Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Emergency Control Room Closures)
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-09191, in the name of David Stewart, on local knowledge under fire. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the recent restructuring of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) and the proposed closure of five of Scotland’s eight emergency control rooms, including that at Inverness; understands that these closures disproportionately affect rural constituencies where local geographic knowledge is highly important in mobilising firefighting efforts; notes the view that local problems require local solutions; considers that the control room proposals will leave rural towns and communities feeling vulnerable and isolated from the SFRS; believes that the fire safety legislation that has been passed by the National Assembly for Wales, which mandates the installation of fire sprinkler systems in all new buildings, is beneficial, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to consult on whether to introduce similar such legislation.
12:32
I thank all the members who are here for their interest in the debate and I thank all the members who signed my motion. To those who have not signed it, I say that I always welcome sinners who wish to repent. I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Training, Youth and Women’s Employment on her recent elevation.
The debate is not simply about the closure of local control rooms but about how we ensure that our communities feel safe and secure, regardless of whether they are in Edinburgh or Elgin, Stirling or Stornoway, or Dunoon or Dumfries. The debate highlights important issues that affect communities across the country, in rural and urban areas. I know that many members across the political divide have had constituents raising concerns about the closure of their local fire control rooms.
In my area—the Highlands and Islands—the announcement that the control room in Inverness would close caused such local concern that residents started a campaign, which has resulted in a petition being brought to Parliament. In my many years representing the Highlands and Islands in various political arenas, I have rarely experienced such public anger.
I have visited the control room in Inverness and spoken to Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Board member Dr Michael Foxley, who is well respected as an ex-convener of Highland Council. Along with my colleague Rhoda Grant, I met the chief fire officer and had a useful meeting with Roseanna Cunningham. I have met local Fire Brigades Union officials on a number of occasions and, during recess last week, I spent a couple of hours with senior fire and rescue staff in Fort William.
That has helped me to understand how different landscapes, infrastructures and community resources can have a huge impact on the way in which vital services, including fire and rescue services, are delivered. Communities find reassurance in knowing that, when they phone 999, they will be put through to a control room that is filled with people who understand the local environment and will get help to them in the most effective way.
The petition that one of my constituents has lodged shows the depth of feeling that exists. More than 4,000 people have joined the campaign. The petition was recently presented to me by councillors and community activists on a beautiful spring morning at Western Isles Council’s headquarters in Stornoway.
There is enormous anxiety that the new arrangements will not handle the distinctive challenges in Highlands and Islands communities and that the quality of the current service will be diminished. Currently, the staff at the Inverness control room have a unique understanding and knowledge of the challenges that exist in the area, which are due to not just its distinct geography but the fact that it has the largest range of dialects anywhere in the United Kingdom and many native Gaelic speakers.
Staff have expertise in allocating resources to deal with forest fires. They liaise with lifeboats to get appliances to remote island communities, and they have in-depth knowledge of the intricate network of remote single-track roads to deal with road accidents. That expertise cannot be replaced by state-of-the-art computer systems or standardised training. As one Inverness control staff member said to me, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”
Choosing to move operations to the central belt has angered many local people, as they feel that it is just another example of their expertise and jobs being overlooked in favour of a centralisation agenda. That concern was compounded by the feeling that local community views were ignored and had very little weight while decisions were being considered. I hope that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Board will review the procedures in making such decisions in the future.
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. The latest figures show that 46 fatal injuries were caused by fire in Scotland. The figure has been going down, but we must not be complacent and we must do all that we can to ensure that we avoid preventable injuries in the future.
I commend the efforts of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in undertaking various prevention programmes, including the home fire safety visits, and I welcome the revision to building regulations in 2010, which made having at least one smoke alarm mandatory. That has contributed to the fitting of more smoke and heat alarms in homes. With a fine sense of timing, the minister wrote to me last week to say:
“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, the recent “Scotland Together” report found that social deprivation links to an increased risk of fire death, 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.
More can be done, which is why I have advocated the introduction of fire sprinkler systems in all social housing and houses in multiple occupation.
Does Mr Stewart agree that the real fire problem exists in some older buildings and houses and not new buildings, thanks to the Scottish building regulation standards?
I certainly think that there are issues around older buildings. I will refer to the Welsh Parliament shortly. The member might find the experience there interesting.
The evidence shows clearly that fire sprinklers can save lives and that, if targeted well, they can help to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. Fire sprinklers are a highly cost-effective way of reducing the United Kingdom’s appalling fire death toll. Currently, fire detection systems and smoke alarms probably save around 80 to 100 lives each year. It is the most vulnerable members of our society who are most at risk: the very young, the very old, the disabled, the infirm and those who abuse drugs and alcohol.
Sprinklers can prevent fire deaths. With social housing, residential care premises, houses in multiple occupation, 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 on the effectiveness of sprinklers was carried out by the Rural/Metro fire department in Scottsdale, Arizona. It showed that sprinklers not only save lives but significantly reduce the cost of damage—by 85 per cent on average.
I am, of course, aware that Scotland led the way in introducing mandatory requirements for sprinkler systems with the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004. I praise the work that Fife Council and Angus Council have done in ensuring that all new social housing will have built-in systems. The Welsh Assembly has gone even further and passed groundbreaking legislation that requires all new homes to contain fire sprinkler systems from 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government will look at the results from Wales.
In conclusion, I urge the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Board to reassess the decision on closing the fire control rooms in Inverness, Aberdeen and beyond. I hope that Scotland will continue to lead the way on fire prevention. The Parliament has a proud record of innovation and best practice in introducing measures such as free personal care, the smoking ban and a zero-tolerance approach to domestic abuse. We are at our best when we are at our boldest. Let us add another groundbreaking policy, rethink the closure of fire control rooms and extend the range of sprinklers to prevent the deaths and injuries of our old, vulnerable and disadvantaged constituents across Scotland.
12:40
I start by drawing members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows why I am pleased to speak in this debate. I was a volunteer fireman for well over 20 years. I recently stood down, because I was unable to fulfil the role while being a member of the Scottish Parliament, and Strathclyde Fire and Rescue was kind enough to give me a long-service medal.
When our small volunteer unit was formed, it had the distinction of being the first in Strathclyde, and perhaps in Scotland, to have women firefighters. We founder members thought that we would be required to deal with the very occasional chimney fire and that we would not be at all busy. Nothing could have been further from the truth, although the first fire that we attended was indeed a chimney fire—it was at the home of one of our unit’s members, which was embarrassing. No one is immune from fire.
Thereafter, and particularly in the early years, we were very busy indeed. We dealt with some major fires, including one in which, sadly, there was a fatality. I knew the deceased person very well. Rural firefighting is up close and personal. It requires a strong stomach. Nothing brings home the danger of fire more clearly than seeing the body of a friend among the smouldering embers or the devastation of the ruined house of a neighbour.
I was pleased to do my bit in the fire service. I learned a lot and I hope that I contributed something, too. I compliment Strathclyde Fire and Rescue on the excellent training that it gave us and I accord the highest respect to all the firefighters whom I worked with, whether they were volunteers, retained or full time. Firefighters are excellent people who routinely risk their lives on the public’s behalf.
Perhaps the most important lesson that I learned from the fire service is that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. That brings me to Dave Stewart’s motion. I fear that Dave Stewart is at risk of the danger of having a little knowledge. However, he is correct that local knowledge is very important. It is critical for firefighters, and much of our unit’s training focused on that. It is critical to know where fire hydrants are and to be able to find them quickly on a dark night in bad weather. It is critical to know which houses and buildings in the unit’s area are far from a water main and where the nearest sources of water are.
Firefighters have to be practised in improvising a water supply and in quickly setting up a pump and getting it operational. Time is critical and teamwork is essential. The senior officer who is present is in operational charge of the firefighting. Firefighting is not directed from afar by control room staff. That would be daft and dangerous.
It is a cause for regret when efficiencies are forced on us by the Westminster Government’s cuts, but I do not think that what is happening will impact on the operational effectiveness of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
12:43
It is unusual to offer congratulations to three people at the start of a speech, but I will do so. First, I congratulate the cabinet secretary on her elevation to her new post. I wish her well as she undertakes her duties. Secondly, I offer congratulations to Mike MacKenzie and the hundreds of firefighters who volunteer their services on behalf of their communities, and I acknowledge the essential work that they do. Finally, I congratulate David Stewart on securing this debate on the important issue of local knowledge and local accountability.
It should give David Stewart some comfort to know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, in a previous life, agreed with many of the comments that he made today. On 3 November 2004, in discussing decisions to cut fire control rooms and other available options at that time, Mr MacAskill said:
“The number of control rooms in Scotland is fundamental to the fire service and it must be fully debated in the Scottish Parliament before a decision is made.”
Will the member give way?
Please let me finish my point.
Mr MacAskill went on to say:
“We don’t want a reduction of fire service control rooms, and there needs to be up front discussions not sleight of hand from this Executive.”
Those were important points in 2004; indeed, as much was confirmed four years ago in Jeff Ord’s report about the importance of fire control rooms to fire safety in Scotland.
That is not to say that there should be no change—after all, we live in a different world and face different challenges—but the problem is that we need to explain to local communities around not only Aberdeen and Inverness but Dumfries, Fife and Falkirk why their control rooms need to close at this time and to make clear the back-up resource that will be provided to ensure a first-class service for the future.
The issues that have caused so much concern not only around Aberdeen and Inverness but right across the country relate to the inability of the fire and emergency service, the police, the ambulance service and others to come together and co-ordinate the location of control rooms to give not only a better geographical spread but resilience to each of those services. If that were to happen, people would know that across the country there would be a fallback option for providing emergency support and control room facilities and that best use would be made of information technology, communication networks and the contracts for providing facilities right across Scotland to ensure that we did not lose the local knowledge that we accept is vital at times of stress.
There has been a failure to explain to the public what the options were, how the decisions were made, how communities will benefit from the reorganisation of fire control rooms as well as the separate reorganisation of police control rooms and how the crossover between those two reorganisations will achieve not only best value and other economies but better services for all concerned.
I am therefore happy to contribute to today’s debate, and I wish David Stewart well in developing that debate and gaining support for his fire sprinkler proposal. I hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to offer some views on how we develop a way forward, a better service and better support from local control rooms.
12:47
I, too, congratulate Angela Constance on her promotion, and I thank David Stewart for securing the debate.
It is the responsibility of every Highlands and Islands MSP to ensure that, despite the challenges that are posed by the remoteness and rurality of the region that we represent, the services are the best that they can be. That applies equally to all public services, including the national health service, councils, Police Scotland, the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Although most members have so far concentrated on the fire service alone, it is important to point out that the service is equally competent in dealing with flooding and other issues. It is, indeed, a fire and rescue service. I should also say that my colleague Jamie McGrigor will talk about the specific Western Isles issues that David Stewart has already mentioned.
Much of the focus over the past year has been on the merged police force, with little having been said about the merger of the fire and rescue services. In fact, Audit Scotland will not report on that new merger until January 2015—almost two years after the inception of the single service—although I appreciate that work is on-going.
I welcomed the merger of the fire and rescue service, mainly because of the Accounts Commission’s very critical report on the then Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service. That report highlighted that there were
“serious concerns about the sustainability of the fire cover model”,
that there was no
“clear matching of resources to community risk ... poor leadership ... a capital backlog of £17 million, with ... 35 stations ... in need of upgrading ... significant health and safety risks in relation to firefighters”
and that information and communication technology systems were
“not adequate to properly support remote training”.
My hope was that all those issues, and more, would be addressed in the lead-up to the merger into the single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and that the Highlands and Islands would get their fair share of resources, support and training to ensure that firefighters would be given support in the job that we expect them to do.
It is therefore disappointing that, one year into the merger, jobs are being lost and services are being withdrawn, not just in Inverness but Scotland wide. Five of Scotland’s eight fire emergency control rooms and six of Scotland’s police control rooms are due to close. That goes alongside further civilian job cuts in the single police force.
As David Stewart said, the closures will result in the loss of highly skilled jobs, but probably more important is that they also represent the withdrawal of an important local service and a potential reduction in quality in order to save money.
Although the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service assures us that there will be no compulsory redundancies, we know that in areas such as the Highlands and Islands, voluntary redundancies are on offer to staff who will be required either to relocate to places that are considerable distances away or to apply for unsuitable or often lower-paid jobs. It could be said that that is compulsory redundancy in all but name.
It seems that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Board has barely addressed or even considered those concerns. Staff at the Inverness control room have a unique understanding and knowledge of the area, the dialects and, indeed, the Gaelic that is spoken. Roads, houses, villages and areas often have regional names, which means that local knowledge is vital.
Will Mary Scanlon give way?
I have just less than a minute left.
Local people have barely been consulted on the move and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has barely considered alternatives.
I turn to the second part of the motion, which I welcome, on the proposal for new fire safety legislation.
Do so briefly, please.
I appreciate that I am out of time, so I just want to say that I very much welcome what has happened in Wales and the fact that the approach that has been taken on the measure there was agreed to unanimously. I trust that a similar approach could be adopted in Scotland.
12:52
I start by wishing the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs a speedy recovery—I understand that she is unwell this week. I congratulate Ms Constance on her promotion, although I am a little surprised to see her, rather than her cabinet colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, substituting for Ms Cunningham.
I congratulate David Stewart on securing the debate. The closure of police and fire and rescue services’ emergency control rooms across Scotland has prompted motions expressing concern from MSPs of all parties. Indeed, I had a members’ business debate before the Easter recess highlighting the particular situation in Dumfries and Galloway, where both the police and fire and rescue service control rooms had been earmarked for closure.
Dave Stewart’s motion rightly concentrates on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service control room closures. They do not seem to have attracted the same degree of attention as the police control room closures, but they are equally important.
During my members’ business debate last month I expressed my concern for the 15 control room staff whose jobs at the fire and rescue emergency control room in Dumfries will disappear, and my concern about whether they will all be offered suitable and comparable employment within the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Those concerns will remain until I have been assured that no one is being expected to travel unreasonable distances to control rooms in the central belt in order to retain their employment, and that no one has been forced to accept so-called voluntary redundancy because no job has been offered that they can feasibly accept.
I do not intend to repeat the contribution that I made a month ago. This time, I want to highlight some of the points that have been made by people who really know about the fire service—firefighters. The Fire Brigades Union Scotland made pertinent points in its submission to the SFRSB on the future of fire emergency control rooms last January. Unfortunately, the FBUS did not argue for retention of the control room in Dumfries and Galloway, but that is partly because discussions about its closure had pre-dated the creation of the single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I have, of course, sought and received assurances from the union that it will actively support the displaced staff in their being suitably redeployed.
However, the FBUS expressed serious concerns about the reduction in the number of control rooms to three, and in particular the lack of local cover in the north of Scotland—there will be no control room north of Dundee. The FBUS also pointed out the problem of wildfire in the Highlands and Islands and Grampian; wildfire is, of course, also a potential threat for Dumfries and Galloway.
Identification of the location of a fire can be difficult because forests and moorlands do not have postcodes, so local knowledge of such areas is crucial. Rural areas tend to rely on retained crews rather than full-time firefighters, and stations may be far apart along minor roads, so extra pumps may have to be mobilised in case additional resources are required, and standby arrangements must be made to maintain fire cover at the stations that will be empty. All that requires a fair degree of local knowledge, whatever Mike MacKenzie says—the FBUS does not agree with him in that respect. It believes that local knowledge is required about the location of pumps and which stations have crew available and when. The FBUS submission warns against assuming that technology can provide the solution to every difficulty, and points out that a recent failure of the radio system caused problems for six of the eight existing control rooms.
The FBUS submission makes the important point that three large control rooms could be targets for terrorist attack. If one were to suffer a catastrophic failure, there would be only two left covering the whole country. The SFRS has a statutory responsibility to plan for worst-case scenarios such as technological failure, cyberterrorism or an illness epidemic affecting control room staff.
In the past, Government ministers have argued the case for closure in terms of the daily numbers of calls, but those numbers have been contested by staff. In addition, call handling is far from being the only responsibility of control room operators, and the other duties will still require to be undertaken when the control rooms close.
In conclusion, the control room closures have been undertaken without consideration of the views of local people and communities or even, it seems, the views of firefighters themselves, who know best about such things. Unfortunately, no one in Government is prepared to call the SFRS to account for the closures. I do not expect Ms Constance to do so, but I would have expected it from her colleagues in the justice department.
12:57
I start by paying tribute, as Graeme Pearson did in his excellent speech, to all those who work in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—both retained and full time. I congratulate Angela Constance on her promotion—a promotion and a visit to Orkney certainly made that a red letter day, I am sure. As today’s debate demonstrates, there will be a variety of challenges ahead, but I wish her well in meeting them.
I thank Dave Stewart for lodging the motion and for bringing the debate to the chamber, and for the way in which he prosecuted the argument in his opening speech. His motion quite fairly establishes that closure of five of the eight emergency control rooms, including the one in Inverness, will have a disproportionate effect on rural communities such as mine—Orkney.
Will Liam McArthur take an intervention?
I will not, at this stage.
As a petition that Parliament considered only this week demonstrates, there has been no dilution of the anger and anxiety that is felt in rural areas about the issue, and those feelings are certainly echoed in my constituency.
Councillor Andrew Drever, the chair of Orkney Islands Council police and fire committee, set out very well in his letter to Pat Watters in October last year the case for retaining the control room in Inverness. He mentions the vastness of the area that it covers and the diverse geography, which Mary Scanlon has also highlighted, and the experience and local knowledge that are vital in mobilising responses.
Councillor Drever mentions the need to add resilience to the Scottish network overall. Such resilience is potentially crucial at times of natural disaster or civic emergency. He also points to the recent upgrade of the control room in Inverness, and suggests that because the control room is co-located on a single secure site with the Inverness workshop, which will remain open, the savings to be made are “minimal”.
I have met Alasdair Hay, and I know that he is trying to respond to the concerns that have been raised. However, as with the creation of Police Scotland, the message that is conveyed by merging and centralising operations is that rural and island areas are somehow a secondary consideration.
The minister will argue that the decision is an operational matter. I accept that one of the fears around the creation of a single police force and a single fire and rescue service concerns undue political influence and interference by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. However, ministers can and should lead by example. The message from this Government from the outset is not only that centralisation is acceptable, but that it is positively encouraged.
A feature of the previous Lib Dem-Labour Executive’s approach was the policy of civil service relocation. It was a recognition that devolution should not stop at Edinburgh but is about more. It is not just about powers coming to Scotland, but is about powers for all of Scotland. The process was not straightforward. For example, I recall well that submissions, at least in the first instance, from officials invariably suggested that the status quo was the easiest and cheapest option. Latterly, offers of moves to Stirling and Perth emerged in proposals. However, ministers were resolute and jobs were relocated and communities from the Borders to the Highlands and Islands and many points in between benefited. It was not just about jobs, as is the case with the control rooms, important though they are. What was done sent a critically important message about the type of Scotland that we want to create, in which the centre does not always know or do best.
That policy was, of course, almost immediately abandoned by the Scottish National Party after 2007. It was done quietly, but very deliberately. We should not underestimate the effect that that has had on the wider public sector. Statements about effective consolidation, administrative simplicity and decluttering the landscape were used to justify retrenching to the centre; they were all used as excuses for chipping away at local democracy and were, in my view, the antithesis of what devolution was supposed to achieve. It has not gone unnoticed by my constituents that SNP ministers constantly demand more powers for themselves while showing little inclination to share the ones that they already have with communities, particularly in rural and island areas.
Again, I congratulate David Stewart on bringing this debate to Parliament, although I suspect that it comes too late for those in the Inverness control room and in others that are set for closure. However, I believe that it should prompt the Government to think again about its approach.
13:01
I, too, congratulate David Stewart on bringing this motion for debate today. On Tuesday morning, he and I both heard from petitioners Jody Curtis and Laura Ross when they spoke to the Public Petitions Committee on behalf of thousands of their fellow citizens. They said that the decisions to close every fire and police control room north of the central belt has left people in the north-west and north-east feeling as if their regions have been forgotten by Scotland’s devolved Government. The public have had no opportunity to express a view on the closures and the concerns of control room staff have been ignored.
As Elaine Murray said, the Fire Brigades Union has spoken out particularly strongly on behalf of its members in the threatened control rooms in Aberdeen and Inverness. Two comments by the union’s Scottish secretary, John Duffy, were mentioned by SNP MSPs on Tuesday, as if to imply that somehow the union is content with the closure proposals. It is not.
As Elaine Murray said, FBU Scotland argued in a paper to the SFRS board in January that “a different solution” is required in the north to
“the proposed enlarged control rooms to be sited in the central belt.”
Local knowledge is critical for fighting fires in remote rural areas.
Will Lewis Macdonald take an intervention?
No.
Decisions on how many pumps to send, where to look for back-up, and which part-time stations can provide standby cover if other part-time crews are committed to a remote location are all decisions that are based on local knowledge and are
“not computer generated but ... learned and maintained by local operators.”
The FBU also highlighted the specialised training that is undertaken by control room staff in Aberdeen, who need to be fully conversant with safety-critical procedures for specific risks that arise in the oil and gas industry: from working-at-height procedures, to mass decontamination, to mobilising the UK’s international search and rescue team in conjunction with equally specialised control rooms in the West Midlands and Hampshire, to providing support to crews and senior officers at the scene of major incidents, which can be of vital importance for a successful resolution.
The union argued that the best solution for the north service delivery area was
“the retention of a Control room in both the North East and North West of Scotland to recognise and ensure a robust response to the unique risks and challenges presented by these large areas.”
We know that Aberdeen already has a purpose-built control room that was designed and equipped in 2007 to allow for future expansion and which could be expanded at very little cost. The FBU has argued, rightly, that retaining two existing control rooms in the north-west and north-east makes more financial sense than spending taxpayers’ money simply to replicate the Aberdeen control room in Dundee.
The board went ahead with those closures on a majority vote only after senior management had drastically revised the projected costs and savings, hours before the decision was taken, and in spite of the conclusions of the management’s own options appraisal that there was no financial benefit from closing Aberdeen. It had to assess the importance of cost savings as representing 10 per cent of the argument; that exposed a real and fundamental weakness in the case.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service could hardly have got off to a worse start. Even if ministers do not recognise the folly of the closure proposals, surely they must recognise the damage that is being done to the trust and confidence of the wider community in the new service as a whole.
I am sorry that Roseanna Cunningham could not be here, and that Kenny MacAskill did not stay to respond to the debate, but if ever there was a case for a change of heart by justice ministers, this is it. Ministers should require the board to withdraw its discredited proposals and to work with the Fire Brigades Union and other stakeholders to agree proposals that will make real savings, restore public trust and enhance public safety in all our communities.
13:05
I, too, congratulate David Stewart on securing today’s important debate, and I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution. I also congratulate Mike MacKenzie on his long service medal, which is a great achievement. Our firefighters are very brave people and we must recognise that and give them every possible support.
On behalf of constituents across my region, I wish to highlight the genuine concerns about the proposal to close the Inverness control room. I was recently in the Western Isles, where campaigners, including Councillor Catriona Stewart, presented me with a copy of the petition with more than 3,000 signatures that was given to David Stewart as convener of the Public Petitions Committee. The number of signatures collected, in addition to those gathered through the Facebook campaign, demonstrates the strength of local feeling. Council leaders have also spoken out against the changes.
Anxiety about the potential loss of local knowledge and expertise is widespread. The remote and rural island communities of the Highlands and Islands region have been well served by the Inverness control room.
Does Mr McGrigor not feel that, given the circumstances in which local knowledge is available in control rooms, such as Mr McArthur mentioned in relation to Inverness—
Let us have a question, not a speech, please.
Does Mr McGrigor agree that the claim of local knowledge of such a widespread area as the Highlands and Islands is not credible and, indeed, that such local knowledge is not necessary at control room level? Does he agree that some members are guilty of raising public fears that should not be there?
We have a devolved Administration and we ought to devolve other things as well.
Anxiety about the potential loss of local knowledge is widespread. It has been correctly pointed out that many roads, houses and place names in the region are in Gaelic, so it is vital that those in the control room have an awareness of Gaelic, something that the Inverness control room certainly has and something that has been acquired and built up over a long period of time. There are also many cases of duplication of place names across the Highlands, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, and computer systems cannot compensate for the local knowledge of place names and dialects.
As members will know, the wind off the Atlantic blows fiercely in the islands and fires spread quickly. Any delay can be disastrous.
I also share the concern of constituents who are annoyed that communities simply were not consulted before the proposal to close the Inverness control room was announced. That is regrettable. I call on the minister to recognise and address the significant level of public concern across the Highlands and Islands on the matter, and to urge the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to engage with communities and reassess the decision on the Inverness control room.
13:09
I start by thanking members for their kind comments with respect to my promotion. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members in wishing Ms Cunningham a speedy return to her normal robust good health. Nonetheless, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Scottish Government to important community safety issues that are very much at the heart of the communities that we all represent.
Ms Cunningham has said on many occasions that the Scottish Government acknowledges the very clear passion across the chamber on the issues that Mr Stewart raised today. However, it is important for us all to reflect on the fact that, in any change programme, decisions will be made that cannot please everyone. Graeme Pearson touched on that when he intimated that the world never stands still and that change is often required and necessary.
I say to Jamie McGrigor that the Government acknowledges that there have been difficult decisions, but it is also right for us to spend at least a few minutes looking at the positive outcomes of what has been achieved. A key aim of our new national fire service is to strengthen the connection between services and local communities. That aim is already being delivered across Scotland, which is evident from the public consultation on local fire and rescue plans, prepared by local senior officers, which concluded in March. Nearly 900 individuals and organisations responded to that consultation, taking advantage of the new opportunities to help set fire service priorities at a local level. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive.
I know that concerns continue about the loss of local knowledge, which has been a theme throughout the debate, but we have a clear commitment from the chief fire officer that he would not propose any action that would undermine the safety of any community in Scotland. Modern technology and mapping systems provide the most accurate information on the location of incidents. It is the professionalism and expertise of control room staff that are imperative and they are not dependent on their location.
Three modern control rooms with connections to every fire appliance in Scotland will deliver a better service using the latest information technology, which will allow dynamic mobilising, remove the boundaries of the previous eight services and make sure that the nearest available appliance is deployed as speedily as possible.
I ask David Stewart, Jamie McGrigor and others whether it is realistic to expect anyone to have local knowledge of the entire Highlands and Islands. Let us consider the control room in Johnstone that serves the whole of Strathclyde region—including 29 islands—which will deal with requests articulated in a full range of dialects and the Gaelic language. Staff in Johnstone handle more than 50 per cent of all calls to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—again, all through professionalism, expertise and the supporting systems.
David Stewart and others are understandably concerned about the isolation of rural communities, but we all know that budgets are under pressure. It is important to reduce duplication in areas such as control rooms, because that protects the precious resources available, which means that the continued front-line presence and delivery in rural areas—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that?
I might do in a wee minute. I am conscious that Mr Stewart also wanted answers about sprinklers.
It is important to recognise that the changes have been made with a view to protecting front-line services. Where local knowledge is imperative is among staff on the ground and at the front line.
Given the financial climate that we are in, what is the alternative?
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Perhaps in a moment.
I am pleased that we have not had to go down the route of fire services in London, where hundreds of firefighting jobs have been lost.
It is important to recognise that the level of calls to fire control rooms is such that they could all have been handled by one control room, but the SFRS chose to keep three control rooms to address the very issues that Dr Elaine Murray raised to do with resilience—Liam McArthur touched on that as well. It is important not to put all our eggs in one basket.
In broader terms, new resources are going into the north of Scotland, in the form of the water rescue resource service in Inverness. Further, the first whole-time firefighter recruitment campaign will be under way in May. I hope that that will be of interest to Mary Scanlon because the majority of those new posts will be located in the north of Scotland. It is important that I reiterate the commitment of the Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to having no compulsory redundancies. Nearly 40 new firefighters are now in the service who previously worked in support services.
Mr Stewart raised the important issue of sprinklers. It is true that domestic sprinklers can help to prevent casualties and damage to property caused by fire, which may be a particular issue in more rural areas. Scotland has led the way in the UK. Perhaps Mr Stewart has had something to do with the fact that, in 2005, we were the first to introduce building standards requiring the installation of sprinklers in new-build enclosed shopping centres, residential care buildings, sheltered housing and high-rise accommodation.
In 2009, the “Scotland Together” report, to which Mr Stewart referred, concluded that it was not cost effective to install sprinklers in all Scottish homes. That point was reiterated in the Welsh Government’s evidence. Nonetheless, the scope of sprinkler coverage should be kept under review and the Government will take great interest in the latest proposals emerging from Wales. We already have enabling powers, under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, to introduce secondary legislation. I stress that the Government’s current position is to support a targeted approach to sprinklers, but we will continue to review the situation and look at what is happening in Wales and elsewhere to promote community safety.
At the end of the day, though, although Parliament has debated and is divided on aspects of detail, community safety is of paramount importance to all of us and the communities that we represent. We should recognise that, although we are making progress with fire safety in Scotland, there is never any room for complacency.
13:17
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—