Emergency Calls
The final item is a members' business debate on motion S1M-999, in the name of Linda Fabiani, on 999 emergency calls. The debate will be concluded without any question being put after 30 minutes.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament urges all members of the public who believe themselves to be in danger to contact the relevant emergency service by dialling 999 without hesitation; expresses concern that the recent campaign to minimise use of the 999 emergency call system may deter members of the public from contacting the emergency services on legitimate grounds; expresses its support for a full examination of the implications for the emergency services of the continuing expansion in forms of communication such as mobile telephones, and urges the Scottish Executive to initiate discussions with all interested parties to identify a means of responding to this challenge, in particular the setting up of a central call system which could connect callers to the local police station.
Before speaking to the motion directly, I would like to outline the current situation with regard to contacting the emergency services.
The current system is somewhat centralised. There are call centres that handle 999 calls all over Britain. When a call is placed, it goes to an operator who determines the service that is needed and rings the appropriate agency. On pick-up, the call is the responsibility of the emergency services. On average 26 million emergency calls are made every year in the UK and 50 per cent of those calls are screened out as being non-emergency. In some areas of Scotland, nearly 10 per cent of 999 calls are abusive, nonsense, malicious or a hoax. That affects all three emergency services. Only this month, the Parliament's Audit Committee reported severe problems with hoax calls to the Ambulance Service. Such abuse has expanded over the past five years as mobile phone ownership has increased.
However, not all non-emergency calls are malicious. The increase in ownership of mobile phones has caused specific problems to the emergency services, which have been much publicised lately. Non-emergency calls may be the result of 999 being dialled accidentally, if, for example, a phone is stuffed in a bag or a pocket—999 calls can be made from mobile phones even if the number lock is on. Lothian and Borders police deals with up to 50 unintentional calls a day. That is the background to the substance of my motion.
As a response to the problem, individual police forces are carrying out their own campaigns to minimise the number of non-emergency calls. Some members will have heard the recent commercials on radio, publicising the campaign that is being jointly managed by three of Scotland's police forces. I can understand why the police feel it necessary to educate telephone users in the proper use of the system, just as I can understand the frustration that operators must feel when they are dealing with a potential hoax, a silent caller or a routine inquiry, knowing that someone else may be genuinely at risk and is not being dealt with.
That raises two issues. First, surely in this day and age the technology exists to deal with such calls quickly, perhaps by diverting them to a non-emergency line for call tracing. Secondly, we must consider the individual who telephones 999. Whatever the rise in the number of hoax calls, unintentional calls and so on, most people who ring 999 do so for genuine reasons.
Although the stark definition of an emergency as
"threat to life or limb, or an ongoing serious incident requiring immediate police assistance"
may be logical in the cold light of day, in times of stress or danger such logic is unlikely to be applied. One of the great strengths of our police force lies in the fact that people who are in danger, or who perceive themselves to be in danger, automatically want a policeman. Whatever criticism is made of our police—justified or unjustified—we should do nothing to jeopardise such a relationship between the public and the police.
Members may have seen the reports of my recent experience in which I encountered road rage at first hand. Indeed, that was the incident that sparked off this debate. I shall say what happened in brief: 999 was called and the response that was given was such that we felt uncomfortable about having made the call. The point is that I felt threatened and in the circumstances it was impractical to look up the number of the local police station in a telephone book or to phone directory inquiries. Since the event, I have received correspondence that suggests that several other people have had similar experiences.
It must be recognised that, when a caller feels threatened and calls 999 to ask for the police, for that caller the situation is real and an emergency. It worries me that, in our attempt to minimise hoax and meaningless calls, we will discourage genuine callers, who may now feel that they will be assumed to be stupid for making such a call.
With the advent of the car telephone, people can more easily call the police if they feel that something is worth reporting, such as a situation or incident where police action would be advantageous. I recently had a conversation with a constituent who, driving on the A71 on a stormy night, noticed that a temporary traffic light had blown over and felt that that could have caused a road accident. He did not know the number of Strathaven police station and admitted that he had not phoned directory inquiries because that would have cost £2.50 on his mobile phone. He spent the rest of the evening worrying that he should have reported the incident and that an accident might have occurred that he could have averted.
In such situations, it would be an advantage to have a national contact number for the police to enable call diversion to a local police station. That service would be fairly easy to implement and, given adequate advertising, would not only assist the general public but, in time, lessen the number of non-emergency calls to the emergency police service. Many years ago in Glasgow, all police stations had the phone number 1113, preceded by the appropriate area code, which made it easy to telephone those stations. Many police officers to whom I have spoken support the idea of such a central telephone point. Lothian and Borders police has suggested a national police inquiry line and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland supports the idea, despite understandable reservations about funding.
My motion—which, for the record, is motion S1M-999—is therefore clear. It asks the Parliament to urge any
"members of the public who believe themselves to be in danger to contact the relevant emergency service by dialling 999 without hesitation".
There should be
"a full examination of the implications for the emergency services of the continuing expansion in forms of communication such as mobile telephones".
Finally, the Scottish Executive should initiate discussions with all interested parties on the
"setting up of a central call system which could connect callers to the local police station".
I look forward to the minister's response.
I should first declare that I used to work for British Telecommunications plc, as I want to speak from my own experience.
BT and other companies that provide the 999 service welcome people who want to sit in on calls that come into the operator service so that they can see and hear how operators deal with such calls. It is an incredibly illuminating experience. Linda Fabiani's motion is well intentioned and, when she spoke to it, it sounded more positive than it might have read. However, something has to be done about a situation in which 50 per cent of emergency calls are not really emergency calls.
As the largest number of hoax calls come from children, a big job clearly has to be done in schools to make children understand the seriousness of phoning the 999 service. Even if such calls usually start off with the operator being asked the colour of their underwear—I apologise for using unparliamentary language—they can include gross obscenities. Unfortunately, the matter does not just involve children in this country. I was amazed to find that, after a national newspaper paid for free phone boxes to be used by British servicemen in Bosnia, Bosnian children phoned the 999 service and abused the operator. Although hoax calls are a big problem with children across the world, it is a problem that parents do not accept. I have had to play many parents the tapes of their children abusing operators in the 999 service before they would accept that their children were involved.
We also need to deal with people who do not grasp the concept of the 999 service. Although I do not think that anyone would have a problem with the examples that Linda Fabiani gave, they might have problems with someone who uses a phone that takes only 999 calls and asks to be connected to so-and-so. They have a problem with people who phone 999 for bus times, their own mobile phone numbers and police addresses.
Would Mr Mundell accept that, if people became used to the idea that there was a national police line that they could call and be diverted to a local police station, that problem would be alleviated?
I am coming to that, because the use of the 999 service on a non-emergency basis is a serious problem that must be addressed. It is important to raise the issue in schools so that children realise that making time-wasting calls—not just hoax calls to report fires that do not exist, which is a serious matter—is wrong. We must also ensure that the public have a better understanding of how to contact the police on a non-emergency basis. Indeed, the last time that I listened in to calls at work, I heard people calling up to ask for the address of their local police station. The public do not know how to make contact with the police or other services. We have to do as Linda Fabiani suggests and develop an alternative way in which to connect with the police on non-emergency matters. That must be combined with a greater understanding of what an emergency is.
The other aspect of the matter is that the system is two-ended. At one end are the operators—BT and others—who provide the front end of the service, but behind them are the systems of the police, the fire brigade, the coastguard and so on. Those systems are a bit of a patchwork and are not as high-tech as they might be. There is no point in having the best front end in the world if all the calls are funnelled into a low-tech system. I ask the minister to deal with those points when he winds up the debate.
This debate is helpful as it concerns a number of issues that are fairly intractable. Many years ago, when I was a councillor, the police had a big educational effort in one of the tougher parts of Edinburgh about not vandalising telephone boxes. Children were told that the next time that their granny fell ill, she might not get the ambulance that she desperately needed because the local telephone box had been vandalised. The net result of this campaign in the schools in the area was a marked increase in the vandalism of telephone boxes. The issue is complicated and human nature is a funny thing.
Wearing another hat, I visited Hewlett-Packard in South Queensferry. Hewlett-Packard is a world leader in the electronic subtleties of the business of tracking telephone calls. It was clear to me that effective systems could be put in place to track calls and get back to the people who made them. That could be developed and, despite what happened to the telephone boxes, combined with an educational programme to try to point out to children that abuse of the 999 service is dangerous to people.
We have to pursue the question of mobile phones. I will reveal my prejudices and say that I am sort of anti mobile phones. Mobile phones could be equipped with some sort of locking device to prevent the owner buzzing 999 accidentally.
I recently opened a telephone arrangement that is run by Hanover housing association for a number of different housing associations and councils and acts as a helpline for people in sheltered housing. That idea could be extended in the light of what Linda Fabiani said about non-emergency but quite serious phone calls. The police and social work services could be involved in the scheme, as well as the support services for the mostly elderly or handicapped people to whom the service is available. The development of such a system would be helpful. The house in Corstorphine provides a good service to quite distant parts of Scotland, and therefore systems can be set up in such a way that one is still helping local communities. The idea of having a massive call centre for the whole of Scotland is pretty daunting and unattractive.
There is scope for developing another service to relieve the pressure on the 999 service. I am quite happy to support a motion that we should encourage people who have a real emergency to use the 999 service, and we should do what we can to take other people away from that line. We will have to learn from our mistakes and experiment with genuine educational schemes that reduce misbehaviour.
It has been useful to debate this issue and I hope that the minister will mull over the ideas that have been suggested.
I thank Linda Fabiani for securing this interesting debate. It is apposite that, at this time, when we are just coming up to the first anniversary of the Scottish Parliament, we are able to concentrate on some issues that might not be immediately apparent. I heard Linda on the radio three or four weeks ago and her comments raised doubts and questions in my mind. I suppose that I am more a perpetrator of road rage than a victim of it, but I am conscious that many women who are less formidable than Linda must be put in a state of fear or alarm by such incidents. In the minds of the public, the 999 service must be considered sacrosanct.
Yesterday, we received a news release from Fife constabulary that said that extensive areas of Fife have no 999 cover because of a fault. I say to David Mundell that, unfortunately, that fault is due to BT. That raises the situation of people who find themselves in a similar position to Linda Fabiani: being terrorised on the road and unable to phone 999. The point of Linda's interview was that there was some reluctance on the part of the police to take seriously the incident in which she was involved. I found that profoundly disturbing.
As a member of the Audit Committee, I want to raise a couple of issues about the abuse of the 999 system for calling ambulances. It was alarming, to say the least, to note that the Ambulance Service is used as little more than a taxi service. That situation is extremely prevalent in Glasgow, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, when the service has its regulars who phone them from pubs and clubs to be collected by ambulance, only to get out as it approaches their homes, so that they can walk around the corner. Until the Audit Committee's inquiry, I was unaware that all 999 calls are handled on a non-priority basis and that the Ambulance Service cannot use its discretion not to take people to hospital. The Audit Committee will follow through on its inquiry at the end of the year.
We are also seeing more cases of police stations being unmanned at night. I live in Kinross, where the police station has no service after 10 o'clock at night, and it is a myth that someone can phone their local police station and get a response.
I support the idea of a national police non-emergency number. When I telephoned Direct Line the other day to sort out my insurance, I thought that I was phoning Glasgow, but I was put on to Yorkshire and ended up in Kent. Although I am not an expert, given modern technology, this problem is not insoluble and it should be examined as a matter of priority.
I want to ask the minister a brief question. Following this debate, could we commission research, or have research produced by the Scottish Parliament information centre, on this subject? We have heard statistics such as that 50 per cent of 999 calls are non-emergency calls, and I want to know if that is the case. We also heard that children make most of those calls and, again, I want to know if that is the case. There is not much point putting into place detailed education programmes for children if they are not causing the problem.
We should commission research to ensure that the facts and figures that have been quoted are correct, and then we can have a full and frank discussion. I believe that Lothian and Borders police proposed a 555 number a few years ago. The possibility of having such a system would be backed up by research on the use, or misuse, of the 999 number.
I support David Mundell's point that something has to be done, given such a high percentage of wrong or inappropriate calls, and I also support Linda Fabiani's proposal for another national number. If British Airways, the Automobile Association and other services can have a national number, why cannot a basic, non-essential police line be set up? That exists in Northern Ireland—bearing in mind other issues there.
Would the minister consider following up some of the pilot schemes in England, where closed-circuit television cameras in town centres monitored 999 calls from telephone boxes where fake calls were habitually being made? Those schemes effectively slashed in half inappropriate calls in those town centres, through very quick prosecution of the individuals involved. If anyone saw the TV programme on that subject, they would have seen a number of children who were regulars and who were caught. Some were as young as three or four years. They might have been taken along by their big sister or big brother to make a nuisance of themselves. I wonder if the minister might consider similar pilot schemes in city centres across Scotland.
I congratulate Linda Fabiani on lodging her motion on 999 emergency calls, which has enabled us to have today's discussion on what is an important issue, particularly given the resources available to the various emergency services. I fully endorse Linda's comment that any member of the public who believes that they are in danger and in need of assistance should contact the relevant emergency service by dialling 999 without hesitation—that is absolutely right. That 999 facility is a critical and valuable service for the general public. It should be, and is, cherished.
I am concerned about Linda Fabiani's contention that a recent campaign aimed at reducing the abuse of 999 calls might be construed as discouraging the use of the emergency call system on legitimate grounds. This is certainly not what the campaign does, and I take this opportunity to set the record straight. It is a joint publicity campaign by Lothian and Borders police, Fife constabulary and Central Scotland police, under the heading of "999: use it, don't abuse it". I think it unlikely that those three police forces would be participating in a campaign that was not going to be of benefit to the public whom they serve. The campaign, sponsored by BT Scotland, commenced on Wednesday 7 June and is to run for four weeks. During that time, more than 300 commercials will be broadcast by Scot FM.
The objective of the campaign is simple. It seeks to encourage use of the 999 system for genuine emergency calls. It also seeks to protect that important lifeline between the police and the public for its primary purpose. I am sure that all members would support that objective. The benchmark for a genuine emergency is properly defined as
"any situation where there is a threat to life or limb or a serious ongoing incident which requires immediate police attendance."
It is not unreasonable to ask members of the public to form a judgment against that background when considering making a 999 call.
The reason behind the campaign is that, in the past 12 months, the number of 999 calls received by police forces has increased dramatically. For example, the number of 999 calls received by Lothian and Borders police has risen by 31 per cent. This means that Lothian and Borders police is now handling more than 10,000 999 calls each month. There are a number of reasons for the increase, the most obvious of which is the significant and rapid growth in mobile telephone ownership. Although mobile phones are of great advantage in that more people are able to contact the emergency services quickly, that is also increasing the pressure on the 999 system. A recent scrutiny of 999 calls showed that only 32 per cent of all calls received related to genuine emergencies, as set against the definition that I have just read.
Of the rest of the calls, the majority were genuine, but were non-emergency calls. They included people seeking advice that could have been dealt with by contacting the local police station, requests for information about minor incidents or accidents that had happened some time ago and calls for general information, travel news and weather updates. There were also silent calls, which were accidentally activated, with no speech on the line. Between 9 and 10 per cent of calls received, as I think David Mundell indicated earlier, were of an abusive, nonsense or malicious nature.
It is worth giving some examples of the type of non-urgent 999 calls made to the police. In one case, a person called 999 to report that their partner had left their wallet on the bus. Someone else called 999 to say that someone had stolen their lunch. Another person called 999 to say that his next-door neighbour was cutting the garden hedge between the two houses and throwing the clippings into the caller's garden. Yet another person called 999 to say they were travelling to Manchester the next day and wanted to know what the roads would be like with regard to weather and traffic. Those are perhaps extreme examples, but they are not atypical and the list is endless.
Consequently, two thirds of the calls that are received on 999 lines are unnecessarily engaging the emergency lines and taking up critical control room staff time. Combined with the increase in 999 traffic, they make it a real possibility that a genuine emergency call might not be responded to in the appropriate time or with the proper resources, which could have dire consequences for the people who are involved.
Those problems are common throughout the country. All forces are recording similar increases in 999 calls and similar percentage figures for non-emergency calls to control rooms. As more than 22 million 999 calls are made to the emergency services each year in the UK, it is essential that something is done to reduce the number of non-emergency 999 calls that are made.
The "use it, don't abuse it" campaign was initiated by BT Scotland, which deals with the majority of emergency calls through its switchboard operators. Scot FM was engaged to front the campaign. The Scot FM listening area covers the three police force areas that I mentioned earlier, and those police forces enthusiastically agreed to participate in the campaign because they recognised the potential benefits. Great care was taken with the wording that was used in the commercials for the current campaign to ensure that the public were in no way discouraged from using 999 for genuine emergencies.
Considerable positive press coverage has been generated by the campaign, and I hope that the message is coming across that people are not to be discouraged from making proper use of the emergency call system. The "use it, don't abuse it" campaign is an attempt to educate telephone users to exercise care with their phones and to think about the consequences of making inappropriate calls to the police on the emergency 999 line, and will have genuine benefits. The effect of the campaign will be evaluated, with monitoring of before-and-after statistics providing a way of judging whether it has been successful. A similar campaign that was conducted by Cleveland police, in England, was successful and resulted in a 25 per cent reduction in non-emergency calls to the control room.
One important objective of this campaign is to get people to make more use of their local police stations instead of dialling 999. The telephone numbers of the local police stations are being published in local newspapers and in routine council publications.
There is a particular problem with silent calls, that is, 999 calls in which no one speaks at the other end of the line. The vast majority of those come from mobile phones, but they have to be treated seriously by the police and control room staff in case there is a genuine emergency. The public are being asked to take more care with their mobile phones, to prevent accidental activation when the phones are being carried in pockets or handbags. People are also being asked to keep their phones out of the reach of children who are too young to understand their use. A small number of people make malicious or abusive 999 calls, and the message is being put across to them that their actions constitute a criminal offence and efforts will be made to trace and report them.
Linda Fabiani raised an important point about the provision of a central call system. That is a complex matter, which is currently under consideration by the Police Information Technology Organisation. That organisation is a UK body that is responsible for developing and implementing information and communications systems for the police. The Scottish police and the Scottish Executive are represented on that body. PITO has been examining the requirements for a comprehensive police call handling strategy, to alleviate pressures on the 999 service and to provide a prompt and professional response to non-emergency calls. An initial scoping study has been carried out, and PITO is developing a strategy and a programme of work for its implementation. We have signalled to PITO our wish to be involved in this project and, with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, we will consider the way forward for the police service in Scotland.
While I am talking about adjusting the present system, I shall take the opportunity to respond to some of the points that were made in the debate. The discussions over joint control rooms for the emergency services are under way, and there may be some progress on that in the future. It is within the power of local police forces to use CCTV appropriately throughout city and town areas in Scotland, and in other areas in which they have access to the facilities, not only to monitor the active response to criminal activity, but to be proactive about targeting difficult areas—999 calls could be a part of that. There is no restriction.
The last point to which I want to respond was made by Nick Johnston and was about the priority dispatch of ambulances. Susan Deacon has allocated an additional £100,000 for the Scottish Ambulance Service to carry out an investigation into a priority-based dispatch system. I am hopeful that a more logical system of responding will emerge at some point in the near future.
Members might recall that the Scottish Executive announced earlier this year that it is committed to assisting with the funding of a new police radio system in Scotland. That will be taken forward in conjunction with forces in England and Wales. It is important to note that the Public Safety Radio Communications Service will provide all forces with a national, digital, mobile radio communication service. The consequence of that will be a modern, reliable communications system that will operate throughout the country. The new communications infrastructure will also—this is important in terms of today's debate—provide an opportunity to customise the ways in which we deal with communications to, from and between police forces. That addresses some points that were made by members today and we look forward to developments.
In closing, I emphasise again that the public expect, rightly, that the emergency services will respond quickly to incidents and provide assistance to those who are in difficulties—that is appropriate. The emergency services accept that responsibility readily and the police service in particular will continue to respond positively and professionally. Effective policing and effective responses require partnership between the police and public in protecting the community. The current campaign—which I am happy to advocate—is about recognising that every second counts in genuine emergencies. The public's co-operation is being sought to make the most effective use of the valuable 999 service.
I commend the campaign to Parliament and ask members to support it.
On a point of order. On 12 May I asked a question of the Scottish Executive about whether it will publish a report into Tayside Health Board's task force. I have received information that that report might be published imminently, but I have yet to receive a reply to my question of some six weeks ago. Could you, Presiding Officer, provide me with guidance on whether the minister would be treating Parliament with contempt and would, therefore, be deserving of a rebuke if that report were published before I received an answer?
That is an interesting point to have thrown at one so late in the evening. I will reflect upon it and endeavour to provide a response by letter tomorrow.
Meeting closed at 17:43.