 The final item of business today is the member's business debate on motion number 11175 in the name of Michael McMahon on fire risk assessments. This debate will be concluded without any question being put, and I would be most grateful to those members who wish to contribute. I could press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Michael McMahon to open the debate around seven minutes, please, Mr McMahon. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Ten years ago in March 2004, the tragedy of the Rose Park 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's therefore with my deepest sympathy and respect for their memory that I tabled the motion and speak to it this evening. There has been progress in 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 fire safety guidance for care homes. The Rose Park incident obviously 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's 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 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. Section 53 sets out the requirement to carry out fire risk assessments and premises on owners, employers and persons responsible for those premises. Those so-called duty holders must also keep fire safety under review. As was noted by Sheriff Lockhart at the time of the Rose Park, there was no fire, no statutory requirement, there was no statutory requirement as regards qualifications for those carrying out a fire risk assessment. Neither the act nor any subsequent regulations have altered that situation. The reason was and remains that, in many premises, duty holders can carry out a self-assessment. In many small premises—for example, 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 factories or care homes or a building such as this one. I emphasise that many duty holders can rely safely on their own judgment and self-assessment, and it is perfectly acceptable in some circumstances but in complex buildings advice should be readily available and be of the highest standard. Accordingly, in those situations a duty holder is heavily reliant upon the capability and professionalism of the fire risk assessor and has to take his or her qualifications at face value. That is the crux of what I have to say this evening. Is it really good enough to impose a statutory duty on people and for Parliament and the Scottish Government not to ensure that there is a reasonable chance in all circumstances of their being able to meet those obligations? How, in other words, can a duty holder in a business be confident that the fire risk assessor is competent and that the advice given is both sound and up-to-date? The answer lies in Sheriff 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 Rose Park and that the industry is actively engaged in developing third-party certification schemes. There are indeed third-party certification schemes in existence now, and those include those of the British approval for fire equipment, Warrington certification limited, IFC certification limited and ROSP, the Register of Skilled Persons. What is the role of the Scottish Government in enhancing fire safety? In my view, there are three things that must happen and happen soon. First, the Scottish Government must, in conjunction with other agencies, lead and co-ordinate an awareness campaign amongst businesses of 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. Why not, for example, ask COSLA to seek the agreement of local authorities to send out specific notice or leaflet with business rates demands? The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service clearly has a key role to play in disseminating information as well as its enforcement role. Second, the Scottish Government must embrace third-party certification and advocate it. The current fire law website is inadequate and so far as it fails to highlight sufficiently the benefits of using a third-party certificated assessor or to advise duty holders to ask for such certification. Thirdly, there are powers under the 2005 act for ministers to make regulations. It is time to consult the industry and stakeholders on making third-party certification mandatory for those who offer their services as fire risk assessors. Such provision would not affect those duty holders who opt for self-assessment and would make the industry responsible for setting and ensuring standards. I would like to briefly thank all those who have drawn my attention to the need for on-going vigilance. The British approval for fire equipment has been very active in promoting third-party certification, not I might say for any commercial advantage. I know that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service business engagement forum has been looking carefully into those and other fire safety issues, and there are other bodies in groups as well. In conclusion, 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 in Rose Park 10 years ago and their friends and relatives to act decisively to prevent further fires. My belief is that, 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 is possible, everything imaginable, everything is practical and everything sensible is in hand to prevent another such tragedy. Thank you very much and I now call Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. I commend Michael McMahon on tabling today's motion to mark 10 years since the Rose Park care home fire in Adingston. As someone who lives close to Rose Park, I vividly remember the shock and horror felt both by the relatives and victims and the local community at the nature and scale of the tragedy. As Michael McMahon has already stated, the findings of the fatal accident inquiry established that the tragic loss of life for 14 of the care home's residents could have been prevented had suitable measures been taken. Consequently, it is appropriate to evaluate whether, 10 years on, there are sufficient requirements placed on care homes to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. I therefore welcome the new guidance that was issued in March this year by the Scottish Government, which aims to assist those who have responsibility under the Fire Scotland Act 2005 for ensuring that fire safety duties in Scotland's care homes are fulfilled. It is helpful that the following feedback from a public consultation 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 that fire protection products should be fit for their purpose and properly installed and maintained, while installation and maintenance contractors should be competent. The guidance goes on to say that, where possible, a reputable third-party certification body, which itself has been accredited by the United Kingdom accreditation service, should independently check that standards are being met. However, that is not a requirement. In addition to the UK accreditation service, there are numerous professional bodies that operate registration schemes for fire prevention officers and fire safety consultants, but surely it would make more sense and 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 Rose Park fire. Furthermore, other care home fires, even just this year, show that fire safety awareness in care homes has improved. For example, on 28 July 2014, a fire broke out in Foxley house care home in Glasgow. Twenty firefighters were required to attend the scene, however, the 22 residents and three staff members who were present escaped mostly unharmed, with only one resident taken to hospital with minor injury 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. While the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service runs successful campaigns during the festive period each year, I welcome the suggestion in the motion for a targeted campaign for care home owners, managers and duty holders. The fire at Rose Park care home in Addingston 10 years ago was a tragedy. While fire safety in care homes has improved as a result, the preventable loss of life will continue to affect those relatives. It is only by ensuring that fire risk assessments are adequately undertaken and that guidance adheres to a future tragedy such as that will be prevented. It is to be hoped that today's debate will not only help to raise awareness about this vitally important issue but will also ensure that it remains the subject of the public's consciousness and scrutiny. I thank Michael McMahon for securing this 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. The Rose Park care home fire, as Michael McMahon mentioned, resulted in the deaths of 14 residents and constitutes the worst incident of its kind in Scottish history. The fire, which tore through the building in that evening 10 years ago, was started by an electrical defect and fuelled by nearby aerosols, which quickly grew 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, all point to the fact that some or all of those deaths were preventable. The Rose Park 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 his unsuccessful attempts to prosecute a fatal accident inquiry that 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 terms of fire safety and prevention. The key document in relation to that issue was the Scottish Government publication practical fire safety guidance for care home or CHG. This document was originally issued two years after the Rose Park fire in 2006, primarily as a response to it, in order that the most glaring lessons from the tragedy could be learned and the document was amended in 2008. While the document was considered to be excellent by the Sheriff's principle and the clearest guidance available to those operating care homes, it was agreed that the CHG would be updated to reflect the findings of the fatal accident inquiry in order to make guidelines even clearer and more robust. In 2011, following the determination of the inquiry, the CHG was updated to include recommendations made during the inquiry, along with other issues unrelated to Rose Park. Further continued revision and updating of the CHG and, as a commitment by the Scottish Government to take forward issues raised in the fatal accident inquiry, the fire and rescue service division of the safer community directorate issued a consultation document in 2012 with a hefty title of 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. This 12-week consultation attracted a great number of responses and the guide was again updated, strengthened and re-issued in March of this year. Crucially, the new CHG includes greater guidance in detail regarding evacuation procedures and the requirement to have a comprehensive plan in place, guidance on the benefits of third-party certification, information regarding staff training and testing in fire safety and details regarding sprinkler retrofitting and the benefits of sprinklers in areas with high-dependency residents. Following publication, I understand that a targeted awareness campaign was carried out with key organisations in the healthcare sector and all registered care homes in Scotland. In terms of the competency and suitability of the fire risk assessors, the matter was also considered in the consultation and was deemed that the best way forward was that care home duty holders should check the competency of those carrying out fire risk assessments at their care homes. Registration schemes do exist for companies and individuals carrying out a fire risk assessment. However, there are no plans to make this compulsory and enhanced guidance for duty holders as available online. Ultimately, a fire safety certificate does not guarantee fire safety. I must be remembered that final responsibility for fire safety in care homes lies with those who operate the premises. The Rose Park care home fire was a terrible tragedy and it is poignant that Michael McMahon has brought those matters to the chamber 10 years on from events. The actions taken by this Government and the previous administration have brought us to where legislation, assistance and guidance are substantially reduced to the likelihood of such a horrible accident taking place again in the future. However, there is absolutely no room for complacency when it comes to ensuring the safety and security of the most vulnerable in society and we must ensure that those entrusted with the care of our older people are properly regulated and held to account in terms of the quality of care that they provide. I first want to congratulate Michael McMahon on obtaining this important debate and I wish to endorse what he said in his speech. The Rose Park fire was indeed 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 our repeat occurrence underlines our collective complacency? Let's ensure that that is not so as regards fire safety. If you take Sheriff Lockhart's recommendations, yes, much has been achieved. The 2005 act, recent care home guidance, the revision to the fire law website, but there is more we can do. I read the section on fire risk assessment and the conclusions in the learned sheriff's determination. Nothing could be more clear. The self-assessment by duty holders of fire risk is fine in many circumstances, but not all. However, where help is needed, duty holders must be assured that the advice that 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 this is so, but he wasn't the only one at that time. The determination said under chapter 46, 6 paragraph 11, that Scottish ministers have indicated that the 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. However, and I emphasise that point, 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. 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. Also, 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 this and how long it has taken to do so. Changes have been made to the fire law website, but if finding references to fire risk assessment on the old version was like looking for a needle in the haystack in the new version, yes, it's improved, but it's now looking like for a knitting needle in the haystack. Finally, in conclusion, I want to ask the minister what her department knows about the quality of existing fire risk assessments. Have they asked the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to report their experiences? What do we know about the quality of fire risk assessments in major buildings such as this one, conference centres, department stores, factories or at recent events such as the Ryder Cup or Commonwealth Games? I look forward to hearing her reply, and I suggest to colleagues that this is a subject that is very worth investigating by either the Justice or Health Committees in the near future. Can I now invite Roseanna Cunningham to respond to the debate, minister, in around seven minutes or so? This is a year that marks the 10th anniversary of the tragic events at Rose Park care home, which led to the deaths of 14 of its residents. Of course, our thoughts are with the families and friends of those whose lives were lost. They will still be grieving even now. This has been a short but important debate, and I congratulate Michael McMahon on bringing this subject to the chamber. I thank all those who have contributed this evening. Michael McMahon raises a number of key issues, some of them echoed by the other contributors, and I will deal with those issues in turn. First, I think that it is fair to lay out what has changed since this tragic fire took place, because indeed 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, and sprinklers are now required in new care homes. As the motion states, the Scottish Government published a revised practical fire safety guidance for care homes just in March this year. This is the third version of the guide since the Rose Park fire. This guide was revised in consultation with key stakeholders, and the changes made reflect findings from the Rose Park fatal accident inquiry. With regard to Mr McMahon's proposal for an awareness campaign, the guidance was in fact 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 over 70 other prominent healthcare sector organisations. I do appreciate that people think in terms of communicating advice like this, as if it is going to be in some way done through televised adverts or something of that sort. However, that was done in a very targeted way in order to reach directly into those who would be most interested 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 guide, 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 to use provisions in it. SFRS adopta risk-based approach to fire safety enforcement, with a key focus on high-risk buildings set out in their prevention and protection directorate strategy 2013-16 and their fire safety enforcement framework. The strategy sets out that, in all cases, their 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 they achieve that is a matter for the service. The creation by the Government of the single fire and rescue service in Scotland enables a consistent approach to enforcement across Scotland. SFRS recognises the opportunities that the fire safety enforcement framework document that 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 big significant change in what has happened. Some services, prior to the advent of the single service, were achieving a 100 per cent audit rate. There were others that were only at about 40 per cent. What we are now doing is creating a target to audit all care homes every single year. I need to reiterate that that was something that was simply not happening when we had the eight different fire services. In a very real sense, there is already a huge step change taking place in terms of safety and is a real benefit of the reform that has taken place. Turning 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 responsibility of the SFRS to undertake fire risk assessments. Can I remind members that the 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. They are referred to as duty holders in the guidance. While there is no legal requirement for duty holders to engage external fire safety consultants, the guidance acknowledges that the 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 when they are judging the competence of any external services that they may use. In order to help duty holders, general guidance can be found on the fire law web pages of the Scottish Government website. That gives further information and includes detail on recognised certification and accreditation. Both the Scottish Government and SFRS believe that, at the moment, there is no requirement to introduce further legislative changes based on the information that we currently have and the changes that have already begun to be put in place. Currently, the on-going promotion of the practical fire safety guidance supports duty holders within the sector in complying with their obligations to ensure fire safety compliance. In its fire safety enforcement framework, SFRS sets out its commitment to providing advice to duty holders to help to enable that compliance. That advice will include making them aware of the guidance available to them both on fire risk assessment and, indeed, the use of those external risk assessors. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service website itself, as well as having a page on how to complete a fire risk assessment, also provides necessary links to both the fire law and fire sector federation web pages under its section on safety information for businesses. The regulatory review group, an independent group that advises Scottish Government on business regulatory matters, is currently looking at non-domestic fire safety legislation and is due to report in spring 2015. I am not entirely sure whether the member is aware of that, and he might wish to have a look at some of that that is happening. I will undertake to write to them after this debate, asking them if they will look specifically at the issue of the competency of risk assessors as part of this review. I invite the member to engage with that as well. In conclusion, in light of the on-going promotion of guidance, as well as the current review by the regulatory review group, we do not consider at this point that it is necessary to introduce any additional requirements at this time. However, we will continue to monitor the situation and will consider closely the findings of the regulatory review group when these are available next year.