 The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 12535 in the name of Clare Adamson on the Scottish Fire Sprinkler Coordination Group. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would also invite the members who are leaving the debating chamber and indeed members of the public who are leaving the debating chamber to do so quickly and quietly. I now call on Clare Adamson to open the debate. Seven minutes please, Ms Adamson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking my colleagues from across the chamber and for those taking part in the debate today for their support for the motion. I can also welcome to the gallery today members of the Fire Sprinkler Coordination Group, which includes the European Fire Splinkler Network, the National Fire Splinkler Network, Chief Fire Officers Association and members of the insurance industry and those from care organisations. Finding members of that group, the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association are hosting a lunchtime event, which I hope members will also be able to attend. I have to say, Presiding Officer, somewhat ironically, that this event is being held in the burns room, so perhaps given the topic today, the less said about that, the better. No-one can forget the tragic deaths at the Rose Park care home in Udingston in January 2014 that resulted in the death of 14 residents. Sheriff Principal Lockhart is finding at the time after the fatal accident inquiry into the fire, which particularly looked at the cause of death, said that they could have been printed if the home had had a suitable and sufficient fire safety plan, something that a trust would not happen today, given that the Scottish Government has published its practical fire safety guidance for care homes in March 2014. There is no doubt that Scotland has made significant progress in the area of fire safety, prevention and in the use of one of the best protection mechanisms, fire sprinkler systems. I would like to pay tribute to Michael Matheson, whose private member's bill, Fire Sprinkler's residential premises Scotland Bill, paved the way for the significant progress that has been made in Scotland. The Scottish Government commissioned the Scotland Together report in 2009, which concluded that the installation of sprinklers in all Scottish homes was not cost-effective. More recent evidence, including the new UK cost-benefit analysis for the British research establishment, does not challenge that underlying conclusion. However, BRE has gone on to say that residential sprinklers as an additional safety measure are cost-effective for all residential care homes, elderly children and disabled people, most blocks of purpose-built flats and larger blocks of converted flats, and traditional bed site type HMOs, with at least six bed site units per building. Result potential sprinklers in two-story houses that are shared did not meet their cost analysis. We in this place recognise that we cannot make decisions without cognisance of cost. However, we should always still be asking the question of what cost is a human life, whether that be a resident, a staff member or indeed a firefighter, where the dangers to the firefighter are considerably less when they are attending a fire in a property that is fitted with a sprinkler system. In May 2005, the Scottish Government left the rest of the UK by introducing new-banditory building standards requiring the installation of sprinklers in all new-build enclosed shopping centres, residential care buildings, care homes and boarding schools, and shared housing complications and in high-rise domestic buildings. The installation of sprinkler systems in all new-build dwells such as houses was not justified at that time in cost grounds, but we know that the Welsh Government, for instance, has taken the decision to install sprinklers in all new-build domestic properties. In October 2010, the revised building regulations introduced sprinklers into the domestic handbook guidance as an option to protect common escape routes in low-rise domestic buildings. Sprinklers were also introduced in new primary and secondary schools to support sustainable development by providing enhanced property protection against fire. I am sure that the minister will touch on some of those areas in his own contribution this afternoon, but in terms of affordable housing, Scotland together found in 2009 that social deprivation links had an increased risk of fire fatality, with 40 per cent of accidental dwelling and fire deaths occurring within social rented housing, and 31 per cent in Scottish index of multiple deprivation, 15 per cent in the most deprived areas. Therefore, a targeted approach of installation in social rented council and housing association on dwellings was rolled out across Scotland. However, I know that particular councils in Scotland such as Fife and Angus councils are installing sprinklers in all new-build council properties. It is a no-brainer to them to protect not just the residents but also their financial investment in the new properties. As the chair of the cross-party group on accident prevention and safety awareness, one of the biggest challenges that we have to overcome in the area of fire sprinkler use is the normalisation within our communities of their use. The very fact that both the Scottish Fire and Rescue and BAFSA have myth-busting sections on their websites tells us that the safety advantage, the protection of property, the protection of life and the protection of our fire officers in attending those fires should be at the forefront of our discussions, but we are still talking about the myths surrounding fire sprinklers. If I could quote the BAFSA from their own website that they say that one of the biggest myths is that they are expensive and difficult to fit into existing buildings and thus rarely practical to fit them after initial construction. In order to determine the truth of this, BAFSA funded a pilot project in Sol Sprinklers in a Sheffield tower block. The project proved conclusively that it is possible and cost effective to retrofit sprinklers into existing high-rise blocks without having to first relocate the tenants or have any major disruption. Some of the other myths are that installations cannot be done on a fast-track basis, which has been proven not to be true. The actual installation cost per flat is £1,150, given the effectiveness and most protection of the investment in the property and always at the forefront of the protection of life. That is a reasonable cost analysis. Tenants and residents in their families feel safer knowing that they are better protected living in a building with a sprinkler system in place. We also know that the potential trauma and disruption to individuals following a fire is greatly reduced because the damage from a fire in those types of buildings is very much restricted. Retrofitting of sprinklers can be a major refurbishment project. It can be done reasonably, it can be done without major disruption and it can be done to meet current building standards. I know that many care homes and residential properties built and in operation were before those new building standards. I hope that the message of retrofitting is fully understood and that raising awareness of retrofitting may prompt action to ensure that the very best form of preventive fire protection in the form of sprinklers can be extended to the whole community in Scotland. Thank you very much. I now call on David Stewart to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Four minutes by please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I start by congratulating Clare Adamson for securing the debate today and for her work as convener of the cross-party group on accident prevention. I also welcome the Scottish Fire Sprinkler Coordination Group to Parliament today and hope that they have a successful event. I have had a longstanding interest in the vital role of fire sprinkler systems as a preventative device in fire safety, and I want to place on record today the help that I receive from Councillor Fraser Parr of Highland Council and his former colleagues from the Highlands Islands Fire and Rescue Service for their advice, guidance and assistance. In the last session, I worked up a proposal as a member's bill, which would have had the effect of ensuring that all new HMOs have fire sprinkler systems. Unfortunately, Presiding Officer, I ran out of time as I also had a proposal on dangerous and effective buildings. However, I am pleased to report to Parliament that later bill was approved unanimously by Parliament and, again, thanks to Minister Derek Mackay for his help. I suppose, Presiding Officer, in simplistic terms, prevention is always better than a cure. That's why I think it's important that we consider other ways we can prevent deaths and injuries caused by fire. I commend the efforts of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in undertaking various preventative programmes, including the home fire safety visits. I am welcome, as Clare Ardison has said, the revision to the building regulations in 2010 that made at least one smoke alarm mandatory. That has contributed to more smoke and heat alarms being fitted in homes. Last April, the previous Minister, Roseanna Cunningham, wrote to me and I quote, It is estimated that installing smoke alarms in dwellings could reduce the risk of death to about 30 to 50 per cent of the risk where there is no alarms. In terms of affordable housing, and again, Clare Ardison touched on this, the Scottish Together study said that social deprivation links to the increased risk, with 40 per cent of accidental dwelling fires occurring within socially rented housing and 31 per cent in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation Most Deprived Areas. However, more can be done and that is why I have been advocating the introduction of fire sprinkler systems in all social housing and the HMOs. It is clear from evidence that fire sprinklers can save lives and, if targeted well, can help to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. Fire sprinkler systems are a highly cost effective way of reducing the UK's appalling fire death toll. Currently, fire detection systems and smoke alarms probably save around 80 to 100 lives each year. Of course, 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. Fire sprinklers can prevent fire deaths. In the case of social housing, residential care premises, homes and 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 that I could find on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers was carried out by the rural metro fire department in Scottsdale, Arizona. It showed that not only did they save lives but also significantly reduced the cost of damage caused by an average of 85 per cent. I am very pleased and again, clardisom touched on this, that both Fife and Angus councils have really showed us the way by ensuring that all new social housing will have systems built in and I hope that more councils across Scotland should follow suit. The Welsh Assembly, of course, has gone even further and has passed groundbreaking legislation ensuring that all new homes should contain fire sprinkler systems from 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government and the minister in the wind-up will look at the result in Wales and extend the current requirements to fill the gap. I am well aware that the Scottish Government has commissioned research into the cost-benefit analysis for residential sprinklers in Scotland. In a previous question, I think last November, the minister indicated that the results would be published in Easter. As the results of search are not available, I certainly couldn't find them, I would be very grateful that the minister could give us an update on the time for this research. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I hope that Scotland will continue to lead the way in fire prevention by considering broadening the requirements of fire sprinkler systems to all social housing and HML properties to ensure that no lives are lost that could have been prevented. This Parliament has a proud record of innovation and best practice, such as the introduction of free personal care, the smoking ban and the zero-tallence approach to domestic abuse. I believe that we are at our best when we are at our boldest. Let's add another groundbreaking policy. Extend the range of sprinklers to prevent the death and injury of our old, vulnerable and disadvantaged constituents across Scotland. Thank you very much. I now call on Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. Let me add my congratulations to Clare Adamson for bringing this important topic to Parliament today. It's an interesting subject. I remember, I think about 10 years ago, Stuart Maxwell MSP and I went to see a demonstration of a sprinkler system in Hamilton and we saw a before and after. We saw a fire without the sprinkler system and then we saw the very different effect of the same fire when it was operated on by a sprinkler. I was left in no doubt whatsoever about the efficacy of what is actually quite a cheap intervention. Now, I say cheap intervention, let me defend that. The cost of even retrofitting on average to a house, what's that comparable to? It's comparable to the cost of putting in a new gas boiler. It's comparable to the cost of the next generation of high definition 55 inch televisions. So, which many people choose to buy, it's actually not all that different to the insurance cost for a youngster with a first car if it's other than a Fiat 500. So, the cost ought not to be the immediate barrier to a considering doing this. We've heard from Dave Stewart and I've seen elsewhere that there are 100 UK deaths. Now, how much is a death worth? And of course to the family who experience loss, there is no financial price one can put it on. The kind of figures that are generally used, if we assume that we save two thirds of the deaths by having sprinkler systems universally installed, then we're looking at a saving against the kind of figures that are put on people's lives who would pay for 13,000 houses a year across the UK, not a Scottish figure. So, there is a direct, simple financial relationship. But there are other savings that can be made as well, if you want to be analytical from that point of view. Fewer fires and fewer deaths and reduction in the impact of fires is a saving for the fire and rescue service. It is a saving for the insurance industry. It would reduce premiums. And it's actually for the householder very likely that it will be reflected in an increased value that can be put on the house when it comes up for sale. When we remember, and this figure's a little out of date, I don't have the current figure, that certainly about five or six years ago the average mortgage length was only seven years, one can get a sense of how quickly an investment in this sort of thing might happen. Now, simultaneously to thinking about the benefits and the cost benefits that there are from installation of fire sprinkler systems, we should think about where the risks come of household fires. We've seen an increase in the consumption of alcohol in Scotland, and when people are less sensible of their actions, the risks from fire and a range of other risks inevitably rises. I think that that gives further weight to the actions that have received broader support across the Parliament to address the alcohol abuse issue. We've taken great steps and I give absolute credit again to Jack McConnell for being brave on smoking legislation. We've seen a reduction in the amount of smoking and that's good. I do however have a little niggle in my mind as to whether with smoking becoming less acceptable places does that mean that there may be more smoking in homes where that could potentially be an issue. It's always worth remembering to return to the issue of insurance, and I'm told that it represents the insurance industry with us here. Yes, we would expect to see the cost of insurance go down when you've installed the sprinkler system. The sprinkler system itself is a form of insurance, and I think that the one thing about insurance that we should always remember is that insurance is the one product that you cannot buy when you really need it. Thank you very much. I now call on Margaret Mitchell to be followed by Malcolm Chishol. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Clare Adamson on bringing this debate to the chamber today and also pay tribute to the important work that she, as convener and other members of the cross-party group on accident prevention, do. Highlighting prevention issues such as the importance of and the need for fire sprinklers. There is no doubt that both the nature and the scale of the Addingstone Rose Park care home tragedy 10 years ago, where 14 elderly people lost their lives, brought the whole issue of fire prevention measures to the forefront of public consciousness, and indeed the subsequent findings of the fatal accident inquiry established that this tragedy could have been prevented had suitable measures been taken. The Fire Scotland Act 2005 therefore sought to ensure that fire safety in Scotland's care homes is adequate and it required that fire sprinklers be fitted in new and altered care homes. Further more, last year the Scottish Government issued an updated guidance on the application to care homes and this recommends retrofitting sprinklers with a high dependency residence. Whilst there are obviously costs involved with retrofitting automatic fire sprinklers, the benefits of preventing avoidable damage have been recognised in countries such as those listed in the motion, namely Finland, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand. That is surely because those countries recognise that injury and fatalities in the event of a fire far outweigh any initial cost. That is clearly a sentiment that has been echoed here during this debate in the chamber today. The updated guidance also states that fire protection products should be fit for their purpose and properly installed and maintained. Where possible, a reputable third party certification body, which itself has been accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, should independently check that standards are being met for fire protection products. That is to ensure that installation and maintenance contractors are properly qualified and competent. However, that third party safety net is not a requirement. Significantly, instead of having one authority with an approved list of fire safety consultants to weed out the cowboy operators, there are numerous professional bodies, in addition to the UK accreditation service, that operate those registration schemes. It is welcome therefore that, in relation to fire sprinklers, the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association act as a hub for companies looking to install sprinkler systems. As a trade association with over 40 years of experience, it is responsible for its members installing over 85 per cent of automatic sprinkler and water mist systems within the UK. The association also has led the way in campaigning for the retrofitting of sprinklers in residential care homes, schools, high-rise buildings and historic buildings. That is a record to be proud of, which is why today's debate provides a welcome opportunity to acknowledge the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association's achievements, as well as helping to raise awareness about both the benefits and the need to install fire sprinklers. I congratulate Claire Adamson for introducing this debate today and also for bringing the Parliament's attention to today's awareness-raising event on the importance of protecting people and properties from the threat of fire. When the fire sprinklers and residential premises bill was introduced in 2003, there was no requirement in legislation for the mandatory installation of fire sprinkler systems in residential properties. Primary responsibility for making the choice to install equipment fell to the owner and whether they chose to install fire sprinkler systems was entirely a matter for them to decide. The bill went some way ensuring that, in certain types of residential property, retrofitting of fire sprinklers became mandatory. That not only means ensuring that building regulations are met and that retrofitting takes place in existing care homes and sheltered housing, but that the equipment is maintained and checked regularly. In the document practical fire safety guidance for care homes, the Government sets out the steps that should be followed in accordance with the Fire Scotland Act 2005. Any defects that occur should be put right as quickly as possible, though there may be a need for contingency plans when life safety systems such as fire warning systems or sprinklers are defective. A failed sprinkler system could, as we all know, cost lives. When we remember such disasters as the loss of life at Rose Park care home, it is clear that we need to continually reinforce the message that a failure to comply with this legislation can lead to tragic consequences. No person who is placed in the care of a home in Scotland should be left at risk of such a tremendous threat. It is now an offence to occupy sheltered housing when it is known that a completion certificate has not been granted because a fire sprinkler system has not been provided. Unlike Clare Adamson and others in this chamber, I see this rule as vital in terms of preventing loss of life through fire. That should apply to all buildings where the care of a large number of people takes place. In 2010, the Government's building Scotland amendment regulations added school buildings to the existing list of buildings that require a sprinkler system. I would welcome a comment in the wind-up speech for the Minister about the position with regard schools because I believe that the Government routinely gives an exemption to schools in terms of sprinkler systems. There may well be a good reason for that, but the situation is not entirely clear to me in relation to schools. Today, we are focusing on the need to raise awareness of both the risk of fires in the homes of multiple occupants in our care homes, but also the risk of a failure to take responsibility for ensuring that equipment is installed and maintained. The co-ordination group mentioned in the motion works effectively by exchanging information with other co-ordination groups across the UK on research, campaigning for better recognition of the need for retrofitting and lobbying for changes to legislation that will ensure that installation becomes the rule and not the exception in key types of property. The chief fire officer's association has consistently made the case for wide use of sprinkler systems, stating that their effectiveness has been, and again I quote, "...proven in use for well over 100 years during which time they have a 99 per cent success rate worldwide that are sprinkler systems over 100 years old that are still in full working condition today." Close of quote, I must say that I was very surprised when I read that. Believe it or not, automatic sprinkler systems have been incorporated into some buildings since 1872 and were originally seen and developed as a means of reducing fire losses to property and contents. However, over recent years there has been a growing recognition of their use as a means of contributing to life safety. We all have the right to feel safe in our homes and in situations where that safety cannot be assured by our own actions since we are in the care of others, that safety can—we require the certainty of good legislation to put a duty in place. The chief fire officer's association in their business case for installation go on to emphasise that there are no cases on record where multiple fire deaths have occurred in buildings with working sprinkler systems, where those systems have been appropriately designed for the intended purpose and have been properly installed and maintained. I join Clare Adamson today in welcoming the work of the co-ordination group in ensuring that the legislation is followed carefully and to the letter. Tragic events like that, which we witnessed at Rose Park, cannot be forgotten and cannot be allowed to happen again. I support the motion and congratulate Clare Adamson not just for the motion, but for all the work that she does in relation to safety. We now move the closing speech from the minister, Paul Wheelhouse. Minister, up to seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to extend my own welcome to the Scottish fire sprinkler co-ordination group in the gallery today. I very much want to congratulate Clare Adamson for securing this debate. I know that this is an issue that she has referred to me a number of times and she is very passionate about it. For her work on the cross-party group itself. It is important that we note today that the speeches have been very thoughtful and helpful to me in terms of informative speeches that give me the perspective of members and deal with some of the cost parameters and some of the considerations in terms of the types of buildings that we use. They have been very interesting and informative. Unfortunately, due to a pre-existing diary commitment, I am unable to attend the co-ordination group's awareness-raising event lunchtime, but I wish them well and I hope that it is well attended by members across the chamber. As Clare Adamson stated, last year marked the 10th anniversary of the tragic events at Rose Park care home. I would like to add my own thoughts with the family and friends of those whose lives were lost. I am sure that that is something that all members have reflected on today and it is poignant to discuss the issue in the context of the tragic loss of life that has occurred. Following the tragedy at Rose Park, as a number of members including Clare Adamson and others have mentioned, Scotland has, we believe, led the way in the UK in responding to the tragic events and its implications. In 2005, we were the first to introduce building standards requiring the installation of sprinklers in the new-build care homes and sheltered housing, as well as enclosed shopping centres and high-rise accommodation. With regard to care homes, it is worth bearing in mind that the SFRS will audit all-care home school care accommodation and secure accommodation services registered with the care inspectorate on an annual basis, regardless of whether sprinklers are fitted or not. It is worth stating that the fine rescue services aim is to enable compliance for all care homes to deliver on compliance and to work with the occupiers and other responsible persons to achieve a satisfactory level of safety for all residents. In terms of the enforcement perspective, it is worth noting that, in passing, the procedures are robust. We are looking at the responsible persons delivering on fire safety in a number of ways, which may include sprinklers in some cases but also other measures. Where dangerous conditions are found, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is of the opinion that use of premises involves or will involve a risk to persons in case of fire. It is so serious that the use of the premises ought to be prohibited or restricted that risk cannot be remedied immediately. The service will issue a prohibition notice. I will bring David Stewart in or restricting the use of those premises. It is important to put in record that the failure to comply with any alterations that are suggested—a prohibition or enforcement notice constitutes an offence and may result in prosecution of the person responsible if I can bring in David Stewart at this point. The minister may be going to touch on this in a second but, in case he does not, could he just ask a specific question about the installation of sprinkler systems in social housing for a new build? We have heard about Angus and Fife and I congratulate them but the Government could put a requirement on all local throw-outs for us to be carried out. Would the minister consider looking at that and sharing the experience of Wales that comes in next year? They have clearly done an appraisal on that. Let's look at best practice and as Stewart Stevenson said, looks at the best practice done in the past like the smoking ban. This could be a great achievement which all parliamentarians could rally round. I certainly note the conceptual tone of the debate today and that has registered with me. I will come to the issue of the research and the work that we are doing in terms of social housing shortly. I will refer briefly to the point about Wales. David Stewart has mentioned it and other colleagues have mentioned it in Clare Adamson as well. In relation to that, we will continue to keep this very important issue under review. We are studying closely what has happened in Wales. I am obviously very interested in the experience that is experienced in Wales and will keep in touch with UK and Welsh Governments on their experience and try to learn from that. I will certainly give an assurance to all members here today that we will study closely what happens in Wales and will take a considered view of that. If we can just carry on with the speech, hopefully we will pick on the points that David Stewart mentioned. I have touched on the regulation aspects of it, but clearly we want to protect all residents of care homes. The 2009 Scottish Community Fire Safety Study report Scotland Together, which members have referred to, concluded that installation of sprinklers in all new Scottish homes would not be cost effective. That was borne out by Scottish Government commission research as well. It was recognised, however, that particular sectors of our communities—for example, people living in deprived areas, a number of members have referred to—were faced by multiple deprivation, the higher risk factors that Stewart Stevens and others have referred to in terms of drug and alcohol issues. Those people are disproportionately affected by a fire risk, and it is clear that we have to do more to prevent fires in those areas. As a result of that, a targeted approach to sprinkler installation for social rented, council or housing association owned dwellings has been adopted by some providers, as is noted by members in Angus and Fife, and they now require sprinkler systems to be installed in all new bill domestic properties commissioned by them. The Scottish Government supports that targeted approach based on cost benefit evidence and robust risk assessment across a range of risk reduction initiatives, including sprinklers. We continue to keep this important issue under review. Last year, we commissioned research into cost benefit analysis for the installation of fire suppression systems in new bill houses, flats, houses in multiple occupations and halls of residence. The report from that research is used to be published very soon. We will carefully review the research findings and keep members informed of our views, with a view to seeing what practical cost effective measures might be considered in future in Scotland. Sprinklers are only one of a range of risk reduction measures that can be deployed to reduce fire deaths. David Stewart and Stewart Stevens have referred to others, including smoke alarms. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been working hard to raise awareness of the risk of fire in the home and encourage people to take action to make their communities safer. It is particularly important that dwelling fires have been the main cause of casualties from fires in Scotland for the past 10 years. That is why installing smoke alarms remains a key part of the fire prevention activity and domestic premises. Last year, SFRS carried out over 70,000 home fire safety visits that David Stewart referred to and installed a total of 60,000 smoke alarms, which I hope members will be a very positive contribution to tackling fire safety in those premises. That approach is working. There were 9 per cent fewer dwelling fires in 2013-14 than in the previous year, continuing the downward trend of the last decade. I agree with David Stewart that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and all firefighters and their support staff involved in prevention work of this nature deserve our thanks for their tremendous work on our behalf. From what we have heard here today, there can be no doubt that sprinklers are an effective way to prevent casualties and in particular to limit damage to property caused by fire. I was interested in the points that Stewart Stevenson was making regarding the balance on insurance costs and whether it might be an insurance in its own right. SFRS plays an active role in promoting the benefits of installing sprinklers among Scotland's business community and joining with fire services across the UK in supporting fire sprinkler week 2015, which took place in March this year. From a legislative point of view, requirements placed upon the duty holders of relevant premises under the Fire Scotland Act 2005 that Margaret Mitchell referred to are not prescriptive and with good reason. The act requires duty holders to carry out an assessment to identify the risks and to decide which reasonable fire safety measures to take to ensure the safety of people in those premises. I note the points that I made earlier about the enforcement, where there is a perceived to be a significant risk that the fire and rescue service can intervene. In some environments, installing a sprinkler system may be appropriate and indeed a very cost effective way of tackling the issue, but in others alternative methods of risk reduction might be more appropriate and more cost effective and indeed more effective in absolute terms. Having said that, I would certainly encourage that any business owner carefully considering the installation of a sprinkler system among a range of other risk reduction initiatives when they are considering the safety of the people using their premises as well as the preservation of their property. Once again, I congratulate Clare Adamson on bringing forward this debate today. I thank all members for their considered and sincere points that they have made. The requirement for automatic sprinkler systems in schools was introduced in 2010, but I will certainly take on board the points that he made about that in regard to existing schools as well. The First Minister and I thank you all, and I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30. The first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion number 13160, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on new powers for Scotland, an interim report on the Smith commission and the UK Government's proposals. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request to speak by now, and I call on Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the devolution for other powers. The Devolution for other powers committee was established in October last year. Its task is to scrutinise proposals for further devolution arising out of the recommendations of the Smith commission. It is our interim report published last week that we are here to debate today. This is the committee's initial view of the proposals thus far. Across the committee we believe a report to be constructive, balanced and objective. We may differ across the committee on the powers that we consider the Scottish Parliament should have, but what is clear is that we speak with a common voice in saying that, as a minimum, the spirit and substance of the Smith commission recordations must be delivered in full, in legislative terms and in the actions of both Governments. Our conclusions was that, in significant areas, the draft clauses published in January by the previous UK Government, unfortunately do not meet that objective. The committee has called on the new UK Government to seriously consider the areas that we have highlighted, which we believe the draft clauses fall short in. The UK Government must ensure that the bill, expected to be published next week, is strengthened to fully deliver on the Smith recommendations. As a committee, we set ourselves four very clear and specific tasks in scrutinising proposals for further devolution. Firstly, to assess whether the draft legislative clauses published by the UK Government implemented the Smith commission recommendations. Secondly, to engage as widely as possible with stakeholders, communities and individuals. Thirdly, to obtain as wide a range of expert opinion as possible within the time-flame available. Lastly, to publish a report that should seek to influence the content and development of a new Scotland bill and let others judge whether we have met those objectives. I do ever wish to thank all those who provided evidence to the committee, whether informal evidence sessions at informal meetings in local communities or at public meetings in Hamilton, Aberdeen or Shetland. In order to assist us in our task, we appointed three advisers. They were namely Christine O'Neill to provide advice on constitutional matters. Dr Heidi Poon, dealing with taxation, and Professor Nicola McEwen with regard to welfare. I wish to put on record that that of the committee for the assistance of our advisers provided us in developing this report. I would also like to put on record our thanks to our clerking team, who I have led by Stephen Imre. They did a fantastic job in preparing us in the witnesses that were called and in helping to pool together our report. Most of all, however, I want to thank my fellow committee members for the mature professional manner in which they approached their work. Our report has been agreed unanimously by all members of the committee. In my view, it carries far greater weight as a consequence of that. The recommendations that we make are intended to be constructive and assist the UK Government in producing legislation that will implement the Smith recommendations. It is important to note that, in certain areas such as the devolution of air passing duty and aggregates levy, the draft clauses do indeed meet the aims of the Smith commission as far as the committee was concerned. However, because of the time available, I have to focus on the broad areas where the committee found the draft clauses were not fit for purpose. A wide range of areas the committee considered that either clarification was required on the effect of a clause or that amendment was required to the clauses as currently drafted. Perhaps the most significant area where we considered that to be was on welfare. Specifically, the committee considered that the draft welfare clauses would not provide a Scottish Government with the power to, for instance, create new benefits in the areas of devolved responsibility or make discretionary payments in any area of welfare. The definitions of a carer and of disability would significantly constrain the policy autonomy of future Scottish Government in those areas. The committee also considers that the clauses do not devolve all the powers over support for unemployed people expected by Smith. For example, the access to work programme would appear to remain reserved. We seek assurances that winter fuel payments will be devolved. Where there to be a future Scottish Government introduces a new benefit or top-up that this will not result in any offsetting of reduction in a UK benefit. The interaction of devolved and reserved powers is critical across many of the Smith commission proposals. Universal credit provides an example of one such proposed shared power. In that light, the committee considered that the draft clauses at 20 and brackets 4 and 21 and brackets 3 could be considered or perceived to be a veto and need to be looked at again. More generally, we recommended that principles that should inform inter-governmental working on welfare require to be placed in statute. That is a summary of our recommendations on welfare. Other members will no doubt want to go into more detail on those recommendations in due course. The draft welfare clauses are the area where perhaps most concerns rest because they are potentially also the most complex to implement. I know that that is an area that is being carefully scrutinised by the welfare reform committee. Those clauses will impact on some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals in Scottish society. That reminds me of a quote that Sir Harry Burns is fond of recalling of a Los Angeles priest who said to him, what we need is compassion that stands in awe at the burdens the poor have to carry rather than stands in judgment at the way they carry it. It is therefore essential that legislation in this area not only implements the spirit and substance of Smith but is also capable of being implemented efficiently. The taxation powers proposed for devolution by Smith will also result in a significant degree of shared power between the Scottish and UK governments. Here, the most critical elements of the operation of powers is in the areas that were not dealt with by draft clauses. Instead, the operation of those powers will be governed by a new fiscal framework that is currently being developed. While the operation of the no detriment principle and grant adjustment may sound esoteric, those issues are absolutely critical to the effective operation of those powers. In this area, the committee is grateful for the work that has been undertaken by the finance committee who found clear differences between the Scottish and UK governments regarding the no detriment principle. Similarly, we recommend that greater clarity is required with regard to how no detriment will operate in practice. We have also made a number of detailed recommendations relating to the implementation of the taxation proposals, such as how to determine what constitutes Scottish VAT, but I will leave that for others to discuss. On boring, the draft clauses were silent on how a new boring regime will operate. Accordingly, any early understanding of what boring powers are being devolved should be a high priority for both governments at this point. In the committee's view, a move towards a prudential regime would provide a sensible approach. We also recommend that future Scottish Government should be able to retain any underspend in order to better manage volatility and income. Clearly, the current boring powers of the Scottish Government are too restrictive to cope with this new era of fiscal devolution. It is therefore imperative that the boring regime entered into provides genuine flexibility to future Scottish Administrations. On the devolution of the Crown Estate, the committee also expressed significant concerns. The Smith commission could not have been clearer in the recommendations on the Crown Estate. They said that responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate economic assets in Scotland and the revenue generated from those assets will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. However, the committee found that the draft clauses in this area would result in the creation of two Crown Estates operating in Scotland. Let me assure you, Presiding Officer, that was a considerable surprise to the committee, not least those members of the committee who also served on the Smith commission. Moreover, the committee took the view that the legislative approach to devolution taken in draft clauses could be construed as being overly complex and complicated. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the UK Government should revise its approach to devolving the Crown Estate. I welcome the work now under way by the rule of affairs committee in this area. On the constitutional issues, the committee has made recommendations that seek to strengthen the draft clauses in relation to the permanency of the Scottish Parliament. In particular, a referendum should be held by the Scottish people if there was ever a suggestion that this Parliament should be de-established. We have also made recommendations in relation to the Sule convention. As we all know, that has become much more relevant given the new UK Government's plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. The proposals for further devolution will, if implemented, result in a fundamental shift in the structure of devolution, Presiding Officer. Lord Smith recognised the importance of inter-governmental relations in the forward to his commission's report. Throughout the course of the committee's work, the importance of inter-governmental relations was a constant theme, raised as a critical issue underpinning the delivery of further devolution. As a committee, we agree with Lord Smith that the current largely non-statutory machinery of inter-governmental relations in the UK will not be sufficient to deal with the challenges arising from the proposals for further devolution. The committee recognises that for inter-governmental relations to operate effectively, there must be space for discussions between Governments to take place in confidence. However, the general principles that will underpin inter-governmental relations and dispute resolution in the future should, in the committee's view, be placed in statute. In central to any new structure or inter-governmental relations will be the role of this Parliament and indeed Westminster in scrutinising the actions of Governments within this new structure. That will pose a significant new challenge to this Parliament and this is an area that the committee intends to give further consideration to and thought about in the coming months. This report is the culmination of seven months of intensive scrutiny, firstly of the Smith commission recommendations and then of the draft legislative clauses produced by the previous UK Government. I do not wish to sound conceited, it is not usually my style on behalf of the committee, but the sense I have is that the report has been well received by a cross-spectrum of Scottish society. In this age of digital Parliament, let me cite two tweets in my defence. Firstly, from a former member of the Smith commission, Professor Adam Thompkins, who many will know well, some in this chamber certainly will know well. He said, I'm quick to criticise the Scottish Parliament when it screws up, but today's report from the devolution committee is legislative scrutiny at its best. At the other end of the constitutional spectrum, Dr Andrew Tickle of the Glasgow Caledonian University, perhaps better known to some as the author of the blog Lallans Peak Warrior, considered the committee's report to be forensic, clear, constructive and one of the best reports he'd seen come out of Holyrood. Now don't make that these points lightly. That's a message as much for this Parliament as it is for the Secretary of State for Scotland in terms of the contents of this report. It's now the ambition of all of the committee to see both the letter and Smith.