Plenary, 04 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004

Official Report 379KB pdf

---

Rosepark Care Home

The next item of business is a statement by Cathy Jamieson on the fatal fire at Rosepark care home. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions.

It is with deep sadness that I report on the tragic events that took place at Rosepark care home in Uddingston, early on the morning of Saturday 31 January. Before I do so, I say first that our thoughts, of course, must be with the families of those who died and were injured as a result of the fire. I know that members will want me to record the fact that our deepest sympathies are with all of them at this time.

The tragedy is one for the whole community in Lanarkshire and now is a time of great sensitivity for the bereaved, their families and the other residents and staff of Rosepark care home. I know that we will all want to conduct our discussions today on the basis of shared sympathy and respect for all those who have been affected.

Members will be aware that an investigation into the fire is now under way, and I hope that they will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the possible causes. However, I will take a few moments to state the facts as we currently understand them.

At 4.37 am on Saturday morning, a 999 call was received by Strathclyde fire brigade, which reported smoke from a lift area at Rosepark care home and requested fire crews to attend. An immediate mobilisation call was made to Bellshill fire station, which is about three quarters of a mile from the care home. The first appliance arrived within four minutes of being mobilised and a second appliance, which was mobilised from Hamilton, arrived in just over eight minutes.

Rosepark care home has two floors. Staff had begun to alert and gather together residents on the lower floor. It was apparent to the firefighters that residents required to be evacuated immediately and that access and rescue would require the use of breathing apparatus teams. In all, four teams were involved. Over the next 40 minutes, a number of residents and members of staff were rescued or were led from the building.

Strathclyde police were given a preliminary alert by the fire brigade at 4.39 am—such alerts ensure that the police are aware of all incidents in their area. At 4.50 am, the fire service officer who was in attendance at Rosepark advised his control room that people were affected by the fire. On receipt of that message, the fire control room staff alerted the Scottish Ambulance Service at 4.51 am and gave the additional information to the police at 4.52 am. The police and ambulance service attended and all three emergency services then worked together at the scene.

Police responsibilities at such incidents include identifying casualties and informing next of kin. That was a major exercise, but I understand that Strathclyde police completed the task of informing the next of kin of those who were immediately affected by 6 pm on Saturday.

Forensic examination of the scene began almost immediately. Ten people were found to have died at the scene of the fire and four people have subsequently died. I pay tribute to the work of our emergency services and North Lanarkshire Council. This has been a difficult time for them, the residents and staff of the care home and the families of those who have been affected.

I should add that the home was registered with the care commission under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 and had been subject to statutory inspections on 20 March 2003 and on 17 November 2003. A further statutory inspection was scheduled for 24 February. No concerns were identified in the earlier inspections about the systems that were in place—including fire precautions—to protect the safety of residents. The fire brigade also carried out a familiarisation visit to the home in July 2003 as part of its duty to ensure that it would be able to respond operationally to reported incidents at the home, as–sadly—it was obliged to do on 31 January.

Members might find it helpful to have an explanation of how investigations of such tragedies proceed. Responsibility for directing the investigation into the incident lies with the area procurator fiscal, to whom the police will report. The procurator fiscal will be concerned with the cause of the fire and the adequacy of the response to it. He will also be required to establish whether there are any grounds for considering criminal proceedings in relation to what took place. I am not making any prejudgment but am offering the factual steps of the process, and in the investigation of any deaths the question of whether any criminal offence has been committed must be investigated carefully. The procurator fiscal's report will be sent to the Crown Office. Members will understand that a decision whether to initiate a prosecution is one for the Lord Advocate to make independently.

The Lord Advocate is also responsible for the investigation of sudden, suspicious or unexplained deaths in Scotland. It is for the Lord Advocate to determine whether a fatal accident inquiry should be held into the circumstances of the deaths. A fatal accident inquiry is a public inquiry that is held before a sheriff or sheriff principal. It has the full powers of a court and a wide remit to examine the circumstances of deaths and whether steps might have been taken to avoid them. In the case of the Rosepark fire, the investigations of the police and the fire service are not yet complete. It is our responsibility not to jump to conclusions at this stage, in advance of any necessary inquiry or legal proceedings.

The investigation will be substantial and complex. Both the precise seat of the fire and the cause will have to be established. The fire was a relatively small one. Those who died at the scene were in rooms in an area that was separated from the rest of the upper floor by fire doors. The area in which the fire started was also within those fire doors. It appeared that smoke from the fire had penetrated the bedrooms in that area and that those who had died had been overcome by the smoke. There has inevitably been much speculation since the weekend about the cause of the fire and action that might be taken to prevent such an incident from occurring in the future. However, answers can be arrived at only after careful investigation, and we must not prejudge the conclusion.

It might be helpful if I describe some of the matters that will provide the key to answering those questions on which conclusions have still to be reached. Those include exactly how the fire started; the effect of the fire on the residents and on the building; how the staff responded to the alarm; and whether the fire safety systems, including the alarm system, were working and operated properly. Those are questions to which we do not yet know the full answers, and that is what the investigators are currently looking into.

Once the area fiscal is satisfied that the investigation is as complete as it can be in the circumstances, he will report to the Crown Office, which will determine what action to take. As I said, in any investigation of a sudden death, an important decision is whether any criminal prosecution should take place. That is an independent decision for our public prosecutor and it is not possible to anticipate what the outcome will be. However, having consulted the Lord Advocate, I assure members that any inquiries—including public inquiries—that are necessary to establish the cause of the fire will be undertaken, their results made public and appropriate action taken to minimise the risk of such a fire in future. However, until the investigation is complete and the full extent of the issues that might require to be examined by a public inquiry has been identified, it would be premature to decide on the precise form that an inquiry should take. That is for the future.

We appreciate the seriousness of the situation and the concerns that many people are feeling. We believe that, in the circumstances, it is not sufficient to await the outcome of the process of investigation before taking any action. Those who reside in care homes and their relatives and friends will undoubtedly be concerned about the safety of existing premises.

I stress that, at this time, we have no grounds for specific concerns about the adequacy of fire precautions in other care homes in Scotland. Nonetheless, following our discussion at Cabinet this morning, we have decided that the 1,800 or so care homes in Scotland should be visited to confirm that there are no obvious deficiencies in the fire safety measures in those homes. That must be done to provide reassurance to all those who are involved. Therefore, I have asked the care commission to remind all care providers of the need for effective fire precautions and to seek the assistance of their local fire authorities and brigades in offering advice and reassurance to care home operators, residents and their families.

The care commission is writing to all care homes to remind them of the vital importance of ensuring that residents are as safe as possible. It is also requesting the support of fire authorities in arranging for brigades to contact and visit homes in their areas to provide reassurance to staff and residents while assessing fire safety. I believe that it is important that the visits should take place outside normal daytime hours to offer reassurance and any necessary advice at a time when residents and staff might feel most vulnerable.

I believe that those actions provide the quickest and most effective way of dealing with any concerns that care home residents, staff and families may have in the aftermath of the tragedy.

Of course, I am aware of suggestions that the installation of sprinklers, either selectively or more generally across categories of building, should be undertaken as a preventive measure. Let me repeat what I said earlier about not jumping to conclusions in advance of the results of the detailed investigations that are now under way. Until the precise cause of the fire is known, it is impossible to say whether sprinklers would have prevented it or even reduced the number of casualties. However, I believe that further detailed and practical work needs to be done to establish whether, in some types of buildings, the installation of sprinklers is an effective and appropriate addition to safety precautions.

Jointly with our colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—who are responsible for fire safety issues in England—we have been sponsoring research into sprinklers in residential properties. That work has been undertaken by Building Research Establishment Ltd. The first phase of the work has been completed and I expect to receive the final report shortly.

It is clear that further detailed work will now need to be done on the effectiveness of sprinklers in particular categories of premises, including care homes such as Rosepark. Therefore, I have agreed with my UK colleague Nicholas Raynsford, who is the minister responsible, that the next phase of the research should proceed urgently and, importantly, should take account of the particular circumstances of the Rosepark tragedy.

This is a tragic event and there is nothing that we can say or do today that will lessen the grief felt by the bereaved families, the distress of those directly affected or the wider impact on the community. Those who have suffered personal loss must be allowed to grieve. We owe it to them and to the others who have been affected to discharge our responsibilities with care, thoroughness and respect so that we can do whatever is right to reduce the risk of future tragedies of this kind.

First of all, it is important to let the investigation by the police and the procurator fiscal reach its conclusion, so that our decisions can be based on the best evidence of the facts of the tragedy. There will be an inquiry into those events and it will be public. The form of the inquiry should be decided when the investigation is completed.

In the meantime, as I have outlined, there is action that we can take. First, we can provide reassurance to the residents of care homes and their families throughout the country that we take fire safety and fire prevention extremely seriously. The action that I have asked the care commission and fire authorities to take will help to do that.

We can also take forward further practical research into the potential effectiveness of sprinkler systems in such premises—that, too, we have now done.

Faced with such an event, all our reactions have been of shock and sympathy. In the darkness of last Saturday morning, the quality of our public services was demonstrated in the speed of their response. We will do justice to those who lost their lives by taking the time and the care to establish the facts and the best approach to identifying and making improvements.

I know that the sympathy of all Scottish ministers and, I am sure, of all members of the Parliament is with the community in Uddingston.

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I will allow around 25 minutes for that process.

I extend my condolences to the families in my constituency who have been bereaved by Saturday's events. I also extend my sympathy to the families of those who were injured and to those who remain in hospital. I thank all the members of the emergency services whom I witnessed at work on Saturday. They conducted themselves with exemplary professionalism in difficult circumstances. I thank those ministers and parliamentary colleagues who have offered their condolences and support to my constituents and to me, as the local MSP for Fallside in Uddingston. I mention in particular the Minister for Justice, the First Minister, Hugh Henry, Tom McCabe and John Swinney, the leader of the Scottish National Party.

I ask the minister whether she is aware that, although investigations began on Saturday, the detailed forensic investigation into the fire at Rosepark care home began only yesterday and that its outcome might not be known for some time. Will the minister reiterate that it is important that speculation on the tragedy at the Rosepark care home is resisted as much as possible? Does she agree that, although experts and others will have opinions on the cause and effect of the fire on Saturday and on the potential solutions, it would be better if assessment of the tragedy were conducted on the basis of the facts not assumptions?

Will the minister also comment on the current situation whereby fire service involvement in safety assessments in effect ends when safety certificates are issued? Does she agree that, although the care commission should retain the primary role in relation to care home standards, there should be more on-going involvement from fire services and that the maintenance of fire safety equipment and standards should not be left entirely to the care commission and to owners of care homes, as is currently the case?

First of all, I agree with Michael McMahon's comments on the necessity to establish the facts of this tragic set of circumstances. When something like this happens, people always want to know immediately what happened and speculate on the possible causes. However, it is vital that we understand properly what happened in order to put the correct measures in place to try to prevent such a tragedy from happening in the future.

Michael McMahon also raised the need for the care commission and fire authorities to work together to ensure the highest safety standards. I expect that, after learning the lessons from this set of circumstances, the care commission and the fire authorities will get together to examine the processes that are currently in place and to consider whether additional guidance is required. I must reiterate that, until we have the factual information on which to base future deliberations, it is important that we avoid jumping to conclusions that might turn out later to have been based on a false premise.

I welcome the comments made by the Minister for Justice in her statement. Although I accept what she said about it being too early to say whether a fire suppressant system—such as a sprinkler system—would have prevented the tragedy from occurring and am sure that a number of other concerns will be highlighted in the course of the investigation, is the minister aware of the legislation that was recently passed by the House of Keys in the Isle of Man on the installation of residential fire sprinklers in care homes? Is she also aware of the report that was published by a House of Commons committee on 21 January, in which the committee strongly recommended the installation of residential fire sprinklers in care home establishments? Does the minister believe that we should ensure that we have fire suppressant systems, at the very least, in our care homes, particularly in new homes that are being built or established now?

I will look closely at the report to which Michael Matheson referred. Members will want to know that, in Westminster this morning, a statement was made regarding the report that I mentioned in my statement. It indicated that we require to do further work to establish in which circumstances the use of sprinklers might provide an effective method of dealing with the outbreak of fires. We must also spend time ensuring that prevention measures exist in the first place. As a result, a key part of the work that we will undertake and in which I expect the care commission and the fire authorities to be involved is to ensure that appropriate preventive measures have been put in place and that we have done everything possible on that score.

We will consider the current reports, the research and the report that are about to be published and the further research that is being commissioned, which will be of a practical nature and will examine the types of buildings and situations in which sprinkler systems might provide a solution. However, I stress that we need to take other measures and that fire prevention and ensuring safety must be at the top of our agenda.

I concur with the minister's sentiments on this tragedy. My colleagues and I extend our condolences to the families and friends of those who died and pay tribute to the work of the emergency services and related local agencies. Our thoughts are certainly with the management and staff of the care home.

As the minister has indicated, an inquiry or inquiries will require to be held. If we are to learn lessons from this tragedy, it is vital that they emerge from a professional, thorough and informed investigation of the facts surrounding the fire. I suggest to the minister that the sooner an inquiry can be announced, the greater the sense of public reassurance will be. As a result, I urge early consideration of a fatal accident inquiry, although I appreciate that the minister does not want to be precipitate or premature in announcing the form that an inquiry might take.

I should point out that there is a precedent for such tragedies. For example, in 1960, 19 firemen were killed in the Cheapside Street warehouse tragedy and, in 1968, 22 workers died in the James Watt Street tragedy. Will the minister confirm that such examples offer some instruction as to the appropriate model of an inquiry? Will she also confirm that the soundness and respected structure of a fatal accident inquiry will not be overlooked as a suitable model?

I confirm that that model will not be overlooked. Of course, the Lord Advocate is responsible for any such decision. However, I should point out that there are arguments for and against the various methods of holding an inquiry. The important thing is to establish the facts and evidence before deciding the scope of any inquiry, as that will allow us to get to the bottom of the problems, to answer any questions and—just as important—to take appropriate action in future. I will continue to liaise very closely with the Lord Advocate in considering the possible options.

I reassure the member that we want to do that as quickly as possible. However, although there is no sense in delaying decisions, we need to take our time to establish the facts on which to base them.

I return to a point that Michael McMahon raised. I was astonished to hear from someone in the care sector that the care commission, not the fire brigade, conducts fire inspections of places such as care homes. Will the minister consider pursuing that general issue without any prejudice to this particular case? I understand that in England the fire brigade conducts such inspections and I regret to suggest that, in this instance, the English have got it right.

I reassure Donald Gorrie that, although there are differences between the operation of the system in England and Wales and in Scotland and although the English and Welsh regulations are more specific, the intent behind both remains the same. In the Scottish context, the care commission is required to inspect premises on the basis that they are fit for purpose, which involves finding out whether the requirements for fire safety precautions are being met, are kept up to date and are appropriate for the type of building in which residents live.

That said, we acknowledge that some questions merit further consideration. That is why, as I outlined in my response to Michael McMahon, I expect the care commission and the fire authorities to discuss the matter further and to consider whether it might be appropriate to introduce some form of guidance or different standards in Scotland. However, we must again acknowledge that such measures might not have prevented the tragic set of circumstances that we are discussing.

I add my sympathies and condolences to the residents and staff of Rosepark, the victims' families and, indeed, to the local community over what is a terrible tragedy. I agree with the minister that it would not be right to speculate on the causes of the tragedy and the circumstances that surround it and that we should await the outcome of a full, transparent, robust, public inquiry. However, I have a couple of general questions and a specific question.

Will the minister guarantee that the level of fire service response to alarmed premises such as Rosepark will not be reduced under plans to change fire cover? As a minimum, will she assure me that, in the short term, two appliances—the first with a minimum crew of five and the second with a minimum crew of four—will continue to attend in response to automatic fire alarms in care homes and other premises across all fire board areas in Scotland?

More specifically, the minister said in her statement that the care commission would visit and write to all care homes in the short term and that there would be fire brigade visits outwith daytime hours. Will she say what resources are being allocated to support those organisations to undertake that work?

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about what a response to an automatic alarm is. Rosepark's alarm was not connected to a fire service control room; the fire service's response was to a 999 call.

I give the assurance that any changes to the fire services will be considered on the basis of ensuring the public's safety. It is vital that any risk assessment takes account of the number of people in a building and the type of building—in the case of a care home, for example, residents could need additional support in the event of a fire.

I do not believe that this is the appropriate time simply to give guarantees about what might happen in the future. I say to Carolyn Leckie that, in some instances, the appropriate response in terms of numbers or speed may require to be improved in the future. That is the whole point of undertaking the risk assessments on the basis of protecting life.

Carolyn Leckie referred to the care commission and fire authorities. I believe that we will have the co-operation of those organisations and their staff in carrying out the additional work. In the short term, that may mean that they adjust their patterns of working or look to ensure that people carry out inspections out of their normal daytime hours. Of course, some inspections would be carried out outwith daytime hours in any case and we know that firefighters are on duty at those times. I expect that we will be able to secure the co-operation of everyone in order to reassure the residents and staff of, and everyone else who is involved with, care homes.

I, too, extend my sympathy to those who have been bereaved in the tragedy. I thank the minister for recognising the concern that is felt in care homes, sheltered housing and similar accommodation across Scotland, not least in my constituency, about the safety of premises. I also thank her for her remarks on the use of sprinklers, both in her statement and in her response to our colleague Michael Matheson. Will she assure me that she will continue to support research into the effectiveness of sprinklers and that, when it is established how much benefit and protection they can provide, she will act on the findings?

I hope that I indicated in my statement and in subsequent answers that I believe that research on sprinklers is vital. For the avoidance of doubt, I emphasise that we are not talking about a paper-based, academic exercise. We are talking about research that examines and tests sprinkler systems and other options in situations that might be found in different types of buildings and establishments. Therefore, the reports and the on-going work that we have commissioned will give us an indication of the type of circumstances in which sprinklers would be a useful addition to measures that are already in place. Again, I stress that we must not see sprinkler systems as the only solution. It is better to put the correct preventive measures in place, rather than to have to deal with the situation that arises because of a fire.

I add my voice to those passing on their deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and, of course, the staff and residents at Rosepark. In her statement, the minister referred to the visits that the fire brigade will make to the 1,800 care homes in Scotland not only to check on fire safety, but to provide reassurance, which is important. How quickly does she expect that to be done? Without prejudging the investigation, will she tell us whether specific attention will be given to the practice of keeping residents' doors open? Does she think that, as a precautionary measure, the advice should be that residents' doors should be closed, as I understand fire safety experts recommend?

Perhaps I can deal first with the issue of keeping doors open or closed. There is always a fine balance to be struck in establishments that are people's homes. Everyone who works in the care sector wants to ensure, particularly in relation to elderly residents, that people have a decent quality of life. I do not want immediately to instruct people how to run their care homes if that might detract from the quality of life of residents. It is appropriate that we strike the right balance. That is why I want the care commission and the fire authorities to work together to look at basic safety implications and to give advice in the appropriate setting.

Each care home will be different in its layout and design. In the case of Rosepark, we have seen how a tragedy has occurred even in a relatively modern building with relatively good specifications. I should not at this stage issue an inappropriate, blanket response, but it is important that the issues are addressed. I expect the visits to get under way as quickly as possible, but it is also important to recognise that the tragedy has not so far given rise to undue concerns in other care homes about implications in their areas. We must ensure that we do not create a situation in which elderly residents or staff are overburdened with worry about the surroundings in which they live. We must strike the right balance and we must do so sensitively.

As someone who lives close to Rosepark, I add my condolences to the families and friends of those who died. The relatives, along with the local community, are still reeling with shock and horror at the nature and scale of the tragedy.

I welcome the minister's statement. As she said, our main concern and attention must now focus on the welfare of the surviving residents and on residents in nursing homes throughout Scotland. I would be grateful if she could give me details of the provision that is being made for the surviving residents in the short term and in the longer term, particularly with regard to accommodation and any counselling that may be needed to help them to deal with the trauma that they have experienced.

Those matters will obviously have to be addressed with the co-operation of the local authority, the care providers and the health board. I understand that immediate action was taken to put in place the initial responses in relation to counselling. It is important that the views of residents who have been temporarily relocated, and of their families, are taken into account in decisions on what happens in the long term. Those matters must be dealt with at the local level and I have received assurances that they will be taken care of.

The minister will be aware that Strathclyde fire board's draft integrated risk management plan was published earlier this week. In the light of the terrible event in Uddingston and of the recent fatal fire at Clarendon Street in Glasgow, will she assure the Parliament that any lessons to be learned from the fatal accident inquiries that I imagine will be carried out into both episodes will be taken into account in the development of the risk management plan? If necessary, will decisions be held over to allow that to be done? Will she also comment on smoke-inhalation fires, which have been mentioned in the press in relation to the recent incidents? Is research being undertaken into the use of respirators by victims as well as by fire service staff?

Robert Brown has identified a number of points. On integrated risk management plans, I restate that any lessons that can be learned from the events that he mentions will, of course, be taken into account. However, I hope that we will not wait until the final reports of the inquiries before we begin to learn lessons. If we can take things into account now, we should do so.

The events have highlighted the fact that integrated risk management plans must take account of the vulnerability of particular groups and particular types of buildings at particular times of the day. All those points will be taken into account.

The events have also highlighted the problems of situations in which smoke is the main cause of death. I will consider the points that Robert Brown has made to see whether anything can be learned for the future. Prevention measures—such as smoke alarms—to highlight risks as early as possible are, of course, vital.

May I compliment the minister on the sensitive and compassionate way in which she is addressing this problem? I assure her that she has the full backing of everyone in my organisation and our best wishes for a successful conclusion to the inquiry.

I am not sure that that requires much of a response other than for me to thank the member.

I add my condolences to the families who are suffering a loss. I thank the minister for her detailed statement. Will she confirm that the inquiry into events at Rosepark will assess the effectiveness of cross-agency liaison and working and any improvements that may be necessary as a result of lessons that will be learned?

As I said in my statement, the fire services, the police, the Scottish Ambulance Service and, of course, the local authority and the health board all mobilised services in different ways during the tragedy. Karen Whitefield highlights an important point, not only in relation to fire tragedy but, for example, in relation to road accidents such as the one that, sadly, we heard of yesterday in Airdrie. We will want to consider how agencies work together and, if there are lessons to be learned, we will consider them during the inquiry.