“Independent Review of Open Water and Flood Rescue in Scotland”
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5573, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on Scotland's water rescue review. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. It might be helpful if members who do not really wish to speak in the debate pressed their request-to-speak buttons too, because we have a little flexibility in time. I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion. I will tell you when to stop, minister.
This is a welcome opportunity for Parliament to debate the findings and recommendations presented by Paddy Tomkins in his "Independent Review of Open Water and Flood Rescue in Scotland".
Over recent weeks, we have experienced some of the worst winter weather for 30 years. The Scottish Government and our partners have been working together to deal with the snow and to ensure that we were prepared for potential flooding as the thaw set in. I put on record Scottish Government ministers' thanks to all those who worked so hard to keep our services functioning and our communities safe. I am particularly heartened that many of the lessons from the flooding in the north-east and elsewhere during 2009 were applied in the past few weeks.
This weather is a reminder of the wider climate and flood prevention issues that we debated recently in the chamber and which are being progressed under the leadership of my environment colleagues.
Progress is being made. The Scottish Government was the first United Kingdom Administration to introduce into law the European Commission floods directive. We are supporting record levels of investment in flood protection by local authorities. We are providing funding for projects that are aimed at improving flood forecasting and warning, such as a joint forecasting study with the Met Office, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's north-east Scotland flood warning scheme and a new national warning dissemination system.
We are also providing funding to fire and rescue services for specialist resilience equipment and training—an issue that is raised in the Labour Party's amendment, which we are happy to support—and we are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to review arrangements under the Bellwin scheme. Taken together, those activities demonstrate the Scottish Government's commitment to tackling these real threats to our communities.
However, this debate is about the procedures and capabilities for the rescue of people from flooding and open water. Indeed, it is important that we recognise that such capability will always be needed because, in Scotland, we have more than 27,000 lochs, almost 12,000km of coastal water and more than 120,000km of rivers and streams, each of which presents a potential risk to those who use them. We also have 90 per cent of the standing volume of fresh water in the island of Great Britain.
The danger of inland water has been brought into focus by such tragic events as the loss of four fishermen on Loch Awe, the death of a man seeking to save his dog from the fast-moving River Garnock and the death of a teenager in a water-filled quarry in Kirkliston.
In Scotland, an average of 40 people lose their lives every year in inland waters alone. That number would be higher were it not for the skill and bravery of water rescue teams. When those responders raised with me their concerns about the clarity of existing arrangements, I had no hesitation in commissioning Paddy Tomkins, the former head of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland, to undertake a comprehensive review.
I am very grateful to Mr Tomkins and to those from the rescue community who assisted him in producing a valuable and wide-ranging document, whose findings the Scottish Government welcomes. He was the right person to lead the review, as it required someone with extensive operational experience to understand the procedures and challenges in this highly specialised field.
I requested that the review consider four main subjects: current resources and capabilities; the need for any change to operational arrangements; the need for any change in the law; and the level of public awareness of the risks that are associated with open water. I am pleased that the review concludes that neither new legislation nor wholesale change in current statutory arrangements is required. I share that view.
Mr Tomkins said:
"It is clear that Scotland already has a highly skilled and experienced water rescue capability. While the current multi-agency approach is robust, more can be done to ensure that the skills and resources of frontline responders … are utilised in the most effective way".
I have a question before the minister leaves entirely the issue of statutory change. Our briefing from the Chief Fire Officers Association asks whether the leading role that fire and rescue authorities play might need to be underpinned by a statutory duty. I guess that, around the Parliament, support will be expressed for anything that the Government wants to do in that direction. Given the minister's more general statement, what does he think of the association's suggestion?
I plan to tackle that issue in a little more detail, but since I gather that I am not too bound by time restrictions, I will answer now. Members will understand that, in law, the police have the primary responsibility in Scotland to deal with emergency situations. That applies to flood and acute water rescue. However, in general, the fire and rescue services have the operational capacity, the ability and the trained and equipped members to undertake the operational duties.
Of course, the operational duties involved in rescuing an individual are often accompanied by various other activities. In flooding, emergency relief aid often needs to be administered and traffic control might be needed. In flood or acute water rescue, a death might need to be investigated—it might be regarded as suspicious. The police might need to mark out and protect a scene in order to conduct investigations.
I have mentioned some circumstances in which it is plain that the police would be the appropriate emergency service to have the operational duty to perform such functions. However, we recognise that, by and large, it is the fire and rescue service—more specifically, firefighters—that does an excellent job in undertaking such work. In an operational capacity, it is generally firefighters who do the rescuing. In the same way, although the police have overall responsibility for mountain rescue activity, in general it is mountain rescue teams with the assistance of the Royal Air Force and occasionally others that rescue individuals. That is our broad approach; I will say more about that later.
Paddy Tomkins makes a series of 15 recommendations on how all the bodies that have a role in water rescue can further improve the collective response to flood and water rescue. I will concentrate on progress that has been made already and on our current areas of focus.
First, I acknowledge the review's commitment to existing multi-agency arrangements. I share the view that the arrangements are robust, with the police maintaining statutory responsibility for the overall co-ordination of responses, leaving those with the appropriate training, skills and resources to focus on the rescue itself. I find that my written speech pretty much matches what I said, at Mr Brown's invitation, in my extempore remarks.
That multi-agency approach is vital. Our overall water rescue capability relies extensively on the commitment of voluntary rescue teams such as those from the Red Cross and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and Scottish mountain rescue teams, without whom our capability would be diminished. That collective response is an essential element of our on-going capability. I support the closer integration and involvement of voluntary groups, with their local knowledge and specialist skills, in such a team-type framework.
I was encouraged to hear that representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the CFOA have already taken the initiative and are working together to clarify further their operational roles, responsibilities and procedures through the development of a new memorandum of understanding. That proactive and professional engagement underpins our existing legislative provisions and ensures that they remain fit for purpose.
I believe that each of the recommendations should be carefully considered and acted on in order to strengthen our overall approach. We are already considering responses from key stakeholders. Today's debate will help to inform our thinking further.
As an indication of my commitment, I will shortly establish a dedicated water rescue working group under the auspices of the resilience advisory board for Scotland. With representatives from national and local government, the blue-light services and the voluntary sector, the working group will be tasked with co-ordinating our response to the review's recommendations and providing me with quarterly updates.
I am pleased that the review highlights the key role that the strategic co-ordinating groups must play in developing many of the recommendations. The SCGs are critical to establishing a consistent Scotland-wide capability and a clearer understanding of the available resources. In support of that work, the on-going review of our "Preparing Scotland" guidance will develop further the doctrine, lessons learned and guidance around water rescue.
Progress has been made in the development of a UK-wide civil protection lexicon, which will be the main vehicle for establishing greater consistency in the terminology that is used in the field of water rescue. I expect it to be actively developed over the coming months.
The Scottish Government is committed to delivering the recommendations in the review. I believe that progress is being made. However, I stress that both the review and the future of Scotland's water rescue capability have to be considered in a much wider context. If we could eliminate all risk and make Scotland completely safe without reducing our quality of life, that would be exceptional. The reality is that that is neither achievable nor desirable in a democracy in which there are competing demands for public funding and a huge diversity of activities that people undertake.
Our commitment to water rescue must therefore be proportionate. It must be considered against other risks to public safety and the sheer scale of Scotland's geography. That view is shared by Paddy Tomkins, who said:
"The professional responders I spoke with were firmly of the view that with over 27,000 lochs it would be simply unreasonable to expect that an emergency response will always be available. That is why I recommend a programme of education to ensure the public are aware of the potential dangers and take personal responsibility for their use of inland water".
Do the potential dangers to which the minister refers include the hidden underwater hazards that are found in Scottish lochs? I refer to lochs that are navigable.
Yes, they certainly do. Anyone who enters our lochs faces such hazards. The member makes a fair point that, no doubt, he will develop in his speech.
Governments can set out their agendas and related national frameworks, but personal safety is the responsibility of each and every one of us, as individuals. A person who falls into cold water, even if they are a strong swimmer, is faced with many dangers. In many circumstances, survival should be reckoned in minutes rather than hours. In this country, the water temperature seldom increases enough to be wholly safe, a fact that many members of the public perhaps underestimate. A programme of public education must be a cornerstone of any water rescue strategy. We will look at the options for working with our partners to deliver that essential work.
The Scottish Government welcomes the findings of Mr Tomkins's review, which confirms that Scotland's communities are already well served by a robust water rescue capability but highlights measures and informed recommendations that can further improve effectiveness.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the findings of Paddy Tomkins' Independent Review of Open Water and Flood Rescue in Scotland, which examined the arrangements and protocols for inland water rescue in Scotland, and believes that the report's recommendations should be carefully considered and acted on in order to strengthen multi-agency arrangements and ensure that an effective and proportionate response capability exists across Scotland.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate, opening on behalf of the Labour Party and in support of the Labour Party amendment. Like the minister, I thank Paddy Tomkins and his team for their work on this comprehensive report, into which all the experts whom Paddy Tomkins pulled together have put a lot of work. It is an important document for Parliament to consider this afternoon. The minister will be able to examine carefully and take forward the report's recommendations. This afternoon he has indicated that he will set up a water rescue working group, which is a welcome development.
The report comes at an appropriate time, given the weather that we have had recently. Floods hit Scotland and other parts of the UK before Christmas. Recently we have had heavy snow and cold weather, followed by melting snow that has produced further floods. At rural affairs and environment question time, the Minister for Environment indicated that flood warnings are in operation in two parts of the Highlands. That shows that, even today, when the weather has become milder, there are flood issues that we must face as we debate Paddy Tomkins's report in Parliament.
I turn to the background to the report. I was surprised to find that there are 27,000 lochs in Scotland—that is an astonishing number. There are also 120,000km of rivers; clearly, there is a great deal of water surrounding and within the country. Although that presents many people with an opportunity for enjoyment, it also poses a potential threat when people get into difficulties and when waters flood.
When examining how to progress matters, the group looked at the "Preparing Scotland" guidance, which sets the scene on many issues and establishes that we expect increased river flows over the next 50 years. That is due partly to climate change. The events of the past couple of months, in which we have had heavy rains followed by extremely cold weather and heavy snow, have shown the effects of climate change.
The minister indicated that there are about 40 deaths a year due to people drowning in inland waters. We want to reduce that figure, and I hope that the group's work will contribute to doing so. It is important to put the issue in context—for example, each year there are 330 deaths as a result of road traffic collisions. Even so, the issue must be treated seriously.
As the minister said, the group has had to take a multi-agency approach, as different agencies—the police, the fire and rescue service, the Scottish Ambulance Service and voluntary groups—are involved. When different groups are involved, there is potential for communication lines to become crossed and for an operation to become ineffective. We want to get the best out of the four excellent feeder services that I mentioned.
The approach that the group adopted—rightly—was to split flood rescue and acute rescue. Flood rescue is subject to longer-term planning, with certain areas of the country being more susceptible to flooding than others. Flood risk management and flood prevention plans can be put in place, as can emergency plans for floods and situations in which people get into difficulty. Acute rescue is for situations in which people unintentionally end up under water and require to be rescued by the emergency services.
The process for all that had to be examined to ensure that it was effective and efficient. The expert group sensibly considered previous reports in the area, including the Pitt report, which looked into the flooding of 55,000 homes in the north of England, during which 7,000 people were rescued and, unfortunately, 13 people died. That good body of work helped the group to form its opinions. A number of people fed their views into the group's consultations, so it was able to draw on their expertise and experience.
On the report's comments on the role of various agencies, it is clearly important, as the minister said, that the police continue to play their co-ordination role in the response to incidents. The fire and rescue service is clearly at the forefront of rescues, and 14 teams are involved in responding to incidents around the country. As the minister mentioned, consideration has been given to whether statutory changes are required, but the review concluded that no such changes are needed. A big factor is that flooding only accounts for 1 per cent of the incidents that the fire and rescue service attends.
The Scottish Ambulance Service also plays a key part in water rescue incidents. The swift-water training that has been undertaken has been helpful, although I emphasise again the key role of the fire and rescue service. I pay tribute, as the minister did, to the work that the fire and rescue service continues to do in attending difficult incidents, with staff putting their lives on the line on many occasions.
The voluntary sector also plays a key role, and we must pay tribute to those public-spirited individuals who, recognising potential dangers in their areas, have set up voluntary groups to assist when people get into difficulty. One useful observation in the report is that there has been no risk assessment of the work that the voluntary sector does. If that was to be done, we could get more out of the excellent contribution that the voluntary sector makes.
I turn to some of the report's key recommendations. We must ensure that data on incidents are recorded correctly. To learn and to make effective progress we need accurate data so that we can see where there are problems in flood and acute rescue. It is important that we have a proper asset register so that we can see what equipment the teams that tackle incidents have at their disposal. We can then identify potential shortfalls and ensure that the equipment is robust and adequate. We need an audit of that equipment. It is one thing to have some equipment, but it is also necessary to ensure that it works effectively and is ready for action in all the right places if incidents occur.
As the minister said, we should consider public awareness. We hear a lot about the importance of preventing fires, and rightly so. For example, there was a good advertising campaign on the issue before Christmas. Perhaps we need to do more to warn people about the dangers of water. If we doubt that, we need only consider the sad incidents of recent weeks, when people walked on frozen lakes, fell through the ice and got into difficulties, sometimes with tragic outcomes. Such incidents are a clarion call to us to increase public awareness by running appropriate campaigns.
The report's author made the point that we must get the most out of equipment and said that we should consider international best practice. He referred to the potential for use of the private sector, which is worth assessing. The Fire Brigades Union has criticised that option, but it is worth considering international experience and assessing all options that might help us.
I welcome the recommendation that the Scottish Government and COSLA work together on procurement of training services. In a time of challenging budgets, anything that can save money is welcome. Labour highlights the importance of training and equipment in its amendment, and there are recommendations that relate to the issue in the report, such as the recommendations that an asset register be compiled and that an audit of equipment be carried out, to identify deficiencies.
It is important that staff are properly trained. The FBU was critical of the training and equipment that staff had been given in the context of the difficult tasks that they had to take on in the north-east before Christmas. The issue should be borne in mind. I welcome the Government's support for the amendment and I hope that the water rescue working group will address training and equipment.
I welcome the recommendations in the report. It is important that we focus on the key recommendations, which, if they are implemented, can create a better working environment and save lives throughout Scotland. I look forward to considering how the working group will take the issues forward.
I move amendment S3M-5573.1, to insert at end:
"that includes adequate equipment and training being made available to staff required to attend water and flood incidents."
I have heard little in the debate with which I can disagree. I think that all members would agree that Scotland is a particularly beautiful country. We have beaches, mountains and inland waters, all of which provide tremendous recreational facilities and stunning scenery, but also an element of danger, as was illustrated by the tragic loss of life in recent times at Loch Maree and Loch Awe.
Against that background, the Scottish Government was right to consider what, if anything, can and should be done. There is a contrast between what can be done in response to accidents and incidents that occur in the open sea and what can be done in response to incidents on our inland waters. I was astounded to learn during the debate that there are 27,000 lochs in Scotland. Many of those might more technically and properly be described as lochans, but the figure indicates the extent to which Scotland is blessed with open water. Because of the size and remoteness of a great number of our lochs, we must be realistic and accept that there cannot be a rescue facility on the spot to perform the work that is done so splendidly on the sea by Her Majesty's Coastguard, the Northern Lighthouse Board and other agencies, such as the RNLI. Mr Tomkins has been realistic in his report. He has recognised that because of the remoteness of lochs and the nature of the activities that take place on them, which by definition involve a degree of danger, it is inevitable that there will be difficulties.
One of the tragedies is the way in which danger can come out of nothing. Weather forecasting, as we all know to our cost, is an inexact science. People who go on a fishing expedition in benign weather on a gently flowing river can sometimes be confronted in a matter of minutes with a raging torrent. It is difficult to cope with the dangers that are associated with that from the public safety point of view. That being the case, one of the principal duties of Government in this respect is to highlight the possible dangers and how their onset can be sudden and dramatic. I acknowledge that progress has been made on that, but there is greater scope for examining the ways in which the public can be apprised of the dangers.
I come now to realism and practicality. One of the principal difficulties that can arise is that an individual, even a strong swimmer, who finds himself or herself saturated in water and struggling to get ashore can become exhausted, the temperature may drop and their body temperature will drop. As we all know, unless we get pretty quickly to a person who is suffering from hypothermia, not a lot can be done for that individual. We must recognise that there will not always be people on the spot. Sometimes, people want to go out on the hills on their own or wish to cross water as part of a recreational activity. We cannot be expected to cope with such situations, which underlines the point that I make about education.
The other point that has come out, although we were aware of it to some extent, is that despite the tremendous efforts of the acknowledged rescue agencies—which are led, as the minister said, by the police—there has not always been a tremendously coherent reaction when there have been difficulties. One of the report's recommendations deals with the need for cohesion and how agencies and, in particular, the voluntary sector can work together to provide a facility that can be used when the dramatic circumstances to which I have alluded occur.
There is also a recommendation that highlights the need to identify areas that are in general use and the need to identify areas where there is a particular danger, either because of the water course's topography or because it is used by a great many people, most of whom would be—like me—inexperienced in water sports, fishing and so on. Having identified those areas, we must ensure that sufficient equipment is on hand to be used by volunteers in an emergency. As the report says, the best that we can do
"is to mitigate risk through preventive measures and to focus on those bodies or stretches of water that can be identified as being high risk and amenable to an existing or potential rescue capability."
There are many places where, despite the best intentions of all concerned, it will not be possible to reduce the amount of risk.
There has been a lot of good practice. My colleague Jamie McGrigor, who will speak later in the debate, has been involved in the reviews into the tragedy that happened on Loch Awe. Members will look forward with interest to what he, as someone who lives in an area where such problems have occurred in the past—on one occasion at least, with tragic consequences—has to say.
There must also be an inventory of available skills and equipment. That is another conclusion in the report from which no one in the Parliament will demur.
The Labour Party amendment is eminently sensible and is acceptable to us. We are in a position to make progress, but the matter will require much more thorough investigation and dialogue to see how far we can go.
Recommendation 2 commends itself to members. The appropriate working group can be established to see what has happened and what lessons can be learned from unfortunate events, and to consider how we can deal differently with incidents in the future. To be frank, there is a lack of information: the working group can pursue that.
At the conclusion of the debate, the Conservative party will support both the Government motion and the Labour Party amendment.
I am pleased to take part in this very interesting debate on a matter that affects every area of Scotland. I am also pleased to say that the Liberal Democrats welcome and support the "Independent Review of Open Water and Flood Rescue in Scotland" by Paddy Tomkins.
The review came about because of the tragic incident over in Loch Awe last year in which four men sadly lost their lives after trying to cross the loch during—
Mr Munro, can you move your microphone up? I do not think that we are catching the sound properly.
At the time of the rescue, a Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service boat had to be dispatched by road from Renfrew—an hour away—to assist in the operation, as the rescuers were aware of no closer asset. I am sure that there must have been many boats around Loch Awe that local people could have launched—there might have been a different outcome in that case. In the aftermath of the event, it transpired that the Glencoe mountain rescue team could have had a boat in the water within 45 minutes, but it was unaware of the situation, because the operation was undertaken by Strathclyde Police, which was not in contact with its Highland colleagues.
The review mentions many agencies and many voluntary organisations that are capable of undertaking rescues on water or adjacent to water, but I do not see much talk in the review about local mountain rescue teams, although there are many of them. They are, I admit, voluntary organisations, but they have people who have a lot of skill and experience. If more support was given to the many mountain rescue teams in remote parts of the country, I am sure that they would be happy to develop water rescue facilities.
The tragic Loch Awe accident serves to highlight the shortfalls in Scotland's water rescue systems that will need to be addressed in the wake of the Tomkins review, which examines the responses, capabilities and legal frameworks that are associated with inland water rescue in Scotland.
Up on Loch Ness in my constituency, we are very lucky because we have an RNLI station halfway along the loch at the Temple pier at Drumnadrochit, which is very welcome, given the number of boats on the loch. It has been called into service on many occasions. However, the RNLI is a charitable organisation that is self-funded and run by volunteers, so not everywhere can be as lucky as Loch Ness in that regard. However, the idea in the review of setting up a national assets register, whereby all vessels on a body of water that are suitable for rescue purposes will be registered with the local emergency services and used if a situation arises, is a good one that I believe would save lives if implemented. It would be especially important for the larger and more popular lochs.
People ask what sorts of vessels are capable of going on the water. There are many, and in this modern day of pumped-up boats and plastic boats, it is not difficult to find a suitable vessel—one that is light and easily manageable. In my view, far and away the most important recommendation in the report is to increase public education on the dangers of freshwater bodies of water. Unfortunately, inland water sites are the UK's most common locations for drowning incidents, with about 50 per cent of the total. That is quite a statistic given that, I imagine, many more people visit the coast and the seaside than visit inland lochs.
People who are familiar with water through swimming in their local swimming pool and in the sea on holiday are often unfamiliar with the great risks of inland waters. People are aware that the sea in the UK is cold and that there might be undertows and undercurrents, but inland waters can also be cold, which can have a detrimental effect on strength and stamina. Many drowning victims are competent swimmers who have overrated their abilities in riskier waters.
Inland waters are also deceptive and hide numerous dangers from the unsuspecting person. For instance, the water could be unexpectedly deep, which means that, although a loch might be warm around the shallow edges, it can become very cold quickly as the person swims away from the bank. The water might be polluted and a serious threat to health or it could just be difficult to get out of the water because of steep and slippery banks. We hear of many incidents in which people who are just out for a stroll fall off the bank into a river in a deep gorge or a river with a banking, and it is almost impossible for them to get back on to hard ground.
Education about water safety and the correct responses in an emergency are vital in saving lives. It is better to prevent an accident than to deal with the aftermath. In the report, I found references to a number of water safety codes, but none to a central source of information on the wider aspects of safety and responsibility on the water. With increasing and more diverse uses of all waterways, and especially with the increased use of small boats, jet-skis and so on, a central resource for all users would be useful. I would be interested to hear the Scottish Government's thoughts on the creation of a national water safety code—rather like the green cross code—that it could use to promote safety. We certainly need much more information and education to be presented to the public at large so that they are aware of the dangers of the waters of our country. Also, as I mentioned earlier, much more use should be made of local volunteers, including mountain rescue teams.
The recommendations in the report are welcome, but it is now down to the Government to act to ensure that we have a streamlined and co-ordinated response to emergencies on inland waters and also, which is important, to increase public education on all aspects of water safety.
In supporting the motion, I will concentrate on the parts of Paddy Tomkins's independent review that focus on flood rescue. As many members do, I have an interest in both flood prevention and flood rescue, primarily due to the devastation that was caused by extreme flooding in my constituency in August 2008, so I am pleased that in his motion and opening speech the minister stated quite clearly that the Government accepts the need to act on the recommendations of Scotland's water rescue review.
The review makes some eminently sensible and pragmatic suggestions that will, if fully implemented, improve responses for people who need to be rescued in the future. The recommendations also provide the building blocks for a more co-ordinated multidisciplinary service in which all the players are clear about their roles and duties, and in which it is clear who does what and, crucially, who is in charge.
I am all too aware of the fire and rescue services' crucial role in rescuing constituents of mine who were trapped and in severe danger as a result of the severe flooding in Broxburn. The review estimates that each year throughout Scotland the services attend about 200 water incidents, resulting in five public fatalities, 16 public casualties and 30 public rescues.
Fire and rescue services have developed flood rescue capability, firefighters are among the most expert in this area and the services already have a statutory duty to rescue persons who are trapped by severe flooding, so it is entirely appropriate that they should lead in the execution of flood rescue. That expert role complements the more strategic role and function of the police, who in such incidents co-ordinate other agencies and resources.
A recommendation that, for me, sprang out of the report and which has not been missed by other members, is the need to compile a comprehensive list of rescue assets across all sectors. I do not want to be flippant about boys and their toys, but we need to know how many toys are in the cupboard and what they are. After all, in a small country such as Scotland, we have to learn to share in the interests of those who need to be rescued and, indeed, the taxpayer.
As James Kelly was, I was interested to note the suggestion that instead of public bodies purchasing hugely expensive equipment to deal with extreme situations, only for it to remain underutilised for most of the year, it might be appropriate to have contracts with the private sector. The caveat is that such equipment must be accessible quickly, easily, unconditionally and at a fair price—we cannot have public services being held to ransom. As always, of course, the devil will be in the detail.
Having heard the testimonies and accounts of elderly constituents who were rescued, I was pleased to read in the review that the Scottish Ambulance Service—for which I have enormous respect—is developing a water incident support capability. We cannot understate the dangers of, and trauma that is caused by flooding. Often, paramedics provide the initial post-rescue assessment, care and treatment. We certainly must not dismiss or diminish the experience of those who have been rescued from severe flooding by concluding that they are just a little wet and cold. Some constituents of mine who were affected were elderly, were vulnerable or had pre-existing medical conditions. They rightly feared for their lives as they saw their homes and a lifetime of possessions being destroyed. As we know, flooding also brings with it contamination, the spread of pollutants and all the health risks associated with such things. The Scottish Ambulance Service must be commended for attempting to develop the service and for seeking to improve medical care for not only people who are being rescued but emergency responders who face the challenging and hazardous conditions that are caused by severe flooding.
I welcome the fact that Paddy Tomkins's review acknowledges the voluntary sector's role in flood rescue. After all, its resources range from the highly trained RNLI to more local organisations that rally round in response to events.
The right balance has been struck between the appreciation that local needs are best met with local plans and informed by local knowledge. We must also remember that local canoeists, anglers and suchlike can provide invaluable support in prolonged search and rescue operations. Nonetheless, the review was quite right to state that the collation of local plans must also amount to a coherent national strategy.
Like John Farquhar Munro, I think that there is a need to emphasise on-going public education and personal responsibility for water safety. Members will no doubt have seen the news a week or so ago, when it was revealed that a driver drove his car down the frozen Union canal in West Lothian—an act so stupid that it renders me almost speechless. I am pleased to note that that matter of extreme irresponsibility is being dealt with through the courts, as is entirely appropriate, given the potential risks that it presented to those who responded to it, particularly the emergency staff.
I am pleased to participate in the debate. I support the motion and will end my speech on that note.
I am grateful for the chance to contribute to the debate. As Angela Constance did, I will concentrate on the issues that arise from flooding, which are a clear part of the report before us.
The report is very good: it is very clear and it sets out a variety of worthwhile recommendations that will improve the situation if they are implemented, as the minister has indicated he would like. The report also catalogues very well the current situation and what works well; there are many strengths in what currently happens. The report also helpfully highlights a number of weaknesses in current practice that require to be addressed.
My interest in the subject arises from the part that I played as a committee member when we scrutinised the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill last year. During the passage of that bill, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee received a lot of evidence from people who have been affected by flooding—as Angela Constance described—and who expressed their concern that they are not clear about who is responsible and in charge in certain situations. What roles are people responsible for, what are they not responsible for, and when are they responsible? All those questions were asked in evidence.
The questions resulted in an amendment to the bill by John Scott from the Conservatives that sought to create a new responsibility for chief fire officers. As part of the debate on the amendment, which had cross-party support, there was an understanding that the report that the minister had commissioned, or was about to commission, would cover flooding quite fully. I am glad that that has happened.
As we all know, flooding can be a traumatic and life-changing event for the people who are affected by it. The number of incidents is going to increase because of climate change: rainfall and precipitation rates are increasing, and are more intense at certain times of the year, which will inevitably increase the amount of flooding in this country in the future. Getting the support services right is an important part of public policy and of how we improve the life chances of our fellow citizens. The report's recommendations would help us to get that right, which is why I support many of them.
The first point in the flooding section highlights ministers' accountability for proper arrangements across Scotland. The Tomkins report says that there is currently insufficient collection of data for local plans, so I will be interested to hear the minister's intentions in that respect when he sums up.
The report also highlights various weaknesses in current understanding of roles and responsibilities, and in the arrangements that currently exist. I will quote a few of the weaknesses to which Paddy Tomkins refers. He says that there is
"a variable understanding of the role, remit and authority of the SCG"
and that that
"goes to the heart of the ‘who is in charge?' question".
He believes that that
"requires further discussion between the Scottish Resilience directorate of the Scottish Government and representatives of the authorities and agencies comprising the SCGs, principally COSLA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), ACPOS and CFOAS."
I invite the minister, in summing up, to state what he is doing to facilitate the further discussion that has been recommended.
Paddy Tomkins records that only 14 local authorities responded during the consultation phase of his work. He notes that some of those 14 local authorities provided "detailed" and "helpful" comments—the implication being that some did not. Indeed, he records that some
"had no comment to make at all".
He also records that there are widely varying types of staff dealing with the issues in local authorities and concludes that that
"does not convey a sense of consistency and shared understanding of the challenge"
among the local authorities. He goes on to state that
"for effective co-ordination to take place there must be established some clear executive authority."
Paddy Tomkins promotes the idea of a memorandum of understanding between the constituent authorities as one way of achieving effective co-ordination, and he refers to the Northern Constabulary's work around the Caledonian canal, to which John Farquhar Munro referred, and how a memorandum of understanding exists between agencies there that improves their ability—and that of the public—to comprehend who is responsible for what. I would be interested to know whether the minister thinks that that is a model for other parts of the country.
Given the degree of uncertainty that exists regarding the executive leadership that Paddy Tomkins talks about, his fourth recommendation is
"That a focus for these discussions"—
to which I have referred—
"should be the clarification, development and more effective promulgation of the ‘Responding to Emergencies' section of Preparing Scotland",
which is the strategic report on our safety. All that discussion, he says, should be designed to meet
"a widely expressed need for a manual of doctrine and operations"
for the strategic co-ordinating groups. He makes it clear in the report that
"This should assist understanding, enhance operational effectiveness and"—
critically, in my view—"inform public understanding" of who is in charge of what, and when, during flooding incidents.
Paddy Tomkins also backs the idea that chief fire officers should play a lead role in co-ordinating water and flood rescue. Nevertheless, he makes it clear that that should happen within the strategic co-ordinating groups, and that that work should be led by the police, as is the current position. He highlights the need for
"further clarity as to respective organisational roles".
I hope that that will emerge as part of the process of explaining better to everybody what this is all about. He also fires a warning shot across the bows of COSLA, ACPOS and the CFOA, which are already revisiting co-ordination arrangements. He makes a plea that they should not create
"any shift from the current situation whereby the police receive and co-ordinate a response to calls for help".
I would be grateful for the minister's observations on that point in his summing up.
All that points to the review having been very worth while. It picked up issues that were raised during consideration of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill, and highlights clear weaknesses and strengths as well as making recommendations for the way forward. I agree about the need for an asset register, as expressed by James Kelly and Angela Constance.
I draw members' attention to the bits of the report that are about training. Paddy Tomkins observes good practice in Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service in relation to the Tweed. However, I know from previous debates that the Fire Brigades Union feels strongly that there is always a need to invest in training. No matter how good it is today, we must invest in better training for the future. I hope that the minister will pick that up in his summing up.
I welcome the report and look forward to hearing what the minister says in responding to the debate.
I am grateful that other members have picked up the issues around organisation. They are important, but I do not want to spend my time on that. I will talk about chapter 6 of Paddy Tomkins's report, on public awareness and accident prevention. I will pick up points that other members have made about water being dangerous and consider how it is that we forget that.
A wise man once said to me that the best way to be safe in the mountains is to understand how dangerous they can be. A similar principle must apply in respect of water. The trouble is that, in our youth, we may be fooled. I suspect that our first contact with water is in the bath—which one hopes is warm. Thereafter, it is to be hoped that one learns to swim in the local swimming bath, where the water is nothing like as cold as it is in its natural state. If we ever get into the sea on our summer holidays, as I did as a lad, we find that the water can occasionally be warm, but we will be fooled by the fact that seawater is denser than fresh water and we float more easily in it. The net result of all of that is that, if we find ourselves in an inland body of open water, we will encounter something that is much colder than we expect it to be and does not have that density that helps us to float in the sea. In practice, we do not float in inland water; we struggle hard and use a great deal of energy to tread water and, as others have mentioned, we get cold very quickly. It is not an environment in which we are safe, but I suspect that, as youngsters, we do not understand that, unless we have had an experience that has pointed it out to us.
In chapter 6, Paddy Tomkins talks about the use of signage. I am sure that there are many signs around our environment that are useful, but I fear that we might be getting to the point at which we expect there to be a sign, and we might be breeding a generation that thinks that, if there is no hazard warning sign, they must be safe. People can forget that they must use their brains. The recent experience of ice on our pavements has resulted in some people saying, "I slipped over, and it is somebody else's fault because the pavement had not been gritted," rather than saying, "I slipped over because the pavement was icy and I did not take enough care." If we are not careful, we might end up marking as hazardous—purely because all water can be dangerous—water that does not need to be marked. That might lead people to conclude incorrectly, when they come to one of our 27,000 bodies of water that does not have and never will have a sign, that they will be safe if they go in. We must ensure that we signpost only exceptional or unexpected risk and do not fool people into believing that everything will be marked.
We must acknowledge that people have a personal responsibility for their safety around water, and that parents also have responsibility. I have with me an aide-mémoire—a bobble hat that I will, with your indulgence, Presiding Officer, wear briefly. Members will note that it is a great deal brighter than the man who is wearing it. This hat was knitted for me by my mother when I went off sailing as a teenager. She recognised that sailing would probably be good. She also recognised that she could not stop me from falling into the water and that, if I was wearing the hat when that happened, I would be visible in a way that most other people who fall into the water are not. I never fell into the water, so the hat was never put to the test, but I am grateful to my late, lamented mother for thinking of that, and I have brought the hat along today as a visual aid to demonstrate that parents have a responsibility to ensure that their youngsters are sensibly kitted out.
I commend the efforts to educate that I have been able to find, and I am sure that there are many others. I found some colourful leaflets from Safe-Tay. I think that the theory is that leaflets that are generated by children, as these were, will be more beneficial to children who look at them. I am not sure that that is true, but I am sure that they are beneficial to the children who create them in the first place. I also found some beneficial information from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, as one might expect. However, on page 44, Paddy Tomkins says:
"The consensus among those who were generous enough to share their views and expertise with me was that current efforts to educate and inform are praiseworthy but often too localised, specialised or otherwise fragmentary, and need to be brought under an over-arching national water safety communication strategy."
I have no issue with the idea of a national communications strategy, which might very well be appropriate, but I must ask how we will get the message out. Of course, we will do so through schools—I entirely understand that—but I will leave the minister with a thought about story placement. I am told that a vast number of our fellow men and women spend a large amount of time watching programmes on television that, once upon a time, were called soap operas—I am not quite sure what they are now called; that might be a good enough title. I have always despaired of those things. I do not watch them; I could not be brought to watch them—not all the way through—but I am told that businesses get their products placed in such a way that they get some advertising out of it. That seems to me to be very sensible. I cannot help wondering whether Governments should do a little bit of story placement, not at a political level, because I am sure that people would rapidly see through that, but safety messages about messing about on water and falling into water could be got across to the public through appropriate storylines in such programmes. I do not know whether the Government has ever considered that and I do not know whether television producers would ever contemplate it, but I suspect that there is a mechanism there and I wonder whether we should try using it.
Like other members, I thank Paddy Tomkins and his team for their work in pulling together the report.
The report is thorough and the recommendations appear to be comprehensive. I certainly hope that the Scottish ministers will take the proposals forward as a matter of urgency. The minister's opening remarks gave cause for optimism, and I welcome his comments on setting up a working party. Perhaps in his closing speech he can sketch out other timeframes.
In addition to Paddy Tomkins and his team, I acknowledge the efforts of my Liberal Democrat colleague Alan Reid. As the MP for Argyll and Bute, he has done more than most in recent times to highlight problems and deficiencies in the arrangements for inland water rescue. He was rightly responding to the tragic events on Loch Awe, in his constituency, in March last year, which have been referred to by others, when four men lost their lives attempting to cross the loch late at night.
No one can tell for certain whether their lives might have been saved had circumstances been different, but it was abundantly clear in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy that there were serious shortcomings in the way that those responsible were able to respond. Although there was undoubtedly close co-operation between the police, fire and rescue and RAF personnel, under the control of Strathclyde Police, the failure on that occasion—to which my colleague John Farquhar Munro alluded—to involve Glencoe Mountain Rescue and, in particular, its rescue vessel, attracted valid criticism at the time. Although closer at hand, the mountain rescue team had the misfortune to be based in the Highland region rather than Strathclyde region. It is to be hoped that the Tomkins report, in particular the recommendations on the need for a national register of water rescue capability, will ensure that collaboration is not in any way inhibited by artificial or administrative boundaries. After all, as we would all expect, and as is set out in the Tomkins report, co-ordination of all agencies, as well as the many voluntary and private sector organisations that make such a valuable contribution in this area, is essential.
I am aware that at the time of the Loch Awe tragedy there was also criticism of the decision to remove the rescue boat that was previously based at Oban fire station, as it could have been at the scene within 20 minutes. Some of those criticisms were levelled by members of the minister's party. We must be careful here. Although every effort needs to be made to ensure that, as James Kelly's amendment suggests, we have the proper infrastructure in place—including suitable vessels and properly trained and supported personnel, as well as systems and procedures—we must be realistic.
Given the extent of our open waters—I share Bill Aitken's amazement at some of the figures that have been deployed in the debate with reference to the number of lochs, rivers, canals and other open waters—and the increasing prevalence and intensity of flooding activity, not to mention, as the minister did, the finite resources that we have to work with, it is inevitable, as Paddy Tomkins made clear, that we will not always be able to cover for every eventuality as we would like. The minister referred to a proportionate response and that is a sensible caveat.
I agree with most of what the member said. It might be useful to say at this point, because both he and John Farquhar Munro have mentioned the Loch Awe incident, which sadly led to loss of life, that the matter remains under the consideration of the procurator fiscal at Oban, who will report to the Crown Office in due course for the consideration of Crown counsel. Until such time as that work is completed, it would not be possible or appropriate for us—even if we wished to—to respond to any questions on the matter.
I appreciate the minister's point, as will every other member in the chamber.
As more and more people from Scotland and elsewhere in the UK and from overseas are encouraged to come and enjoy the wonderful natural resources that we have on our doorstep, including our lochs, rivers and other waterways, the pressure on our rescue services seems likely to increase.
Perhaps this is a little late in my speech, but I should declare an interest in the subject as, in my late teens, I came close to drowning on Loch Lomond while on a kayaking course one summer. The first part of my Eskimo roll was completed almost perfectly, but the second part was less textbook and my attempts to wriggle out from my upturned kayak were impeded by a combination of the McArthur family hips and my mounting sense of panic. Fortunately, help was at hand and no lasting damage was done, although I retain a healthy scepticism—indeed, a rational fear—of being upside down in deep water with a kayak on top of me.
The enduring and growing popularity of Loch Lomond is well documented, as are the problems that that creates in managing the competing and sometimes conflicting interests of those who go there. The popularity places additional demands on rescue services, as the Tomkins report makes clear. There are implications for training, supporting and equipping service personnel and attention must be paid to the need for public awareness-raising. John Farquhar Munro and Angela Constance made useful and considered points on that. I acknowledge that the process is not straightforward and I echo some of Nigel Don's reservations. I can well imagine the response of communities that are located in some of our more picturesque landscapes to suggestions that lochsides and riverbanks be cluttered with public information signage. Government-sponsored statements of the blitheringly obvious that tick a box but serve no purpose other than to despoil the countryside are to be resisted at all costs. However, good practice is already in place and it can and should be rolled out as widely as possible.
Personal responsibility remains critical and is perhaps all the more important in parts of the country that are unlike Loch Lomond and which are considerably more remote. In such areas, the challenges for any rescue effort are greater, as will be the response times.
I will conclude with a few comments about flood rescue. As Peter Peacock said, the issue arose during the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's consideration of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill last year. It was prompted by concerns that were raised by people in Elgin, who have suffered as much as anyone, and perhaps more than most, as a result of flooding in recent years. As well as voicing criticisms that more was not done to alert people to the risk of flooding, it was felt that no one was responsible for taking a lead role in the effort. It was argued that, once the waters are up to folks' waists, roles and responsibilities appear to be well established but, prior to that, there appears to be something of a vacuum. I accept that it was more appropriate to deal with those issues in the context of the Tomkins review and ministers' response to it, but the committee's endeavours served a useful purpose in focusing attention on the issue.
During a flooding incident or any water rescue, it is essential that certain procedures are followed in the interests of public safety and the safety of those who undertake the rescue. In that context, I fully accept the good reasons that were highlighted by Bill Aitken and John Farquhar Munro for restricting occasions on which emergency service personnel enter water. Nevertheless, in my constituency, where coastal rather than flood rescue is perhaps more common, those rules can present problems. A requirement to use a boat even in very shallow water can be more than inconvenient if the nearest rescue boat happens to be based in Inverness. Perhaps it was felt that a rescue vessel in Orkney was akin to bringing coals to Newcastle. However, I hope that some scope is left open for the expertise and judgment of trained staff on the ground to be fully deployed.
The Tomkins report and its recommendations serve a useful and important function. I urge ministers, as do the motion and amendment, to respond positively and swiftly. That is the very least that we owe to our emergency services as well as the volunteers and other professionals who do so much so well to underpin public safety.
As other members have done, I begin by welcoming the report, which is timely and helpful to us in making progress on the issue. It is clear that, throughout his investigation, Paddy Tomkins consulted a wide range of agencies, from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to the Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling. Among the many excellent contributions, a particularly illustrative one came from a member of a mountain rescue team, whom Mr Tomkins credits with saying:
"The mountains are perfectly safe as long as you remember how dangerous they are."
The same can be said for open water.
It might seem strange to quote advice from a mountain rescuer when discussing water rescue in Scotland, but parallels can be drawn and lessons can be learned. The remarks from that member of a mountain rescue team no doubt come from years of experience of rescuing people from dangerous situations and implementing preventive measures to keep them out of trouble in the first place.
Of course, it is important to underline the fact that there is a distinction between being injured on or needing to be rescued from a mountain and needing to be rescued from a body of water such as a loch or river. People who lose their way or get hurt on Scotland's mountains might be able to take shelter, thereby giving rescuers a decent window of time—perhaps many hours—in which to launch a rescue. Falling into a flowing river or a deep and icy loch does not give rescuers much time to rescue successfully an individual. We should not, therefore, overestimate our ability to rescue people in such situations.
Over the years, the Scottish mountain rescue service has become a good example of how a group of dedicated volunteers can keep climbers and visitors to Scotland's beautiful mountain ranges aware of how to stay safe, as well as offering an excellent rescue service should they get into trouble. Perhaps a similar approach could be looked at for Scotland's lochs and rivers. A good example of where that might apply is at Loch Lomond, in my West of Scotland region. At approximately 24 miles long, five miles wide and 663ft deep, Loch Lomond is the UK's largest expanse of fresh water. Its scenic beauty draws many visitors to the area, but its beauty can hide the risks that people face. The Loch Lomond rescue boat, an independent Scottish charity operated by a team of 20 dedicated volunteers, is situated on the west shore of the loch. That team of highly trained specialist volunteers ensures that a rescue service is provided for the public. It also encourages, promotes and teaches all aspects of safety in and around the waters of Loch Lomond, including the safety of people using boats, canoes, wind surfers, jet skis and other vessels on the loch. The boat currently in operation can reach the furthest end of the loch within 20 minutes. However, its running costs are not cheap—the annual cost is £12,000 and the initial purchase price was £150,000 in 2006. Not only must we weigh up the costs of existing and potential services, we must help to spread the responsibility of the various front-line services in this country.
As others have said, it is estimated that there are around 27,000 lochs in Scotland, which makes any permanent patrol of them impossible. Furthermore, if we compare the rates of water-related incidents with those of road traffic accidents, for example, we gain a better understanding of their relative demands on our emergency services and others. As James Kelly said earlier, each year in Scotland there are around 17,500 traffic accidents that result in around 300 fatalities. That does not include the thousands of injuries and enormous economic impact that follow. In contrast, thankfully, there are relatively few drownings each year. That is not to underestimate the enormous impact resulting from each one of those fatalities, particularly on family members. However, we must be aware of the difficulty that we face in eliminating the risk of drowning, given the amount of water that Scotland has.
A clear message from Mr Tomkins's review is that, although some regular users of Scotland's inland waters, for sport and recreational purposes, for example, are well aware of the significant dangers posed by lochs and rivers, the general public as a whole does not have a single level of awareness of the risks posed by Scotland's waters. Therefore, I agree with Mr Tomkins's recommendation that we should explore opportunities for implementing a countrywide communications strategy on water safety education. I was pleased to hear the minister's remarks about that.
The need for a national campaign about the dangers posed by Scotland's waterways has been well illustrated in recent weeks. The recent freezing weather conditions throughout Scotland brought with them numerous challenges, not least due to the number of incidents of people falling through the ice on frozen lochs and canals. The high-profile example that Angela Constance mentioned earlier of the two men who plunged into a canal in West Lothian after driving recklessly across the frozen water is perhaps one example of where better public knowledge of the risks would have been helpful; or, in the case of those gentlemen, perhaps not.
The Lennox Herald in Dumbarton reported last week that families with young children were "dicing with death" by venturing out onto a frozen patch of Loch Lomond. Children, apparently as young as four, were seen playing out on the ice. The paper also reported that people were riding bikes across it and even that someone was pushing an individual along the ice in a wheelchair. I agree that we do not want to discourage people from using Scotland's inland waters for enjoyment and recreational purposes, but a programme of public education would help to ensure that people are more informed of the potential risks, not only to themselves, but to those who might need to rescue them.
I also want to raise an issue about the funding of training and equipment purchases. I would be concerned if, in an attempt to deal with the problem of water rescues, we were to reduce the flexibility that fire and rescue services currently have in their spending in this area. The kinds of equipment and training that Strathclyde Fire and Rescue wants to prioritise for its firefighters might be very different to those that are top priority for Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service. Firefighters who work in central Glasgow, who perhaps deal with the M8 and road traffic accidents, incidents in high-rise buildings or tenements or even sewer rescues, will need certain types of specialist equipment and training, but firefighters who deal with problems in remote and rural communities will need very different equipment and training to deal with chimney fires and forest fires, for example. Whatever action follows the debate and the report, I suggest that we do not reduce the flexibility that individual fire and rescue authorities have to purchase the type of specialist equipment that they see as their top priority.
I welcome the report and support its sensible recommendations. However, although we must do what we can to reduce the risks to people who enjoy our open water, we must accept that it will be impossible to remove all risk without impinging on the freedoms that we all enjoy, which I do not think would be acceptable.
Like others, I welcome the report and commend Paddy Tomkins for his hard work on the issue. The report is comprehensive, so there are a number of points that could be made—and indeed have been made—in the debate. However, I will concentrate mainly on fire and rescue service issues. Once again, I commend firefighters for the work that they do on our behalf on a daily basis in Scotland.
In recent months, we have had several debates on the fire service. In the one on 10 September, to which I contributed, the Minister for Community Safety said of the Tomkins review:
"It will be a key piece of work and, if the Parliament wishes to debate it after it has been published and perhaps after we have had an opportunity to consider it, it will be entirely appropriate that we do so."—[Official Report, 10 September 2009; c 19484.]
The minister has kept that promise by bringing the issue to the chamber. I have no doubt that he is keen to hear members' views and consider them prior to responding officially to the report.
I note that, following the publication of the report, the minister said that he would work
"with partners in local government and the emergency services to apply the recommendations where appropriate."
I trust that, before he makes up his mind about which recommendations to commit to implementing, how to implement them and what resources are required to deliver them, he will consider the responses from all the stakeholders, including, in particular, the FBU, and will work closely with them to iron out any areas of concern. On that point, will the FBU have a place on the water rescue working group? Perhaps the minister will answer that in his closing speech.
I want first to address a point that the FBU raised in its response on the register of water rescue capability. The union agrees that there should be such a register, but it states that if it is to be led by the fire and rescue service, it should come under the auspices of agreed structures, such as the ministerial advisory group, and should not be left to one organisation, such as the CFOA. That is not a criticism but a reflection that the CFOA represents six joint boards and two unitary authorities and therefore does not have the mechanisms to establish a national arrangement.
It is not surprising that the review has concluded that there is no requirement for new legislation or wholesale change in current statutory arrangements or protocols, or indeed that the minister agrees with that, because we already have a duty that refers to flooding. I agree with the union that it would be practically impossible to establish a fire and rescue service water rescue resource, given that we have thousands of freshwater lochs, rivers and canals, as others have said.
The minister might wish to consider the approach of informing water users where there is cover and where there is not, as happens with lifeguards on beaches, although we should take into consideration the point that Nigel Don made.
In this month's edition of Firefighter—the trade union magazine of the year—the FBU outlines its campaign to give the fire and rescue service a statutory duty and the required resources to deal with flooding in England, following the recommendation of the Pitt review. That is set out in an article entitled, "Why are we still waiting for the kit?"
In the magazine, the union commends the situation in Scotland, where the fire and rescue service has a statutory duty to deal with flooding, but it goes on to note the lack of protective personal equipment and the need for more flood training for Scottish fire crews. It uses the familiar example of last November's images of firefighters wading waist-deep in water dressed in kit designed for fighting fires. A leaflet is being produced to outline that, too.
Firefighters and the union are frustrated because it is nearly five years since the Parliament passed the Fire (Additional Function) (Scotland) Order 2005, which gave the fire service the statutory duty to respond to serious flooding. Concern has been expressed that the development of water rescue capabilities in those five years has been piecemeal and disjointed. That takes us back to governance and the lack of direction from the centre, which I and others highlighted in the previous debate that I mentioned.
One of the union's main concerns has been firefighters being committed to water incidents without appropriate equipment and proper training. The union makes the point strongly that that practice is dangerous and breaches numerous health and safety guidelines. In the article in Firefighter, John Duffy, the FBU's Scottish regional secretary, says:
"we continue to see firefighters trying their best with little training, without the proper tools and wearing completely the wrong protective equipment. It does beg the question of how serious some managers are about our safety."
He was joined in his view by Roddy Robertson, the FBU's executive council member for Scotland, who said:
"It is only a matter of time before we pay the ultimate price, as happened in Greater Manchester a number of years ago when we lost a firefighter who was not fully trained and who had entered water to attempt a rescue. This is a foreseeable occurrence and not an accident. If the service wants firefighters to carry out water rescue then train them and stop playing Russian roulette with their lives."
The firefighter who lost his life was Paul Metcalf and I am sure that we all wish to express our condolences to his family.
In its response to the review, the FBU says:
"A simple rule of thumb for the observer is that a firefighter wearing structural firefighting kit has not been trained to carry out water rescue."
That means that firefighters are being put in danger, which the union views as not only unacceptable but untenable. The union says that it will have to take action to prevent that from occurring in the future. However, given the prospect that those concerns might finally be resolved satisfactorily with ministerial intervention following the review, the FBU is encouraged by most of the recommendations in the review and expects to be fully involved in progressing them. I would be grateful if the minister confirmed that involvement when he sums up.
Other members have mentioned training, which is covered by recommendation 13. There is little doubt that national training would be of invaluable assistance in addressing some of the dangers of water rescue and is desperately needed. The Scottish Fire Services College is the obvious choice to co-ordinate water rescue training and, which is important, to act as a verifier for quality and assurance.
In the September debate, I made the point that, if the fire and rescue service is to take on additional work in water rescue, additional resources will be required. Labour's amendment deals with that and I am pleased that the minister has said that he will support it. I presume that he will address that point in a bit more detail when he sums up.
The minister will undoubtedly have to take an approach that is a mixture of education, individual responsibility and interagency co-operation, as others have said. It is particularly important to educate the public about water safety, as it is impracticable for the emergency services always to be available, given the thousands and thousands of pieces of water in Scotland.
I could talk about several other issues, but I do not think that I have time to mention them. Could I mention them briefly, Presiding Officer?
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan) indicated agreement.
Thank you.
I have reservations about recommendation 10, which proposes using the private sector to provide equipment. I am interested in the minister's comments on that. I am not averse to achieving value for money for the public purse, but equipment needs to be available when it is needed and I am not convinced that the private sector will be the right people to respond to the need. If the minister accepts that recommendation, I will read the options paper with interest.
Auditing equipment is important, as is not cutting fire resources to fund water rescue equipment—that would be unacceptable.
Recommendation 12 concerns using police vehicles. That idea seems reasonable, but has the police service agreed to it? I am keen to hear the minister's comments on that.
The Parliament has acted through legislation to address the flooding rescue issue, but we need to sort out problems that have accompanied that. I expect the minister to involve the interested parties in his discussions before he decides on the way forward. It is crucial that he works closely with the FBU, because the proposals affect its members' conditions of service and because firefighters are in the front line—they provide a rescue service and save the lives of numerous Scots who are caught in dangerous water situations and they put themselves in mortal danger to do so.
We must all hope that the review will result in a fully funded, rational, structured, vigorous, safe and secure means of providing appropriate water rescue competence in Scotland. I am pleased to support Labour's amendment and the Government's motion.
I offer warm praise to all those who place themselves in the way of harm to help to save others who are at threat on open water, whether established waterways, lochs, rivers or unexpected torrents caused by flooding.
Staff around Scotland in the fire and rescue services, voluntary organisations, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the RNLI do a great job in some of the most arduous and testing circumstances. They deserve our support. I had a little experience of this when I was in charge of emergency planning as director of protective services at Highland Council, and I greatly appreciate their efforts.
I am pleased that the minister has accepted the Labour amendment, which is on an issue about which I have recently written to the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service. I believe firmly that adequate equipment and training are essential for the safety of fire and rescue service personnel. In recent years, changing patterns of rainfall have caused ever more rivers to burst their banks. All too often, the result has been that lives have been put at risk or even lost. That is why it is vital that the organisations that strive to maintain the safety of the public are offered the support that they need. They need to be well trained and equipped to carry out this demanding role on our behalf.
I recall the scenes that have greeted the people of Dingwall and other communities around the inner Moray Firth over the past decade following prolonged torrential rain showers. Dozens of residents have cause to be grateful to the RNLI, for example, after its volunteers rescued them from their homes as flood waters rose ever higher. Only last week, I was talking to a lady in Dingwall who suffered from the last flood. She still feels the effects and is constantly worried about a recurrence.
Each time such an incident happens, the emergency services are summoned to the area to offer assistance. In addition to their role in helping to evacuate people who are trapped in their homes by rising waters and rushing torrents, the team that lies behind this effort must assist the medical folk, gas engineers, electricians and other emergency personnel to reach where they are needed to mitigate the effects of the flood water.
We are told that such incidents will become increasingly common as climate change brings more extreme weather to our shores and causes higher sea levels than have been seen within living memory. It is therefore vital that the country has enough people who are properly trained and equipped to safely offer assistance to those who need their aid on the country's 27,000 lochs and 120,000 miles of rivers and streams, which together make up 90 per cent of Britain's total volume of fresh water. I hope that the chamber will forgive me if I say that not only does Scotland have the oil, gas and renewables, it has most of the drinking water, too.
I represent the Highlands and Islands. Given that our huge geographical area is criss-crossed by a multitude of waterways, the challenge of providing a rescue service in our area is more difficult than it is in most other parts of the country, That poses particular problems for our fire and rescue service, which uses risk assessment to help it to identify and target the areas that are most likely to require assistance. In this, they are greatly assisted by the availability of the flood maps that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency prepares.
The policy of the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service is that its personnel should not place themselves at risk by entering the water. That policy leaves the Highlands to be served by a single water rescue team, which must be highly mobile if it is to cover an area the size of Belgium. Unfortunately, it is not possible to station a boat on every loch and river. Therefore, in addition to having access to a team of highly trained rescuers who are equipped with the tools to help others while keeping themselves and those in need of assistance safe, everything has to be ready to be rushed off at a moment's notice, sometimes over huge distances.
Although charity and voluntary groups play an immensely valuable role in providing rescue services at locations throughout the Highlands—notably the Red Cross at Kyle and the RNLI on Loch Ness—responsibility over most of the country is largely met by the fire and rescue service. Core funding for that is the responsibility of local authorities but, ultimately, it is funded by the Scottish Government through a grant to local authorities. Over the past year, total funding was £328 million. On top of that, the Scottish Government provides financial assistance to progress a number of initiatives that are aimed at improving flood forecasting and warning. Over the past two years, SEPA has been granted £1 million to establish a new north-east Scotland flood warning scheme, which it expects to open in March. In addition, SEPA has been awarded £8.6 million over the 2008 to 2011 spending review period to establish a national flood warning dissemination system, to be in operation in March 2011.
Thanks are due to Paddy Tomkins, who, following his retirement from the post of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland, was asked to turn his analytical mind to the subject of how public safety can be ensured in these times of changing weather and ever tighter public spending. Among Mr Tomkins's recommendations are a requirement for all fire and rescue services to compile a list of flood rescue equipment and resources that are present in their area, an initiative to promote water safety education to the public and a national register of all water incidents, to allow a complete picture to be built up. I welcome his recommendations and ask members to support the motion.
This has been an insightful, interesting debate, in which members have made knowledgeable contributions from, in many cases, their personal experience. Angela Constance and John Farquhar Munro made a number of interesting suggestions. I was struck by Elaine Smith's point that we sometimes take for granted the fact that members of the emergency services, whether public and statutory or voluntary, not infrequently lay their lives on the line and can suffer injury or worse in consequence of trying to rescue people, sometimes in situations where people have done silly things and should not have put themselves in the position of needing to be rescued. That important point underlies the debate.
A number of members spoke about their personal experience. I was struck by John Farquhar Munro's comments on polluted water. Bill Aitken will confirm that in Glasgow we had a slightly different attitude to such matters. We tended to turn our back to the rivers and other watercourses and to regard them not as places of leisure but as places of danger, into which people—especially children—might fall. If they did, the immediate risk was of poisoning, rather than drowning. Fortunately, the situation has improved and there is now a different attitude.
It is astonishing that in Scotland, of all places, with our profusion of lochs, rivers, canals, inland watercourses, water-flooded quarries—as has been mentioned—and puddles large and small, policy has not been as clear and responsibilities for safety and rescue on waterways have not been as defined as they might have been, but that is the case. As we know, it led last year to the significant tragedy in Loch Awe that has been described and, perhaps, a number of others before that.
The Tomkins report that is the subject of today's debate is useful, but a report, however insightful, is not a substitute for action. Liberal Democrats welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to take forward the report's recommendations. Undoubtedly, the process must begin with an audit and the creation of an asset register of what we have, who has it, where it is and whether the water rescue asset in question is up to standard and capable of being operated safely and effectively in a rescue situation. It is not enough to rely on folk memory and personal but, perhaps, transient and outdated contacts.
Despite what Elaine Smith said, it is right that the register should take account of private assets as well as those held or owned by public agencies, again with the caveat that people should know how to operate them safely and how to access them. It is plain common sense to observe that the cost of holding underutilised public assets may not always be appropriate or proportional. Equally, the asset must be readily available in emergency situations because private owners, too, will not buy boats, equipment or other assets just to have them lie about idle.
I am not entirely convinced that the private sector will be able to respond in that way. However, I will look with interest at the options paper that recommendation 10 of the report seeks, if the minister decides to go down that road.
I am grateful to the member for her intervention. There is a debate to be had about the issue that she raises. The central point is that, regardless of whether it covers public sector or private resources, the creation of an asset register will enable the Scottish Government, the emergency services and local authorities to consider across the board what provision is desirable, where the deficiencies are, how assets are best organised and what training or information cascade is required, so that key people understand what to do when the unexpected occurs. Peter Peacock and others made important points about training.
Clearly, different challenges are presented in different localities. I was struck by Angela Constance's point that, in a typical year, there are approximately 200 incidents. That means that there is an incident on one in every 14 lochs, which puts the issue into a slightly different perspective.
There are different situations in different localities; there are well-used places and more remote places. A flooding emergency, which is increasingly common these days, is different from someone falling in a loch.
Some interesting risk assessment challenges arose from the desire of curlers to revive an event on the Lake of Menteith. There were debates in the press and there was some excitement about it. In such situations it will always be up to local agencies to examine and produce responses that are suitable to their own area but solidly based on good practice, nationwide experience and expertise in the background. That applies to water sports, at one extreme, and to more remote lochs and bodies of water at the other.
Information is clearly important in that connection and it must be used in a way that covers different situations. Nigel Don spoke about temperature. I did wonder when I saw people in the Serpentine at -6°. How much notice had they taken of Nigel Don's strictures? That is another matter, perhaps.
Another challenge is to have a clear understanding of who is in charge. One can readily understand the problems that can arise if well-intentioned people get in the way of the fire and rescue authorities or the police, who have a co-ordinating role. It was helpful to have the minister respond to my earlier intervention on that. Liam McArthur stressed proportionality, citing personal experience of a kayaking accident.
This has been a useful debate, and we look forward to swift action on what is needed. It is not an easy matter to resolve entirely. Not every debate in the chamber raises issues of life and death, but this one does, and we are fully behind the Scottish Government as it moves forward on the matter.
Straight away I say that we must never take for granted the efforts of the very brave men and women who turn up to tackle floods and water emergencies throughout Scotland in order to save lives and property—the fire and rescue services, the police and water rescue teams. I believe that it is our duty in the Parliament to facilitate rescue.
I thank the minister, Fergus Ewing, for instructing the review. I pay tribute to Paddy Tomkins QPM, his advisory group and his support team for producing a sensible, thorough and practical report within a tight period of only five months. I was fortunate enough to have a very positive meeting with Mr Tomkins just before he formally started work on his report, and I recognise his professionalism and his commitment to improving matters.
The Scottish Government commissioned the review in part because of recent tragedies such as that on Loch Awe, where four anglers—William Carty, Craig Currie, Steven Carty and Thomas Douglas—lost their lives in March through drowning. That tragic incident showed up the difficulties involved in a rescue operation in a freshwater loch in wintry conditions at night and in thick fog. The minister will know that, on that terrible night, the local fireman who first responded heard voices shouting for help—but had no boat.
Since 1996, 12 people have drowned in Loch Awe, and anything that can be done to lessen the occurrence of such tragedies, there and elsewhere, will be welcomed by people who live on the loch and by the thousands of visitors who come to fish and for recreation. It is most vital that first responders have access to a boat, or to someone else who has a boat, in order to minimise the time that it takes to rescue people.
Cold, deep water has no mercy—it kills very quickly, so speed of rescue is paramount. Any multi-agency approach must be able to trigger a response to a situation at local level as quickly as possible. That would be a worthwhile outcome of the review, as would an identification of the body responsible for marking submerged reefs and other underwater hazards in freshwater lochs. My one disappointment about the report is that there seems to be no reference in it to the marking of underwater hazards in freshwater. I ask the minister to comment on that omission during future consultations.
The status quo has not proved adequate, and it needs improvement. As chairman of the Loch Awe Improvement Association since 1992, I have had real concerns for some time that, although we are very well served by the RNLI and the coastguard for coastal rescue services and by our excellent mountain rescue services in the mountains, there can be huge gaps in the system for inshore freshwater lochs.
Many people who live in rural areas want to help, by acting as watchers. People want to volunteer. Therefore, local safety organisations or companies should be given basic resources, such as binoculars and gridded maps, so that areas of water can be observed, and such organisations should be encouraged to have a network that can be called on by the police in an emergency. Ultimately, speed is the essence of rescue.
I am pleased to report that after the Loch Awe tragedy a fund was set up under the auspices of the Oban Times & West Highland Times, which has attracted significant support. I pay tribute to the families of the deceased, who have raised most of the money. One of the relatives said to me, "If our effort can save even one life it will have been worth while".
In addition, a committee, of which I am a member, has been set up to co-ordinate local efforts, and the Lochawe Safety Company has been established. I congratulate Councillor Donald Macdonald, of Argyll and Bute Council; Iain MacKinnon, senior environmental health officer; Michael Robertson, solicitor; and Donald Wilson of Loch Awe Boats on the progress that has quickly been achieved. A good code of practice has been agreed, which will be circulated widely. It is rightly pointed out in the code that even on the hottest days the loch is very cold, so anyone who ventures out on the water must always wear a correctly functioning and fitted life-jacket or buoyancy aid and anyone who fishes from the shore should consider doing so too. A boat that is used on the loch should be seaworthy and fit for purpose, its outboard engine should be in good working order and should be the right size for the boat, and oars or paddles should be carried. Means of summoning assistance in an emergency should also be carried.
Paddy Tomkins concluded that educating the public about what to do in emergencies is a vital part of prevention. I very much agree. As I said, the public should be informed if underwater reefs and hazards are not marked, because such hazards can be deadly. However, volunteer groups can be put off from marking such hazards because of a fear of litigation if all hazards are not marked. The minister must address the situation. I ask him to look into the problem, to see what can be done.
Last year, I was impressed by an excellent demonstration by the RNLI on the wearing and maintenance of life-jackets for people who use boats. I was horrified by some of the life-jackets that I was shown, some of which had corroded and useless gas canisters and some of which had no crutch straps, which are crucial to efficient life saving. It is vital that life-saving equipment should be in first-class condition.
The member should wind up.
May I have a moment to make one more point, please?
Be quick.
Paddy Tomkins said in his report:
"Perhaps of greatest concern to me in speaking to a wide range of people working on or having an interest in safety relating to Scotland's waters was the degree to which the idea of ‘Health and Safety' has entered the popular consciousness as a hindrance to, for example, making provision for a safety boat or modest rescue facility rather than as facilitating such public-spirited action. An erroneous belief seems to have developed that any well-intentioned provision or action could"—
I am sorry. If you wanted to read at length like that, you really should have done it earlier in your speech. We must move on.
We have had a good debate and there has been broad consensus on an issue of great importance. We had a colourful contribution from Nigel Don in his great hat, and we heard many well-informed speeches. As Jamie McGrigor said, we all owe our emergency services a huge debt of gratitude for the risk at which they put themselves to make us safe and to do their best in water rescue incidents. The Government was right to bring a debate on the report and is right to try to make progress on the issues.
In the debate on the fire and rescue framework in September, inshore water rescue was mentioned, in particular by Jamie McGrigor in relation to the tragic events on Loch Awe, to which John Farquhar Munro referred today. At that stage, we were looking forward to Paddy Tomkins's report. Now we have the report, which is an excellent piece of work and provides the necessary framework for action. I join all the members who congratulated Paddy Tomkins and his team on their work.
The report highlights the need to ensure that we have properly co-ordinated responses to emergency situations over which we have largely no control, such as flooding emergencies, and other incidents on which we can make a real difference with more work to promote information to the public on how to ensure their safety in and near water.
On the first of those issues, the minister and others have reflected that the past years have regrettably seen a number of serious flooding incidents. With such events becoming more prevalent through climate change, which James Kelly addressed in his speech, it is vital that our emergency services be best placed to respond.
Stonehaven in my region, North East Scotland, fell victim to flooding at the end of last year. Although there were concerns about the overall preparedness for that emergency situation, the response from the emergency services was widely praised. That was certainly true for the firefighters who responded to the event. When I talked to some of the people who were affected by the floods about their traumatic experiences, the contribution of firefighters was picked out. However, the Fire Brigades Union in particular has raised concerns about the availability of appropriate equipment to firefighters in such incidents. It has raised those concerns for a considerable time, and I agree with Elaine Smith's comments that the union must be given a key role in implementing the strategy.
I also welcome the review's recommendation for an audit of fire and rescue equipment to establish a baseline for what is available. I also hope that it will ensure that appropriate investment is made so that the right equipment is readily available in the future. Those sentiments motivate our amendment.
The review also picks out the crucial role that fire and rescue services have in responding to incidents. The emphasis in the report is on having, throughout Scotland, a teamwork approach from our emergency services and other relevant organisations. Of course, there is also a need for a national overview, and the argument has been well made for the water rescue working group and the water safety working group, but the crucial aspect that has been highlighted a number of times in the debate and is highlighted in the report is the need for a co-ordinated response at the local level.
The work of the strategic co-ordinating groups is fundamental to the successful implementation of the report. That comes through again and again. The report rightly identifies the police as playing the co-ordinating role to ensure that the right people from all the agencies involved—fire and rescue, the ambulance services, the RNLI and other organisations that can play a role—respond in an emergency. It flags up particular successes in that "Team Type approach", as it describes it, but it is right that we provide greater consistency in such arrangements. It is also important that, in drawing up the register of assets for responding to emergencies, we take account of capacity not only in our emergency services but in the voluntary sector and ensure that voluntary organisations have the right training.
The report also points out that there are already examples that can be followed in implementing models of team working. It highlights, for example, the multi-agency flood response exercise that was held in Tayside at the end of September. It is to be hoped that such exercises will be replicated in other parts of the country. However, beyond such individual exercises, the right training must be available for the members of the emergency services who may be called on in the event of water rescue operations. The report picks out existing success in that area in the fire and rescue services and mentions the work of the Scottish Fire Services College at Gullane, which Elaine Smith flagged up. However, we must ensure that there is appropriate training for everyone who is involved in water rescue. Peter Peacock also made important points about training, which others picked up; the theme has come up repeatedly.
The other aspect of the report on which I will focus is public awareness and accident prevention. The importance of preventing unnecessary deaths, accidents and rescue operations through public awareness was highlighted to me recently in the north-east when I met members of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the police to discuss tombstoning. That is the potentially lethal practice of jumping into bodies of water—often the sea, but also rivers and lochs—from a cliff or other high point.
Sadly, tombstoning has cost lives in the north-east and in other parts of the country. It was an unfortunate feature of last summer at a number of points along the River Dee. It was very worrying to see the emergence of websites and videos online promoting the activity and often giving a false impression that tombstoning is risk free, which leads to copycat behaviour. However, tombstoning, like many other activities in and around water, not only puts the lives of those directly involved at risk but takes up the emergency services' time and can, crucially, put emergency workers' lives at risk in a rescue situation. As Bill Aitken pointed out, what can seem like an innocent sporting activity at one point can quickly become, because of unknown factors, a desperate and life-threatening situation.
I was pleased to learn of the partnership approach in Arbroath to dealing with the tombstoning issue, which has resulted in local education campaigns in schools to warn of the dangers of tombstoning, a campaign leaflet focused on holidaymakers, and an appropriate enforcement strategy to penalise those involved. I note that the Tomkins report is sceptical about having new byelaws and further enforcement. The arguments on that are well made in the report, but I think that enforcement must play a role.
The Arbroath team is an excellent example of agencies working effectively together, which is the approach that the report advocates, but it must be rolled out across Scotland rather than restricted to individual communities or circumstances. There must be far more instances of that approach.
We are pleased that the minister has accepted our amendment and that there is consensus in the chamber on how to provide a better lead for water rescue services in Scotland, which we require. That will be achieved by pursuing the recommendations in the report, which we all commend.
This has been a very useful and wide-ranging debate in which many interesting points have been made across the chamber. I thank the CFOA and the FBU for their useful briefings, on which members have drawn. I see members of the FBU in the public gallery, and I thank them for their attendance.
I think that, further back, I also see the convener of Lothian and Borders fire and rescue board and the chief fire officer of Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service, and I thank them for their input. I know that Paddy Tomkins joined Lothian and Borders water rescue teams for a demonstration on the River Tweed. He speaks highly of that in his review. On the spring tour that I undertook last year, I met Lothian and Borders water rescue teams, and I also had the opportunity to see a water rescue training exercise in action on the River Nith in Dumfries. I thank David Wynne and his firefighters for that work.
The debate has been consensual. We acknowledge that the review led by Paddy Tomkins was independent. The report confirms that Scotland has robust water rescue arrangements and protocols in place, but we cannot be complacent, because there is much more work to be done. The report acknowledges that there is no need to change existing legislation—I will come on to address that—and it makes 15 recommendations to strengthen our partnership arrangements and to ensure an effective and proportionate response capability across Scotland. I listened carefully to all members' comments on the recommendations, which were broadly welcomed. The starting point is to set up, as I already stated we will do, a water rescue working group to take all the issues forward.
I want to respond first to Elaine Smith's closely argued and thorough speech, which was made on behalf of the FBU. I am delighted to confirm to her that I think that it is important that the FBU is represented on the working group. As long as I have been a minister, I have argued that it is essential that we hear from workforce representatives, because they often do the job at first hand. Were we not to hear directly from them or have their involvement on important national groups such as the water rescue working group, we would miss that expertise and make a mistake.
Workforce representatives will be on the working group. Obviously, I have not yet had advice about the composition of that group, but it seems sensible that we take as a starting point the composition of the advisory group that assisted Paddy Tomkins, the broad membership of which is set out on page 1 of the report. It is important that all members of the fire family including the chiefs, workforce representatives and the conveners have their voices heard when we consider matters for which they are responsible.
Some members referred to the comparison between mountain rescue and water rescue. Paddy Tomkins was struck by—and quotes in his report—a remark that was made by one of the mountain rescue team members to whom he spoke:
"The mountains are perfectly safe as long as you remember how dangerous they are."
We heard relevant evidence from many members today. Liam McArthur recounted his escape from death in his kayak on Loch Lomond. We are grateful that he did not depart before he arrived here, as it were.
We heard from Nigel Don a rather long description, I thought, about the temperature of water, but it was nonetheless an interesting one. It underscored the fact that those who end up immersed in our lochs and rivers face death in a matter of minutes and not hours. One can be a casualty in the Lairig Ghru, for example, and survive for several hours, but the challenge in acute water rescue situations is such that, as Jamie McGrigor argued, an immediate response is essential. Speed is of the essence. That differentiates water rescue from mountain rescue.
Nigel Don mentioned swimming pools. Does the minister agree that, for people immersed in water, one of the most important things is being able to swim? Will he stress the importance of teaching our children to swim in swimming pools throughout Scotland?
That is an important point. As the member raises it, I take the opportunity to say that many members mentioned the general issue of and the recommendations about the need to advise and educate the public and improve public awareness of the risks of water. Recommendation 14 specifically covers that. The safe Tay initiative, which is covered on page 40 of the report, was remarked on, but by a strange omission no one touched on the section on public notices on page 42. No doubt that will happen in the next debate.
Plainly, all members agree that there is a lack of general appreciation among many members of the public of just how dangerous immersion in our lochs and rivers is and how likely it is that those who accidentally end up there will not survive. That is a serious and sobering thought.
I want to respond to Peter Peacock, who made a typically cogent and closely argued speech including seven or eight specific requests for me to respond—he was rightly putting the minister on the spot. I am pleased that, even before this afternoon's debate, ACPOS and CFOA had already met to decide how to take forward the responsibilities for carrying out acute water rescue and flood rescue. They are developing a memorandum of understanding, which will cover the response to emergency calls. As Paddy Tomkins describes in his report, that is already carried out in an exemplary fashion. He pays tribute to the telephone operators in emergency services throughout Scotland and to those who are responsible for the control and tasking of water rescue assets.
Order. There is far too much background noise.
I also refer Peter Peacock to pages 28, 34 and 35 of the report, which make it clear why Paddy Tomkins reached the conclusions that he did about the lack of a need to legislate on the matter. He recognises that the existing statutory arrangement appears to be working well but suggests, as many members have pointed out, that we should be aiming for better practical co-ordination and for clarification not only of specific roles, which is what is happening between ACPOS and CFOA, but of the role of the strategic co-ordinating groups.
I thank members for their speeches. We have already learned a lot from them but will certainly study them closely.