SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
General Questions
Cannabis Use (Research)
To ask the Scottish Executive what research has been commissioned in Scotland into the causes of mental health disorders and, in particular, any links with cannabis use. (S2O-7142)
The Scottish Executive has supported a range of research into the causes of mental health problems, including studies of genetic and early-life risk factors for the development of problems later in life, but it has not commissioned any research specifically into cannabis use as a possible cause of mental health problems.
I thank the minister for her frank response but express a little disappointment in it. Is she aware that a respected academic in Scotland, Professor Neil McKegany, was recently invited to the United States of America by the United States director of national drug control policy to discuss the health dangers of cannabis? That threat is taken very seriously in the United States. Given that Scotland does not want to seem to be behind the United States, does the minister think that it would be appropriate for us to consider invoking the skills of Professor McKegany, so that he can advise us on the illegal use of cannabis in Scotland?
My initial response was not intended to imply that we are not aware of some of the research that suggests links between cannabis and mental health problems. Miss Goldie will be aware that the core message of our know the score campaign is that all drug misuse is dangerous. She may also be aware that the Home Secretary has asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider all the new evidence for links between cannabis and mental health problems and that in September it will make recommendations on the classification of cannabis. This is a reserved matter, but we will study the council's advice carefully, in case it has implications for our policy.
Forest Crofts
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making towards the establishment of forest crofts. (S2O-7175)
I have asked for an interim report on options from the forest crofts steering group following its meeting on Monday next week. I will publish a further report and recommendations later this year.
I welcome the minister's commitment to forest crofts, which give great opportunities for rural development. Does the minister agree that, given that the majority of Forestry Commission land lies outwith the crofting counties, it would make sense for the draft Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill to allow for the creation of new crofts outwith that arbitrary line, in order to maximise the potential of forest crofts?
I will read with interest responses from people outwith the crofting counties to the consultation on the draft Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am aware that on the island of Arran there is a significant body of opinion that it would be helpful for the community to move in the direction of establishing forest crofts. The critical point is that we are seeking to give communities the opportunity to have more say over the use of the land on which they live. Eleanor Scott will be aware that on Monday the Forestry Commission Scotland will launch its national forest land scheme, which will enhance opportunities that were created by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.
Keeping it in the family, I call Rob Gibson.
I am unimpressed by the urgency with which the minister is pursuing this matter. The statement of support for forest crofts was made six months ago, but the first meeting of the tripartite group will not take place until Monday. Will the minister indicate how the timetable for introducing forest crofts can be dovetailed with the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, so that we can have an idea of whether there will be more than one form of forest croft because of existing law?
Mr Gibson should be aware that Monday's meeting is the first at which all the parties that are now involved in the steering group will get together, but that the core members of the group—the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, the Forestry Commission and the Crofters Commission—first met on 7 March. Monday's meeting is not about starting work but about expanding the work that is being done by including in the steering group both Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Crofting Foundation, to represent the views of working crofters. We are treating the matter as significant. We recognise the logic of progressing it alongside crofting reform and new opportunities for forestry land to be used for affordable housing, which will be the subject of the announcement that will be made on Monday. I hope that Mr Gibson will agree that that is a coherent agenda of improved opportunities for rural and crofting communities.
Sportscotland (Headquarters)
To ask the Scottish Executive when it will make a decision on the location of the headquarters of sportscotland and what criteria it used in assessing each application. (S2O-7121)
The matter remains under active consideration by ministers, but I regret that I cannot be specific about when an announcement will be made. The criteria that are being applied to inform our decision are as recommended by the Executive for all relocation reviews. Those involve a first stage that balances socioeconomic benefit with business efficiency equally, followed by a second stage that focuses on the economic and financial appraisal of options.
Given the decision that was made late in the summer of last year about the development of national facilities for sport, it is crucial, owing to the uncertainty that is faced by the staff concerned, that final decisions are made about the location of the HQ. Does the minister agree that it would be fitting for the HQ to be located within a national athletics sports arena in a city that has invested heavily in sport and in an area that faces the greatest challenge to health and well-being in Scotland? Does he agree that the boost that the HQ would give to the regeneration of the east end of Glasgow would also benefit sportscotland?
As Parliament would expect, Mr McAveety makes a persuasive case for the part of Glasgow that he represents. All I can say is that these matters are under active consideration. I take his point about the uncertainty that is being experienced by staff and I assure him that the staff will be the first to know about the decision.
Mr Watson is stuck in traffic, so question 4 is withdrawn.
Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill (Consultation Responses)
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-16433 by Peter Peacock on 18 May 2005, whether it will publish responses to the consultation on the draft Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill on 5 July 2005. (S2O-7146)
As confirmed by Peter Peacock, in his reply of 18 May 2005, all non-confidential responses to the consultation will be placed in the Scottish Executive library on 5 July—20 working days after the closing date of 7 June. The responses will also be on the website by 12 July.
Does the minister acknowledge that there has been a substantial groundswell of representations in support of the retention of school boards? Does he also acknowledge that, in 2004, the Executive republished the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 with a new foreword, which sensibly endorsed school boards and stated that they are in a unique position as a mechanism for the two-way flow of information between parents, schools and education authorities?
Of course school boards are unique, because the statute does not allow any alternative. The purpose of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill is to increase parental involvement. There have been a substantial number of responses to the consultation—more than 1,000. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, some responses have stated that school boards in their current form should be retained, but others have argued for change. The Executive will consider all the responses over the summer and publish its response in the autumn.
The minister will be aware that, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, many of the responses that are currently being circulated to MSPs are very supportive of school boards. Can the minister reassure members and parents that, whatever form parent involvement takes, it will have a statutory basis so that parents feel that their voice is heard and, more important, acted on?
Yes, indeed. We will ensure that the arrangements are improved because, as Mary Mulligan may know, at any one time only 1 per cent of parents are involved in school boards. It is our intention to broaden that to include more parents, so that the views of more parents will assist the development of education in Scotland.
The minister said in his earlier answer that the objective of the bill is to "increase parental involvement" in the management of schools. Although strong claims are being made by parents and school boards for the retention of school boards, what specific mechanisms will the minister put in place to guarantee that whatever comes out of the bill will lead to an increase in parental involvement?
We make every effort in the draft Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill to increase parents' involvement. The details of how we will do that have been set out in the draft bill, but we will consider all the responses that we received during the consultation period, which has just ended. For example, as Mr Swinney says, we will consider how parental involvement in the management of schools can be enhanced. We will publish our proposals in the autumn.
Inquiries from MPs
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has a policy on responding to inquiries from MPs about individual constituents in respect of devolved matters. (S2O-7147)
All letters from MPs or MSPs on devolved matters are seen and replied to by ministers. Those that relate to operational matters are replied to by the Scottish Executive agency concerned.
I agree with that approach. Does the minister agree that constituents look for whichever elected representative they approach to address their individual concerns about government, irrespective of whether it relates to a council, Holyrood or Westminster? Does he share my concern that the Home Office has refused me an answer to a question that I raised on behalf of one of my constituents, on the ground that the issue is reserved? Will he, along with his colleagues, make representations on behalf of us all to have that new practice reversed?
Ministers here are responsible and accountable for the areas under their responsibility. I reiterate the point that our responsibilities are to reply—and we do—to all letters that we receive from both members of Parliament and members of the Scottish Parliament.
Does what the minister has just said mean that there is no agreement between the Executive and Westminster departments on a consistent approach to dealing with constituency correspondence from the other legislature? Like Brian Adam, I have had great difficulty in dealing with matters when my constituents have raised reserved issues. I have not received a very satisfactory response.
I can only repeat that our approach to the issue is as I have described. We respond to letters from members of Parliament and from members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Pringle may know that, for example, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions provide a ministerial response to letters from MSPs. However, those matters are an issue for a Government in a different place.
Asperger's Syndrome
To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is providing for people living with Asperger's syndrome. (S2O-7094)
The Scottish Executive is working to improve services across health, education and social care agencies for people with Asperger's syndrome and their families. Our programme of work is improving awareness and understanding of Asperger's syndrome and other autistic spectrum disorders and it will give people quicker access to diagnosis and the supports that are appropriate to individual needs.
Does the minister agree that it is very important to give high-quality support to people who are living with Asperger's syndrome, such as my constituent Morna Edmond, who approached me on the subject? Such support is important as it helps people with Asperger's syndrome to live full and enriched lives. Will she also ensure that the Executive raises awareness among all general practitioners about Asperger's syndrome and that people who are living with Asperger's syndrome are part of that information awareness programme?
Absolutely. We must continue to raise awareness. We have been appointing autism co-ordinators in different regions of Scotland—the Executive has funded a co-ordinator in the Borders. I would be pleased if Jeremy Purvis and his constituent would work with the co-ordinator in the Borders to supply information and support to GPs. His constituent understands the issues as a sufferer of Asperger's, but also as someone who does not have learning disabilities and is keen to be involved.
National Health Service (Public Participation)
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase the level of public participation in the running of the NHS. (S2O-7105)
Public engagement is important in planning for NHS services and ensuring that the NHS is responsive to the public's needs and we are already doing a great deal on that. We have legislated for a statutory duty on NHS boards to involve the public, have established the Scottish health council and are setting up local advisory councils. We are setting up community health partnerships, each of which will have a public partnership forum. We will take forward the recommendations on public engagement and involvement in Professor David Kerr's report. In addition, this summer, I am holding annual reviews in public with all NHS boards. That is a substantial and far-reaching programme to continue and enhance public engagement in planning for and delivering NHS services.
The minister will be aware that my proposal for a member's bill on direct elections to NHS boards is published in today's Business Bulletin. I hope that its resubmission will attract signatories of my previous proposal on the same matter as well as new signatories and I commend it to members. Will the minister indicate how the Executive is minded on the resubmitted proposal, which would extend direct democratic accountability and involve public participation?
I would want to consider that point once I have had a chance to examine Mr Butler's bill fully. As I indicated in my first answer, substantial pieces of work that are being undertaken in the health service will ensure that patients and the public are involved in determining how we organise our health service. In addition, senior elected representatives from each local authority are included on NHS boards, the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 has ensured public involvement and the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 has ensured NHS participation in community planning. I argue that we ensure that the public's voice is heard on many issues, but I look forward to Mr Butler's bill with interest.
Cattle and Sheep Marketing (Remote Areas)
I am sorry, I do not have the question here. [Interruption.] To ask the Scottish Executive what help has been offered to producers in remote areas and islands to market their cattle and sheep. (S2O-7153)
The answer to the non-question is that, since 2001, the Scottish Executive has provided well over £500,000 towards beef and lamb marketing projects, resulting in a total investment of £1.2 million in remote areas and the islands.
I thank the minister for his non-answer. The sheep might be prepared to accept what he says but, to be frank, we in the Opposition do not like answers that leave many farmers and crofters in the lurch. We have asked the minister in the past about help with livestock transport costs and have had no answer. Will he reflect on the fact that we need to know how it will be made possible for farmers and crofters to continue to produce sheep and cattle in remote and island areas for the long term?
Rob Gibson is drifting away in his non-supplementary. I am sure that he is aware that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the Minister for Transport and I are heavily engaged in determining how we produce a scheme that is satisfactory for the transport of northern isles livestock. It is not a question of our not having any ambitions or wishes to do so. As Rob Gibson is also aware, other representatives have approached the European Commission on that matter. We are committed to ensuring that the arrangements—not only the specifications of the vessels that might provide the transport, but the level of support—are adequate and appropriate to ensure that farmers and crofters in remote island communities will continue to be able to trade their livestock on the mainland.
NHS 24
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to create local call centres for NHS 24. (S2O-7145)
As members are aware, the interim report from the independent NHS 24 review group that was set up in February was published on 2 June. The report makes recommendations for changes to improve the operational performance of NHS 24 and noted that NHS 24 was already developing better ways of delivering services to callers, including the setting up of mini-centres.
Does the minister agree that local delivery will always be better than remote delivery because local delivery draws on local knowledge? Many of the villages in my constituency have names that do not appear on the Ordnance Survey map and confusion can arise because of that. Will the minister give us a date when some of the mini-centres might come into operation and start to serve local needs?
There are some good examples in the Highlands. Highland NHS Board, the Scottish Ambulance Service and NHS 24 are planning to collocate staff providing out-of-hours services in Inverness. Good progress is being made with those plans. The aim is to benefit patients in the Highlands and Islands through that better co-ordination of out-of-hours services. It is also a matter of maximising local knowledge, to which the member refers.
Previous
Identification Cards