talking about a retrospective fit; we are talking about new or converted premises. If I remember correctly, Mr Black from the Scottish Association of Building Standards Managers said that, in real terms, dealing with the daily applications would not involve a huge work load; the applications would be one-offs.
The bill, as it stands, will certainly enhance the potential for life safety in HMOs and residential sheltered housing. However, I am looking at the stats for 2002-03. Of 84 deaths in Scotland, all but 13 were in the home. There are premises—people's homes—where people will still die. We are protecting only a small section of the community; we are not protecting everybody, which, ultimately, is what we should aspire to. In this day and age, it is socially unacceptable for somebody to lose their life in a fire in their home in Scotland. We should aspire to afford everybody the appropriate protection, and the best way to do that is through the installation of fire suppression systems.
Do you think that water pressure presents an issue for rural properties and older properties where the pressure is not good? Will the systems be able to work effectively?
Scottish Water has issues with guaranteeing the appropriate supplies. Work has to be done to overcome those problems, but I am not a technical expert on that. There are other fire suppression systems. I have been careful to refer to fire suppression systems, not domestic sprinkler systems, as other types of systems are being developed that may overcome some of the problems that are associated with water supplies for residential and domestic sprinkler systems. I do not think that they should be discounted.
Does the FBU have anything to add?
Yes. I would prefer you to direct the question to a sprinkler engineer, but I understand that the problem can be overcome by the use of tanks and pumps. In the same way that someone would have a hot water cylinder to supply their hot water—although that would be somewhat larger—they would have a tank to supply their sprinkler system.
Let us return to the submission from the City of Edinburgh Council, to which Mary Scanlon referred. It argues that decisions to require sprinklers should be made on a case-by-case basis following a risk assessment. Do you support that assertion? I assume that you do not. Can you tell us why?
We are protecting a premises, but the premises is only part of the risk. The risk is created by the individual in the premises. If we were going to risk assess, we would have to assess the type of person who was in the property. A risk assessment would have to be carried out every time the individual changed. That process would be intensely bureaucratic and a cost-benefit analysis would prove it to be very expensive.
It is the new and existing building situation, again. For existing buildings, the assessment could be done on a risk-by-risk basis, because the buildings would not be caught by the bill unless they were conversions, in which case a degree of refurbishment would be inherent anyway. If a building had not been used as a public building, it would have to be upgraded anyway to comply with building regulations.
Should the bill allow for the installation of alternative fire suppression systems, such as water mist systems, in addition to sprinklers?
I think that they should be considered. I know that a lot of work still has to be done in that area, but there is the potential for having nothing at all if we do not consider alternative systems. Technology moves on, and as long as the appropriate research and development is done, we should consider alternative systems to domestic and residential sprinklers. Mr Stevenson alluded to the problems with water supplies. It could be the case that water mist systems could overcome those problems; it would not be only in remote rural areas that the problems experienced in the city centres could be overcome.
I have a brief question for Michael Bitcon, the fire-master for Fife. I have been reading your submission, and I wonder whether you took into account the contents of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 before submitting your evidence. Is your evidence based on the contents of that act?
I cannot really comment on that. Possibly not, but I am not sure.
There is certainly no mention of that act.
Is there not?
I just wonder whether it has been taken into account.
I can answer that.
Kenny Moran did a lot of the work for me on that, so he is better placed to answer your question.
Our response is based largely on experience and on trying to get society to accept that there is a better way of preventing fire. It all boils down to creating a safer community. There are people from the building standards lobby who do not, as yet, appreciate the benefit of installing sprinkler systems. It is not only about saving life, although I have no doubt that a dramatic number of lives would be saved as a result of installing sprinkler systems. The number of injuries and the extent of injury would also be dramatically reduced, as would the amount of property damage. As Glyn Evans has said, the amount of fire damage to school property is increasing dramatically at the moment, and investment in sprinkler systems would reduce the huge financial burden on society that results from all those fires.
I do not disagree with anything that you say. However, as a parliamentarian, I have to consider the substantial evidence from Edinburgh, which tells me that there is no need for further legislation and that there is adequate provision in the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. I acknowledge what you say, but if you are saying that your evidence is not based on the provisions in that act, is it possible that there is no need for the proposed legislation on fire sprinklers? In other words, has City of Edinburgh Council got it right?
If the bill were not to be passed, I would like to see how many properties would be fitted with fire suppression systems in the area.
It is reasonable to say that the judgment that the committee must make must balance the evidence. We do not expect you to refute every other bit of evidence that comes before you. To be honest, part of the challenge of handling this bill is how compelling the arguments are on both sides.
In reply to Mrs Scanlon, there are two issues. She asked about the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. As I understand it, and this is the basis on which we commented, that act is an enabling act that changed the way in which Scotland conducts its business with regard to building applications. Under that act, the building (Scotland) regulations were proposed, which will come into effect in 2005. As of 1 April next year, those will be the building regulations. Supporting those are the technical standards.
I thank you very much for your attendance. Again, it was a useful session and there is a lot of information that we will have to reflect on at some length. As I said at the beginning, if there are particular points that you want to highlight further, we will be happy to hear from you.
Thank you, convener.
Following next week's meeting, the committee will be taking evidence from the Minister for Communities and Michael Matheson, the member in charge of the bill. It would be useful if we could have a short session in private to discuss the main issues at stage 1 of the bill to help the clerks with the draft report. Is it acceptable that we do that in private at the end of the next meeting?