Ten years ago, in March 2004, the tragedy of the Rosepark nursing home fire occurred in my constituency. Fourteen elderly people lost their lives in that appalling event. When they should have been safe and secure, they were not; when they should have been protected, they were not; when they put their trust in others, they were robbed of their final years, their families were bereaved and the community was left in shock. It is therefore with my deepest sympathy and respect for their memory that I lodged the motion and speak to it this evening.
There has been progress on fire safety since that day. The previous coalition Administration put the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 on the statute book and, quite recently, in March, the present Scottish Government produced the long-awaited “Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Care Homes”. Obviously, the Rosepark incident occurred before the act and its associated secondary legislation. As subsequent investigations demonstrated, the fire should never have taken place. One of the key findings in Sheriff Principal Lockhart’s determination, after hearing the evidence at the fatal accident inquiry in Hamilton, was that the fire risk assessment at the care home was inadequate and that the person who had carried it out was not qualified to do so.
Care homes are of course only one type of business. They are now systematically and actively visited by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. However, the 2005 act dealt with fire safety in all commercial premises. Part 3 of the act concerns fire safety, and section 53 sets out the requirement to carry out fire risk assessments in premises on owners, employers and persons who are responsible for those premises. Those so-called duty holders must also keep fire safety under review.
As Sheriff Principal Lockhart noted, at the time of the Rosepark incident, there was
“no statutory requirement as regards the qualifications”
of those carrying out a fire risk assessment, but neither the act nor any subsequent regulations has altered that situation. The reason was and remains that, in many premises, duty holders can carry out a self-assessment. In many small premises, such as a one or two-room greengrocer’s shop, the risks are minimal and fire exits are obvious to staff and customers. That is not necessarily the case in, for example, factories or care homes or indeed a building such as the one that we are in now.
I emphasise that many duty holders can rely safely on their judgment and self-assessment. That is perfectly acceptable in some circumstances but, with complex buildings, advice should be readily available and should be of the highest standard. Accordingly, in those situations a duty holder is heavily reliant on the capability and professionalism of the fire risk assessor and has to take his or her qualifications at face value.
This is the crux of what I have to say this evening: is it really good enough to impose a statutory duty on people if the Parliament and the Scottish Government do not ensure that there is a reasonable chance of people being able to meet their obligations, in all circumstances? In other words, how can a duty holder in a business be confident that the fire risk assessor is competent and that the advice given is sound and up to date?
The answer lies in Sheriff Principal Lockhart’s determination:
“An alternative approach, short of statutory regulation, would be the use of third party accreditation schemes, with appropriate support being given to the importance of using accredited assessors in non-statutory guidance to those responsible for running Care Homes and in the actions of regulators. The inquiry heard evidence that there are now registration or accreditation schemes for fire risk assessors run by four bodies (all but one of them post-dating the fire at Rosepark), and that the industry is actively engaged in developing third party certification schemes.”
Third-party certification schemes are indeed in existence, including those of British Approvals for Fire Equipment, Warrington Certification Ltd, IFC Certification Ltd and Registrar of Skilled Persons, or ROSP.
What is the Scottish Government’s role in relation to enhancing fire safety? In my view, three things must happen—and must happen soon. First, the Scottish Government must, in conjunction with other agencies, lead and co-ordinate an awareness campaign among businesses about the requirement to have a fire risk assessment. There are numerous opportunities to do that, which time precludes my listing, but direct contact is possibly the best approach. For example, why not ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek the agreement of local authorities to send out a notice or leaflet alongside business rates demands? The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, too, has a key role to play in disseminating information, in addition to its enforcement role.
Secondly, the Scottish Government must embrace and advocate third-party certification. The current firelaw website is inadequate, in that it fails to highlight sufficiently the benefits of using a third-party certificated assessor and fails to advise duty holders to ask for such certification.
Thirdly, under the 2005 act the Scottish ministers have powers to make regulations. It is time to consult the industry and stakeholders on making third-party certification mandatory for people who offer their services as fire risk assessors. Such provision would not affect duty holders who opt for self-assessment and would make the industry responsible for setting and ensuring standards.
I thank all the people who have drawn my attention to the need for vigilance. British Approvals for Fire Equipment has been active in promoting third-party certification—and not, I may say, for any commercial advantage. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s business engagement forum has been looking carefully into that and other fire safety issues. Other bodies and groups have been involved, too.
I hope that the Parliament and the Scottish Government will agree that we owe it to the memory of all those who lost their lives at Rosepark 10 years ago, and to their friends and relatives, to act decisively to prevent further fires. Although much has been done, more remains to be achieved in the area of fire risk assessment. Let us take matters forward so that we can all be confident in saying that everything possible, everything imaginable, everything practical and everything sensible is in hand to prevent another such tragedy.
17:13
I thank Michael McMahon for securing valuable debating time to discuss a tragic and sensitive matter and to assess what measures can be put in place to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again as well as those measures that have already been put in place.
As Michael McMahon said, the Rosepark care home fire resulted in the deaths of 14 residents and constitutes the worst incident of its kind in Scottish history. The fire that tore through the building on that evening 10 years ago was started by an electrical defect and was fuelled by nearby aerosols, quickly growing out of hand. A catalogue of errors, including failure to contact the fire brigade quickly, failure to properly maintain electrical circuits and lack of a cohesive and effective fire plan point to the fact that some of those deaths—or all of them—were preventable.
The Rosepark care home fire has been subject to much legal scrutiny. Charges were brought against the owners of the home on successive occasions, with the case being dismissed by the Lord Advocate and, subsequently, by the appeal court. Following those unsuccessful attempts to prosecute, a fatal accident inquiry was held, with evidence heard from 212 witnesses between August 2010 and November 2011. Central to that inquiry was the examination of progress made in fire safety and prevention.
The key document on this issue is the Scottish Government publication “Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Care Homes”—the CHG. The document was originally issued in 2006—two years after the Rosepark fire—primarily as a response to the fire in order that the most glaring lessons from the tragedy could be learned. The document was amended in 2008.
Although the sheriff principal considered the document to be “excellent” and “the clearest guidance” available to those operating care homes, it was agreed that the CHG would be updated to reflect the fatal accident inquiry’s findings in order to make the guidelines even clearer and more robust.
In 2011, following the inquiry determination, the CHG was updated to include recommendations made during the inquiry, along with other issues unrelated to the Rosepark fire. There has been further revision, with the CHG continually updated. Also, in 2012, to meet a commitment by the Scottish Government to deal with issues raised in the fatal accident inquiry, the fire and rescue services division of the safer communities directorate issued a consultation document with the hefty title of “A Consultation on the Revision of the Scottish Government Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Care Homes and the Quality Assurance of Persons Who Offer Risk Assessment Services”.
The 12-week consultation attracted a great number of responses and the guidance was updated again, strengthened and then reissued in March this year. Crucially, the new CHG includes greater guidance and detail on evacuation procedures and the requirement to have a comprehensive plan in place; guidance on the benefits of third-party certification; information on staff training and testing in fire safety; and details on sprinkler retrofitting and the benefits of sprinklers in areas with high dependency residents. Following publication, a targeted awareness campaign was carried out with key organisations, the healthcare sector and all registered care homes.
The matter of the competence and suitability of fire risk assessors was also considered in the 2012 consultation. It was deemed the best way forward that care home duty holders should check the competence of those carrying out fire risk assessments at their care homes. Registration schemes exist for companies and individuals carrying out a fire risk assessment. However, there are no plans to make that compulsory and enhanced guidance for duty holders is available online.
Ultimately, a fire safety certificate does not guarantee fire safety and it must be remembered that final responsibility for fire safety in care homes lies with those who operate the premises. The Rosepark care home fire was a terrible tragedy and it is poignant that Michael McMahon has brought such matters to the chamber 10 years on from the events.
The actions taken by this Government and the previous Administration have brought us to the point where legislation, assistance and guidance have substantially reduced the likelihood of such a horrible accident taking place again. However, there is no room for complacency when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of the most vulnerable in our society and we must ensure that those who are entrusted with the care of our older people are properly regulated and are held to account for the quality of care that they provide.
17:22
I congratulate Michael McMahon on obtaining this important debate and I endorse what he said in his speech.
The Rosepark fire was a tragedy in the true sense of that overused word. No one can guarantee that such an event will never happen again, but we can at least make every effort to make sure that it does not. How often do we hear when an inquiry into an accident occurs that lessons will be learned only to find that they were not and a repeat occurrence underlines our collective complacency? Let us ensure that that is not so with fire safety.
If we take Sheriff Lockhart’s recommendations, we can see that much has been achieved—the 2005 act, recent care home guidance and the revision to the firelaw website—but there is more that we can do.
I read the section on fire risk assessment in the conclusions in the learned sheriff’s determination. Nothing could be clearer: self-assessment by duty holders of fire risk is fine in many but not all circumstances. However, where help is needed, duty holders must be assured that the advice they receive is up to date, competent and sound. The sheriff is clear that third-party certification of fire risk assessors is a very good way to ensure that that is so. He was not the only one at the time to say so. Chapter 46(6), paragraph 11 of the determination says:
“Scottish Ministers have indicated that United Kingdom Government has made it plain that they do not intend to change legislation in order to make the use of registered and accredited persons compulsory. The responsibility for the fire risk assessment remains at all times with the duty holder and cannot be delegated.”
The remainder of the paragraph, which I particularly want to emphasise, says:
“However, it was said on behalf of Scottish Ministers that they recognise the benefits of the alternative approach of highlighting the benefits of using third party accreditation schemes.”
The Scottish ministers were also said to be awaiting a UK Government-developed standard for competent fire risk assessors prior to introducing an equivalent scheme for Scotland. One wonders why.
It was also stated that revisions would be made to practical fire safety for care homes
“to make appropriate reference to the benefits of selecting fire risk assessors who have the appropriate accreditation.”
Perhaps the minister can tell us specifically what she and her department have done to achieve any or all of that, and how long it has taken them to do so.
Changes have been made to the firelaw website, but if finding references to fire risk assessment on the old version was like looking for a needle in a haystack, doing so on the new version—albeit that the site has improved—is like looking for a knitting needle in a haystack.
I ask the minister what her department knows about the quality of existing fire risk assessments. Has it asked the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to report its experiences? What do we know about the quality of fire risk assessments for major buildings such as this one, conference centres, department stores and factories, or for recent events such as the Ryder cup or the Commonwealth games? I look forward to hearing her reply and would suggest to colleagues that the subject is well worth an investigation by the Justice Committee or the Health and Sport Committee in the near future.
17:25
I commend Michael McMahon for lodging a motion to mark 10 years since the Rosepark care home fire in Uddingston. I live close to Rosepark and I vividly remember the shock and horror that victims’ relatives and the local community felt at the nature and scale of the tragedy. As Michael McMahon said, the fatal accident inquiry established that the tragic loss of 14 care home residents’ lives could have been prevented if suitable measures had been taken. Ten years on, it is appropriate to consider whether sufficient requirements are placed on care homes, to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I welcome the new guidance, which was issued in March by the Scottish Government and which aims to assist those who have responsibility under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 for ensuring that fire safety duties in care homes are fulfilled. Although it is helpful that, following feedback from a public consultation, the Government edited the guidance to make it more user friendly, the issue of third-party certification for fire safety products and advice is still likely to cause confusion.
The guidance states:
“Fire protection products should be fit for their purpose and properly installed and maintained, while installation and maintenance contractors should be competent.”
It goes on to say that, where possible, a reputable third-party certification body that has been accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service should independently check that standards are being met, although that is not a requirement. In addition to UKAS, there are numerous professional bodies that operate registration schemes for fire prevention officers and fire safety consultants. However, it would surely be simpler to have one authority with an approved list of fire safety consultants, as that would also decrease the opportunities for rogue consultants.
Nonetheless, it is reassuring to see that lessons have been learned since the Rosepark fire. Furthermore, other care home fires—even this year—show that fire safety awareness in care homes has improved. For example, on 28 July a fire broke out in Foxley house care home in Glasgow. Twenty firefighters were required to attend the scene, but the 22 residents and three staff members who were present escaped mostly unharmed, with only one resident taken to hospital with minor injuries sustained due to a fall.
The fire door safety week campaign, which ran this September, has highlighted the importance of fire doors in care homes across Britain. Although the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service runs successful campaigns during the festive period each year, I welcome the suggestion in the motion that there be a targeted campaign for care home owners, managers and duty holders.
The fire at the Rosepark care home in Uddingston 10 years ago was a tragedy and, although fire safety in care homes has improved as a result, the preventable loss of life will continue to affect the relatives. It is only by ensuring that fire risk assessments are adequately undertaken and guidance adhered to that a future tragedy like that one will be prevented. It is, therefore, to be hoped that today’s debate not only will help to raise awareness of this vital issue but will ensure that it remains the subject of the public’s consciousness and scrutiny.
17:18
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the tragic events at Rosepark care home, which led to the deaths of 14 of its residents. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those whose lives were lost, who will still be grieving even now. It has been a short but important debate, and I congratulate Michael McMahon on bringing the subject to the chamber and thank all those members who have taken part.
Michael McMahon raised a number of key issues, some of which were echoed by other members, and I will deal with each of them in turn. I begin by laying out what has changed since the tragic fire at Rosepark care home took place. Much has changed. New fire safety legislation was introduced, new guidance was issued and the Fire and Rescue Service has adopted a proactive role in advice and enforcement. In addition, sprinklers are now required in new care homes.
As the motion states, the Scottish Government published a revised version of “Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Care Homes” in March this year. It is the third version of the guidance that has been produced since the Rosepark fire. The guidance was revised in consultation with key stakeholders, and the changes that have been made reflect findings from the Rosepark fatal accident inquiry.
With regard to Mr McMahon’s proposal for an awareness campaign, the guidance was promoted when it was published. That was done in a series of targeted communications with key stakeholders, including all registered care homes in Scotland, as well as more than 70 other prominent healthcare sector organisations. I appreciate that, when it comes to communicating such advice, people might expect that to be done through, for example, television adverts, but the guidance for care homes was promoted in a very targeted way so that it would reach directly those who would be most interested in it and most affected by it.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service continues to support care home providers with advice and education on how to comply with the guidance, and at every visit to a care home service SFRS staff will bring the revised guidance to the attention of the duty holder and explain to them how to access and use the provisions in it.
The SFRS adopts a risk-based approach to fire safety enforcement, and a key focus on high-risk buildings is set out in its “Prevention and Protection Directorate Strategy 2013-16” and its fire safety enforcement framework. The strategy sets out that in all cases the service’s aim is to enable compliance and to work with occupiers and other responsible persons to achieve a satisfactory level of safety within the built environment. How it achieves that is a matter for the service.
The creation by this Government of the single Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has enabled a consistent approach to be taken to enforcement across Scotland. The SFRS recognises the opportunities that that brings. Its fire safety enforcement framework document, which it issued last year, includes a target to audit all care homes and some other registered care premises every year.
Figures for the percentages of care homes audited by the previous eight fire services showed significant variation. It is important that people understand that that has been a very significant change. Prior to the advent of the single service, some services were achieving a 100 per cent audit rate, while others were achieving about only 40 per cent, and we have now created a target for all care homes to be audited every single year. I must reiterate that that was simply not happening when we had the eight different fire services. In a very real sense, a huge step change is already taking place in safety, and it is a real benefit of the reform that has been made.
With regard to fire risk assessment and the competency of those carrying it out, which has been a key part of the debate, it is not the SFRS’s responsibility to undertake fire risk assessments, and I remind members that responsibility for compliance with the fire safety duties in care homes as well as all other commercial premises sits with the employer and other persons who operate or have control of the premises to any extent. That includes managers, owners and staff, who are referred to in the guidance as duty holders.
Although there is no legal requirement on duty holders to engage external fire safety consultants, the guidance acknowledges that proprietors of certain care homes are likely to need specialist advice to assist with an initial fire safety risk assessment. The Scottish Government acknowledges the difficulty facing duty holders in judging the competence of any external services that they might use, and general guidance to help them can be found on the firelaw webpages on the Scottish Government website, which provide further information and detail on recognised certification and accreditations.
Both the Scottish Government and the SFRS believe that, based on the information that we currently have and the changes that are already being made, there is no requirement at the moment to introduce further legislative changes. The on-going promotion of the practical fire safety guidance supports duty holders in the sector in complying with their obligations to ensure fire safety compliance. In its fire safety enforcement framework, the SFRS sets out its commitment to providing advice to duty holders to help enable that compliance, and that advice will include making them aware of the guidance that is available to them on both fire risk assessment and, indeed, the use of external risk assessors. As well as containing a page on how to complete a fire risk assessment, the SFRS website also provides necessary links to the firelaw and Fire Sector Federation webpages in its section on safety information for businesses.
The regulatory review group—an independent group that advises the Scottish Government on business regulatory matters—is looking at non-domestic fire safety legislation and is due to report in spring 2015. I am not sure whether Michael McMahon is aware of that, and he might wish to look at some of the work that the group is doing. I undertake to write to the group after the debate and ask it to look specifically at the issue of the competency of risk assessors as part of its review, and I invite the member to engage with that process, too.
In light of the on-going promotion of guidance and the current review by the regulatory review group, we do not at this point consider it necessary to introduce any additional requirements. However, we will, of course, continue to monitor the situation and will consider closely the regulatory review group’s findings when they become available next year.
Meeting closed at 17:34.
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-11175, in the name of Michael McMahon, on fire risk assessments. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is respectfully aware that the tragic fire at the Rosepark care home in Uddingston, Lanarkshire, that caused the deaths of 14 residents took place 10 years ago; notes the contents of Sheriff Principal Lockhart’s findings after the fatal accident inquiry into the fire, in particular, his conclusion that some or all of the deaths could have been prevented if the home had had a suitable and sufficient fire safety plan; further notes the contents of the Scottish Government’s Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Care Homes, published in March 2014; believes however that an awareness campaign would help duty holders responsible for care homes to understand the contents of the guidance and duty holders in commercial premises to appreciate the requirements placed on them by the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, in particular that of obtaining a fire risk assessment specific to each premise, and further believes that people offering services in fire risk assessment should be properly qualified, preferably by third party certification.
17:06Previous
Decision Time