Hansard

Perhaps rescue from broken podiums might be more appropriate.

I make it clear from the outset that the phrase "persons trapped in moving water" is the terminology that fire and rescue services use. It distinguishes the incidents that I am discussing from those that take place during flooding. Sustaining the differentiation might not always be possible—after all, flood waters can become moving waters very quickly—but for funding and training, the distinction is important.

I will take a few minutes to outline how I became involved in the issue. On 16 January, I had a meeting in my constituency with members of the Motion family about the death of Graham Motion on 23 July 2006 in the River Tay at Perth. On that day, the first representative of the emergency services to arrive at the scene after the 999 call was placed was a single police officer who could not help. The second to arrive was the Scottish Ambulance Service. By the time that Tayside Fire and Rescue arrived, it was too late, even for properly trained staff, which I understand those who were present were not.

Following the incident, the family spoke to police officers and firefighters and learned that the emergency services have little training to deal with such occurrences, which is why they decided to come to me. Some members of Graham Motion's family are here this evening—at least, they were supposed to be here. They have begun a water safety campaign—Safe-Tay—and I commend their courage in trying to make sense of Graham's death by focusing on what can be changed for the better.

As a result of the family's discussions, I lodged written questions to try to understand the extent of the problem. Subsequently, I wrote directly to police and fire services throughout Scotland to see whether their approach is consistent. Most of the responses arrived in mid to late March and, for obvious reasons, I have not had as much time as I might have wished to reply to specific points, but I still intend to do so.

It has been clear from the outset that provision of the service varies considerably throughout Scotland. Obviously, my first port of call was Tayside Fire and Rescue and Tayside Police. Tayside Police helped by providing me with information about incidents in which it was involved. However, it advised me that it is often contacted a considerable time after an incident takes place. It has throw-lines, a dinghy based in Perth and people who are trained to use the craft, and three officers who are trained in swift-water rescue. It also calls on the fire service.

Tayside Fire and Rescue is clear that it has no statutory duty relating to rescues from moving water—as opposed to flood rescues, which are covered under article 5 of the Fire (Additional Function) (Scotland) Order 2005. Curiously, that view is not repeated in the letter that I received from Strathclyde Fire and Rescue; neither is there any mention of police responsibility in that letter. Instead, I am advised of Strathclyde Fire and Rescue's attendance at 251 incidents in the past five years. It responds to water rescue incidents within the force boundaries, although it is a declared resource only from the Erskine bridge to the tidal weir.

Lothian and Borders Police also mentions having throw-lines and nine trained officers. In contrast, Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service writes of

"teams specifically trained and strategically located to carry out specialised water rescue"

in Edinburgh, Bathgate and Galashiels, and identifies sums of money that are allocated to water rescue training from the general training budget.

Grampian Fire and Rescue Service emphasises that it has no statutory duty to undertake such rescues—as opposed to those that arise during flooding incidents—and that it has no plans to take on the primary role in responding. Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service has three trained officers but no response team. Northern Constabulary provides no specific training and would have to rely on the coastguard, although the coastguard is not always the appropriate service. Dumfries and Galloway Fire and Rescue Service has no trained staff, and neither does Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary—instead, it is Nith Inshore Rescue that responds. Fife Constabulary has no officer trained to deal with moving water incidents and would call on the fire service or the coastguard. Fife Fire and Rescue has two such officers but no operational capability.

The minister may be feeling slightly battered by all that information, but I hope that he understands the point that I am making. The decisions about who responds, who is trained and how much training is required vary considerably from area to area. No force seems to have specific budget headings for the kind of water rescue training that is being debated. I believe that the time is right for the situation to be reviewed.

In Perth, there has been an increase in the use of the bridge over the Tay for suicide attempts as well as for what might be called recreational dooking—as dangerous as it is, there has been an increase in such activity. The number of incidents is increasing, and the ability to assess the situation throughout Scotland is impaired by the lack of agreement on the basis on which such incidents should be recorded and the issue of who should record them. In some cases, the services were unable to tell me how many incidents there had been in the past five years.

Tayside Fire and Rescue officers have had it made clear to them in writing that they are not to go into the water. In the incident on 6 March, that is what Tam Brown did. He is the fire officer to whom the minister referred in responding to my parliamentary question last week. Tam Brown was untrained and going against his instructions. In doing so—in working outside his operational remit—he was laying himself open to disciplinary action, even if none transpired. But he saved a life.

It is not right that we expect such a rescue to take place when officers of whatever emergency service is involved do not have the training to effect a proper rescue. Clarity is required. If, as seems to be the case, there is no statutory duty on any force to conduct the rescue, as opposed to co-ordinate it, which is a different matter, it is left entirely to the chief constable or the chief fire officer to assume the responsibility—or not. People in different parts of the country get different responses because of different levels of training and funding.

In this debate, I am looking to the minister for a recognition of the confusion and lack of clarity that exists and an agreement that the situation needs to be reviewed so that there is a clearer steer as to where the true responsibility lies, because such clarity simply does not exist at present.