The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-12535, in the name of Clare Adamson, on the Scottish fire sprinkler co-ordination group. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Fire Sprinkler Coordination Group to the Parliament for its awareness-raising event on 21 May 2015; notes the success of the Fire Sprinklers in Residential Premises (Scotland) Bill in securing a commitment from the administration in relation to the fitting of automatic fire sprinklers to all new care homes and sheltered housing developments following the tragic deaths at Rosepark Care Home in Uddingston; welcomes all developments that improve fire safety, and recognises that several countries, such as Finland, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand, have begun retrofitting automatic sprinklers to buildings.
12:34
I begin by thanking colleagues from across the Parliament, including those who will take part in the debate, for their support for the motion. I welcome to the gallery members of the Scottish fire sprinkler co-ordination group, whose membership includes members of the European fire sprinkler network, the national fire sprinkler network and the Chief Fire Officers Association, as well as members of the insurance industry and representatives of care organisations. The British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association is a founding member of the group, which is hosting a lunch-time event in the Parliament, and I hope that members will be able to attend it. It is somewhat ironic that the event is being held in the Burns room—given the topic of the debate, the less said about that, the better.
No one can forget the tragic deaths at the Rosepark care home in Uddingston in January 2004, which resulted in the death of 14 residents. After the fatal accident inquiry into the fire, which looked, in particular, at the cause of the deaths, Sheriff Principal Lockhart found that some or all of the deaths could have been prevented if the home had had a suitable and sufficient fire safety plan. I trust that, following the publication of “Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Care Homes” by the Scottish Government in March 2014, no care home is in that position today.
There is no doubt that Scotland has made significant progress in fire safety and prevention and in the use of fire sprinkler systems, which is one of the best protection mechanisms. I pay tribute to Michael Matheson, whose member’s bill, the Fire Sprinklers in Residential Premises (Scotland) Bill, paved the way for that progress.
In 2009, the Scottish Government commissioned the report “Scotland Together: a Study Examining Fire Deaths and Injuries in Scotland”, which concluded that the installation of sprinklers in all Scottish homes was not cost effective. More recent evidence, including a new United Kingdom cost benefit analysis of residential sprinklers by the Building Research Establishment, does not challenge that underlying conclusion, but the BRE says that residential sprinklers as an additional safety measure are cost effective for all residential care homes, including those for elderly and disabled people and children; most blocks of purpose-built flats and larger blocks of converted flats; and traditional bedsit-type houses in multiple occupation in which there are at least six bedsit units per building. It considers that residential sprinklers in two-storey houses that are shared would not be cost effective.
In the Scottish Parliament, we recognise that we cannot make decisions without taking cognisance of cost, but we should always ask, “Of what cost is a human life?”, whether that be the life of a resident, a staff member or a firefighter. Firefighters face considerably fewer dangers when they attend a fire in a property that is fitted with a sprinkler system.
In May 2005, the Scottish Government led the rest of the UK when it introduced new mandatory building standards that required the installation of sprinklers in all new-build enclosed shopping centres; residential care buildings, including care homes and boarding schools; sheltered housing complexes; and high-rise domestic buildings. At the time, the installation of sprinkler systems in all new-build dwellings, such as houses, could not be justified on cost grounds, but we know that the Welsh Government has taken the decision to have sprinklers installed in all new-build domestic properties.
In October 2010, the revised building regulations introduced in the domestic handbook, which gives technical guidance, sprinklers as an option to protect common escape routes in low-rise domestic buildings. Sprinklers were introduced in new primary and secondary schools to support sustainable development by providing enhanced property protection against fire. I am sure that the minister will touch on some of those areas.
As far as affordable housing is concerned, “Scotland Together” found a link between social deprivation and an increased risk of fire fatality, with 40 per cent of accidental dwelling fire deaths occurring in social rented housing and 31 per cent in the Scottish index of multiple deprivation 15 per cent most deprived areas. As a result, a targeted approach to sprinkler installation in social rented homes, council houses or housing association-owned dwellings was rolled out across Scotland, but I know that councils such as Fife Council and Angus Council are installing sprinklers in all new-build council properties. To them, it is a no-brainer to protect not just their residents, but their financial investment in the new properties.
As the convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness, I know that one of the biggest challenges that we have to overcome in fire sprinkler use is the normalisation of their use in our communities. The very fact that both the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association have myth-busting sections on their websites tells us that the safety advantages and the protection of property, life and our fire officers in attending fires should be at the forefront of our discussions, but we are still talking about the myths that surround fire sprinklers.
On its website, BAFSA says that one of the biggest myths
“about sprinklers is that they are expensive and difficult to fit into existing buildings and thus it is rarely practical to fit them after initial construction. In order to determine the truth”
of that,
“BAFSA funded a pilot project to install sprinklers in a Sheffield tower block. This project proved conclusively that it is possible and cost-effective to retrofit sprinklers into an existing high-rise block without first having to relocate the tenants”
or causing major disruption.
There is also a myth that installations cannot be done on a fast-track basis, which has been proven not to be true. On myths around the costs, at around £1,150, the installation cost per flat is reasonable, given sprinklers’ effectiveness in protecting the investment in the property and in the protection of life, which, as I said, should always be at the forefront of our discussions. Tenants, residents and their families feel safer knowing that they are better protected when they live in a building that has a sprinkler system in place.
We also know that sprinklers greatly reduce the potential trauma and disruption to individuals following a fire, as they very much restrict fire damage.
As I said, retrofitting sprinklers as part of a major refurbishment project to meet current building standards can be done reasonably and without major disruption.
I know of many care homes and residential properties that were built, or were in operation, before the new building standards came in. I hope that the message of retrofitting is fully understood and that raising awareness of retrofitting may prompt action to ensure that the use of sprinklers, as the very best form of preventative fire protection, can be extended to the whole community in Scotland.
12:42
I congratulate Clare Adamson on securing the debate and on her work as convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness. I also welcome the Scottish fire sprinkler co-ordination group to Parliament and hope that it has a successful event.
I have a long-standing interest in the vital role of fire sprinkler systems as preventative devices in fire safety. I place on record the help that I have received from Councillor Fraser Parr of Highland Council and his former colleagues from the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service for their advice, guidance and assistance.
In the previous session, I worked up a proposal into a member’s bill that would have ensured that all new houses in multiple occupation had fire sprinkler systems. Unfortunately, I ran out of time, as I also had a proposal on dangerous and defective buildings, although I am pleased to report the resulting Buildings (Recovery of Expenses) (Scotland) Bill was passed unanimously by Parliament. I thank the minister, Derek Mackay, for his help with that.
In simplistic terms, prevention is always better than cure. That is why it is important that we consider other ways in which we can prevent deaths and injuries that are caused by fire. I commend the efforts of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in undertaking various preventative programmes, including home fire safety visits. Like Clare Adamson, I welcome the revision to the building regulations in 2010 that made at least one smoke alarm mandatory. That has contributed to more smoke and heat alarms being fitted in homes.
Last April, the previous Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Roseanna Cunningham, wrote to me, saying:
“It is estimated that installing smoke alarms in dwellings could reduce the risk of death to about 30-50% of the risk where there are no alarms.”
On affordable housing, which Clare Adamson touched on, Roseanna Cunningham went on to say that the
“Scottish together Study found that social deprivation links to increased risk with 40% of accidental dwelling fire deaths occurring within social rented housing and 31% in the Scottish index of Multiple deprivation ... most deprived areas”.
More can be done, which is why I have been advocating the introduction of fire sprinkler systems in all social housing and HMOs. It is clear from the evidence that fire sprinklers can save lives and, if targeted well, can help to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.
Fire sprinkler systems are a highly cost-effective way of reducing the United Kingdom’s appalling fire death toll. Fire detection systems and smoke alarms probably save around 80 to 100 lives each year. Of course, most at risk are the most vulnerable members of our society: the very young, the very old, the disabled, the infirm and those who abuse drugs and alcohol.
Sprinklers can prevent fire deaths. In the case of social housing, residential care premises, HMOs, hostels and similar properties, there are clear arguments that sprinklers offer the best chance of preventing deaths should a fire occur.
The most comprehensive study that I could find on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers was carried out by the Rural/Metro fire department in Scottsdale, Arizona. That study showed that sprinklers not only save lives but significantly reduce by an average of 85 per cent the cost of damage caused.
I am very pleased that, as Clare Adamson said, Fife Council and Angus Council have really shown us the way by ensuring that all new social housing has built-in systems. I hope that more councils across Scotland follow suit.
The Welsh Assembly has gone even further and has passed ground-breaking legislation to ensure that, from 2016, all new homes contain fire sprinkler systems. I hope that the Scottish Government will look at the result in Wales and extend the current requirements to fill the gap. Perhaps the minister will talk about that in his winding-up speech.
I am well aware that the Scottish Government has commissioned research into a cost benefit analysis of residential sprinklers in Scotland. In an answer that I received—last November, I think—the minister indicated that the results would be published at Easter. As the results are not yet available—I certainly could not find them—I would be very grateful if the minister could give us an update on the timetable for the research.
I hope that Scotland will continue to lead the way in fire prevention by broadening fire sprinkler requirements to cover all social housing and HMO properties, to ensure that no lives are lost where that could have been prevented.
The Parliament has a proud record of innovation and best practice, such as the introduction of free personal care, the smoking ban and the zero-tolerance approach to domestic abuse. I believe that we are at our best when we are at our boldest. Let us add another ground-breaking policy and extend the range of sprinklers to prevent death and injury among our old, vulnerable and disadvantaged constituents across Scotland.
12:47
I add my congratulations to Clare Adamson on bringing this important topic to Parliament today.
It is an interesting subject. I remember that—I think about 10 years ago—Stewart Maxwell MSP and I went to see a demonstration of a sprinkler system in Hamilton. We saw a before and after; we saw a fire without a sprinkler system and then we saw the very different effect of the same fire when it was operated on by a sprinkler. I was left in no doubt whatever about the efficacy of what is actually quite a cheap intervention.
I said “cheap intervention”. Let me defend that. Take the average cost of even retrofitting a sprinkler system to a house. What is that comparable to? It is comparable to the cost of putting in a new gas boiler. It is comparable to the cost of the new generation of high-definition 55-inch televisions, which many people choose to buy. It is not all that different to the cost of insurance for a youngster with their first car—if it is other than a Fiat 500. The cost ought not to be the immediate barrier to our considering a sprinkler system.
We have heard from Dave Stewart—I have also seen the figure elsewhere—that 100 UK deaths each year occur without fire detection systems. How much is a death worth? To the family who experience loss, no financial price can be put on it, but let us take the kind of figures that are generally used. If we assume that we would reduce deaths by two thirds by having sprinkler systems installed universally, we are looking at a saving, based on the amounts that are set against people’s lives, that would pay for 13,000 houses a year across the UK—that is not a figure for Scotland. There is a direct and simple financial relationship, but if we want to be analytical there are other savings to be made.
Fewer fires, fewer deaths and a reduction in the impact of fires represent a saving for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and for the insurance industry, which means that it would reduce premiums. For the householder, it is likely that installation of sprinklers would be reflected by increased value of the house when it comes up for sale. This figure is a little out of date—I do not have the current figure—but five or six years ago the average mortgage length was only seven years, which gives one a sense of how quickly one might see a return on that sort of investment.
Simultaneously with thinking about the benefits and the cost benefits of installing sprinkler systems, we should think about what brings about risk of household fires. There has been an increase in consumption of alcohol in Scotland; when people are less sensible of their actions, the risk of fire and a range of other risks increase. That gives further weight to the actions to address the problem of alcohol abuse, which have received broad support from across the Parliament.
We have taken great steps in respect of smoking. I, again, give absolute credit to Jack McConnell for his bravery with regard to smoking legislation. There has been a reduction in the amount of smoking, and that is good. However, I have a little niggle in my mind about the possibility that the fact that smoking has become less acceptable in public might mean that there is more smoking in homes, which might be an issue with regard to the subject of this debate.
I am told that there are representatives of the insurance industry in the public gallery today. I agree that we would expect the cost of insurance to go down when a sprinkler system is installed. However, the sprinkler system itself is a form of insurance, and I think that the one saying about insurance that we should always remember is that it is the one product that we cannot buy when we really need it.
12:52
I congratulate Clare Adamson on bringing this debate to the chamber today and pay tribute to the important work that she does as the convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention, along with its other members, to highlight prevention issues such as the importance of and the need for fire sprinklers.
There is no doubt that the nature and the scale of the Uddingston Rosepark care home tragedy 10 years ago, in which 14 people lost their lives, brought fire-prevention measures to the forefront of the public consciousness. The subsequent findings of the fatal accident inquiry established that the tragedy could have been prevented, had suitable measures been taken.
The Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 therefore sought to ensure that fire safety in Scotland’s care homes is adequate, and required that fire sprinklers be fitted in new or altered care homes. Furthermore, last year the Scottish Government issued updated guidance on the act’s application to care homes, which recommends retrofitting sprinklers in homes where there are high-dependency residents. Although there are, obviously, costs involved with retrofitting automatic fire sprinklers, the benefits of preventing avoidable damage have been recognised in the countries that are listed in the motion—namely, Finland, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand. That is surely because those countries recognise that injuries and fatalities through fires far outweigh any initial cost. That sentiment has been echoed in the chamber today.
The updated guidance also states that
“fire protection products should be fit for their purpose and properly installed and maintained”
and that, where possible a reputable third-party certification body, which itself has been accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service should independently check that standards are being met for fire protection products. That is to ensure that installation and maintenance contractors are properly qualified and competent. However, that third-party safety net is not a requirement. Significantly, instead of having one authority with an approved list of fire safety consultants, so that we can weed out the cowboy operators, there are numerous professional bodies, in addition to the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, that operate registration schemes.
It is therefore welcome that, in relation to fire sprinklers, the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association acts as a hub for companies that are looking to install sprinkler systems. As a trade association with more than 40 years’ experience, its members are responsible for installing more than 85 per cent of automatic sprinkler and water-mist systems in the UK. The association has also led the way in campaigning for retrofitting of sprinklers in residential care homes, schools, high-rise buildings and historic buildings. That is a record to be proud of, which is why today’s debate provides a welcome opportunity to acknowledge the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association’s achievements as well as helping to raise awareness about both the benefits of fire sprinklers and the need to install them.
12:56
I congratulate Clare Adamson on introducing the debate and on bringing the Parliament’s attention to today’s awareness event on the importance of protecting people and properties from the threat of fire.
When the Fire Sprinklers in Residential Premises (Scotland) Bill was introduced in 2003, there was no requirement in legislation for mandatory installation of fire sprinkler systems in residential properties. Primary responsibility for making the choice to install equipment fell to the owner—whether they chose to install fire sprinkler systems was entirely for them to decide. The bill went some way towards ensuring that retrofitting of fire sprinklers became mandatory in certain types of residential property.
That means not only that building regulations must be met and that retrofitting must take place in existing care homes and sheltered housing, but that the equipment is maintained and checked regularly. In the document, “Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Care Homes”, the Government sets out the steps that should be followed in accordance with the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005. It states:
“Any defects which occur should be put right as quickly as possible, though there may be a need for contingency plans when life safety systems such as fire-warning systems or sprinklers are defective.”
A failed sprinkler system could, as we all know, cost lives.
When we remember such disasters as the loss of life at the Rosepark care home, it is clear that we need continually to reinforce the message that failure to comply with the legislation can lead to tragic consequences. No person who is placed in the care of a home in Scotland should be at risk of such a tremendous threat. It is now an offence to occupy sheltered housing when it is known that a completion certificate has not been granted because a fire sprinkler system has not been provided. Like Clare Adamson and others in the chamber, I see that rule as being vital in preventing loss of life through fire.
That rule should apply to all buildings where the care of a large number of people takes place. The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 added school buildings to the existing list of buildings that are required to have sprinkler systems. I would welcome a comment in the minister’s wind-up speech about the position with regard to schools, because I believe that the Government routinely exempts schools from the requirement for sprinkler systems. There may well be a good reason for that, but the situation is not entirely clear to me.
Today, we are focusing on the need to raise awareness both of the risk of fire in homes that have multiple occupants and in our care homes, and of the risk of a failure to take responsibility for ensuring that equipment is installed and maintained. The co-ordination group that is mentioned in the motion works effectively by exchanging information with other co-ordination groups across the UK on research, campaigning for better recognition of the need for retrofitting, and lobbying for changes to legislation that will ensure that installation becomes the rule, not the exception, in key types of property.
The Chief Fire Officers Association has consistently made the case for wide use of sprinkler systems and has stated that their effectiveness has been
“proven in use for well over 100 years, during which time they have a 99% success rate worldwide. There are sprinkler systems over 100 years old that are still in full working condition today.”
I must say that I was surprised to read that.
Believe it or not, automatic sprinkler systems have been incorporated in some buildings since 1872. They were originally seen and developed as a means of reducing fire losses to property and contents. However, in recent years, recognition has grown of their contribution to life safety. We all have the right to feel safe in our homes, and when that safety cannot be assured by our own actions because we are in the care of others, we require the certainty that is provided by good legislation to put a duty in place.
In its business case for installation, the CFOA emphasises:
“There are no cases on record where multiple fire deaths have occurred in buildings with working sprinkler systems, where those systems have been appropriately designed for the intended purpose, have been properly installed and maintained.”
I join Clare Adamson in welcoming the work of the co-ordination group in ensuring that the legislation is followed carefully and to the letter. Tragic events such as that which we witnessed at Rosepark cannot be forgotten and cannot be allowed to happen again. I support the motion and congratulate Clare Adamson on it and on all the work that she does on safety.
13:01
I welcome the members of the Scottish fire sprinkler co-ordination group who are in the visitors’ gallery today.
I congratulate Clare Adamson on securing the debate. She has referred the issue to me a number of times and I know that she is passionate about it. I also congratulate her on her work for the cross-party group.
It is important to note that today’s speeches have been thoughtful and informative and have helped me by giving members’ perspectives. They have also dealt with some of the cost parameters and consideration of the type of building that we use. The speeches have been interesting and informative and I am genuinely sorry that, because of a pre-existing diary commitment, I am unable to attend the co-ordination group’s awareness-raising event this lunch time. I wish it well and hope that the event is well attended by members from across the chamber.
As Clare Adamson stated, last year marked the 10th anniversary of the tragic events at Rosepark care home. My thoughts are with the families and friends of those whose lives were lost. I am sure that all members have reflected on that today and it is poignant to be discussing the issue in the context of that tragic loss of life.
Since then, Scotland has led the way in the United Kingdom in responding to the tragedy and its implications. In 2005, we were the first to introduce building standards that require the installation of sprinklers in new-build care homes and sheltered housing as well as in enclosed shopping centres and high-rise accommodation.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service annually audits all care home, school care and secure accommodation services that are registered with the Care Inspectorate, regardless of whether sprinklers are fitted. The SFRS aims to enable all care homes to deliver on compliance and to work with occupiers and other responsible persons to achieve a satisfactory level of safety for all residents.
It is worth noting in passing that enforcement procedures are robust. We are looking for responsible persons to deliver on fire safety in a number of ways that may include sprinklers in some cases but will also include other measures. When dangerous conditions are found, and the SFRS believes that the use of such premises ought to be prohibited or restricted if it would mean a serious risk to persons in the event of fire, and if that risk cannot be remedied immediately, the service will issue a prohibition notice or restrict the use of those premises. It is important to put on the record that failure to comply with any suggested alterations, or with a prohibition or enforcement notice, constitutes an offence and might result in the prosecution of the person responsible.
In case the minister does not touch on this point, I have a specific question about the installation of sprinkler systems in new-build social housing. We have heard about Angus and Fife, and I congratulate them, but the Government could require all local authorities to do that. Will the minister consider that, as well as looking at the experience of Wales, which has clearly done an appraisal? As Stewart Stevenson said, let us look at best practice and things that we have achieved in the past, such as the smoking ban. This could be a great achievement that all parliamentarians could rally around.
I note the consensual tone of the debate. I will come on shortly to research and the work that we are doing on social housing. First, I will address the point about Wales that Dave Stewart and other colleagues, including Clare Adamson, made.
We will continue to keep this important issue under review, and we are studying closely what is happening in Wales. I am interested in the Welsh experience. We will keep in touch with the UK and Welsh Governments on their experience and will try to learn from it. I give an assurance to all members that we will study closely what happens in Wales and take a considered view of that.
In continuing my speech, I will touch on the points that Dave Stewart has just made.
I have touched on the current regulation, but we want to protect all residents of care homes. The 2009 Scottish community fire safety study report, “Scotland Together”, to which members have referred, concluded that the installation of sprinklers in all new Scottish homes would not be cost effective. That was borne out by Scottish Government-commissioned research. It was recognised, however, that particular sectors of our communities—for example, people living in deprived areas, whom members have referred to as facing multiple deprivation and the higher risk factors that Stewart Stevenson and others mentioned, such as drug and alcohol issues—are disproportionately affected by fire risks. It is clear that we must do more to prevent fires in those areas.
As a result, a targeted approach to sprinkler installation for social rented, council or housing association-owned dwellings has been adopted by some providers, as members have noted. For example, Angus and Fife councils now require sprinkler systems to be installed in all new-build domestic properties that they commission. The Scottish Government supports that targeted approach, which is based on cost-benefit evidence and robust risk assessment, across a range of risk reduction initiatives including sprinklers.
We continue to keep this important issue under review, and last year we commissioned research into a cost-benefit analysis of the installation of fire suppression systems in new-build houses, flats, houses in multiple occupation and halls of residence. The report from that research is due to be published very soon, and we will carefully review the research findings. We will keep members informed of our views, of course, with a view to seeing what practical, cost-effective measures might be considered in the future.
Sprinklers are only one of a range of risk reduction measures that can be deployed to reduce the number of fire deaths. David Stewart and Stewart Stevenson referred to others, including smoke alarms. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been working hard to raise awareness of the risk of fire in the home and encourage people to take action to make their communities safer. That is particularly important, as dwelling fires have been the main cause of casualties from fires in Scotland for the past 10 years.
That is why installing smoke alarms remains a key part of fire prevention activity in domestic premises. Last year, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service carried out more than 70,000 home fire safety visits—David Stewart referred to those—and installed a total of 60,000 smoke alarms. I hope that members will agree that that is a positive contribution to tackling fire safety in those premises. That approach is working. There were 9 per cent fewer dwelling fires in 2013-14 than in the previous year, continuing the downward trend of the past decade. I agree with David Stewart that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—indeed, all firefighters and their support staff who are involved in prevention work of that nature—deserve our thanks for the tremendous work that they do on our behalf.
From what we have heard today, there can be no doubt that sprinklers are an effective way to prevent casualties and, in particular, to limit damage to property that is caused by fire. I was interested to hear Stewart Stevenson’s points about the balance in the insurance costs and whether a sprinkler system might be an insurance in its own right. Indeed, the SFRS plays an active role in promoting the benefits of installing sprinklers among Scotland’s business community and it joined fire services across the UK in supporting fire sprinkler week 2015 in March.
From a legislative point of view, the requirements that are placed on the duty holders of relevant premises under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, to which Margaret Mitchell referred, are not prescriptive—and with good reason. The act requires duty holders to carry out an assessment to identify the risks and to decide which reasonable fire safety measures to take to ensure the safety of the people in the premises. Nevertheless, I note the points that have been made about enforcement when there is perceived to be a significant risk, when the Fire and Rescue Service can intervene.
In some environments, installing a sprinkler system may be an appropriate and cost-effective way of tackling the issue, but in others alternative methods of risk reduction might be more appropriate, cost effective and effective in absolute terms. Having said that, I would encourage any business owner to carefully consider the installation of a sprinkler system, among a range of other risk reduction initiatives, when they are considering the safety of the people using their premises as well as the preservation of their property.
I congratulate Clare Adamson on securing the debate and thank all members for the considered and sincere points that they have made. I am very aware of the situation regarding schools, which Malcolm Chisholm raised. The requirement for automatic sprinkler systems in new schools was introduced in 2010, but I take on board his remarks about existing schools.
13:10 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question Time