³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Plenary, 09 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, October 9, 2003

Official Report 692KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Devolved School Management

To ask the Scottish Executive whether devolved school management will be extended. (S2O-565)

Yes.

Does the minister recollect that the partnership agreement includes a commitment to issue guidance on how to raise from 80 per cent to 90 per cent the proportion of the school budget that is under the control of head teachers? When will that commitment be honoured and when will progress be made towards achieving the target?

I am delighted to hear that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is such an avid student of the partnership agreement, which I commend to anyone who has not studied it as closely as he has. The member is right to say that there is a commitment to increase from 80 per cent to 90 per cent the proportion of the school budget that is subject to devolved school management. We plan to issue guidance on that in spring 2004. We are collecting information from local authorities on how they are best using devolved school management, so that we can incorporate into the guidance all the latest thinking about how to move the issue forward.

---

Road Improvements (A9)

To ask the Scottish Executive what proposals it has for improving the A9 at Berriedale. (S2O-580)

We will shortly go out to tender on a £500,000 structural maintenance scheme over 2.9km at Berriedale, which is programmed for completion by spring 2004.

Members who travel the A9 to Caithness will be aware that, at Berriedale, there are some particularly difficult hairpin bends, where articulated lorries often jam the route.

May I press the minister further on this matter? I am grateful that money will be spent at the Ord of Caithness, but substantial investment is required at Berriedale, which remains a noose around a vital link not only to Caithness but to islands beyond, including the minister's constituency. I ask that his officials examine the problem, with a view to implementing a more radical solution.

I will be happy to take the points that Mr Stone has made back to Mr Stephen's officials and to ensure that they are fully briefed on this issue. We recognise the member's concerns. From my experience of driving on the road, I know the serious problems that exist. However, Mr Stone was right to mention the £10 million that the Executive is spending on the major upgrade between Helmsdale and the Ord of Caithness. We hope to build on that work.

---

Fife NHS Board (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will next meet Fife NHS Board and what issues will be discussed. (S2O-577)

Officials of the Scottish Executive Health Department meet Fife NHS Board regularly and discuss a wide range of issues.

Will the minister comment on the report on Fife NHS Board by the external auditors Henderson Logie, the findings of which have been published in The Courier? The report suggests that Fife NHS Board is not achieving effective financial control and that to ensure confidence and belief in the leadership of the NHS in Fife, there needs to be clarity and communication of the corporate vision and actions that are necessary to achieve recurring financial balance. Will the minister confirm that he has confidence in the ability of the present leadership of Fife NHS Board to deliver the health service that the people of Fife need?

I am glad that Tricia Marwick has raised this issue. Fife NHS Board asked for the report to which she refers because it realised that there were issues that it had to address. It is now acting on the report.

I regret that parts of the document have, in the past, been misreported—I am not saying that that has happened today—and reported out of context. Any questions that the report raised about leadership in Fife related to financial leadership at an operational level. It is a matter of deep regret that those comments have been transferred to the board's chair, who was not criticised in the report. I am glad that the Conservative member Brian Monteith said, in a recent press release, that the chair's ability was not in question. I am also glad that she received a good performance appraisal from the chief executive of NHS Scotland. I hope that people will focus on the real health issues in Fife rather than on personality issues, which are not relevant.

Does the minister agree that it might be best for the nationalist list MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife to attend meetings with Fife NHS Board, instead of wasting the chamber's time by asking such questions?

It is obvious that Christine May knows more about that situation than I do, and I am sure that members heard what she said.

Fife NHS Board, others in Fife and I are focused on the real issues of concern to patients in Fife. For example, the board has made progress on waiting times. There have been some difficulties in one or two areas, but I commend the progress that the health board has made in reducing waiting times. The board has also been active on the patient focus agenda and is proceeding with the health reorganisation plans.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Rule 7.3 of the standing orders of the Parliament states:

"Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner".

From his time in another place, does the Presiding Officer recall that one of the rules of that place that covers discourteous behaviour is the mayor of Sligo rule, which prohibits a member, in asking a question of a minister, from referring to another member of the house? On that basis, does the Presiding Officer agree that Ms May has shown discourtesy to my colleague?

The point is that we do not have a mayor of Sligo, nor a mayor of Sligo rule.

Does the minister agree that Fife NHS Board and its chair should be judged on whether they are delivering improvements to the health service in Fife for the people of Fife, including the "Right for Fife" business plan, the new hospital and health centre for St Andrews, improvements to Adamson hospital in Cupar and the establishment of a strategy for mental health services, including Stratheden hospital?

Iain Smith makes a similar point to those that were made by me and by Christine May. People in Fife are interested in all the issues to which Iain Smith referred and progress is being made on several fronts. That is what patients are interested in and I am sure that that is what is of interest to the majority of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.

---

Civil Service Jobs (Dispersal)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to disperse civil service jobs around Scotland. (S2O-615)

The Executive is committed to the dispersal of public sector jobs, and wants all areas of Scotland to benefit from the policy, including areas of most need. Devolution should apply not only to Scotland, but within Scotland. Since 1999, the devolved Government has relocated, or announced plans to relocate, more than 1,200 posts around Scotland. A further 2,000 posts are being considered under reviews that have been announced to date. The Executive will announce further relocation opportunities later in the year.

Is the Executive's policy on the matter binding on quangos? For example, is the minister aware of Scottish Water's bizarre recent decision to close its recently modernised laboratory in Glasgow and to centralise its operations in Edinburgh? Is he aware of the actions of the Scottish Agricultural College? Is it not time that quangos that belong to the Scottish Executive were required to follow Scottish Executive policy?

It depends upon the definition of quangos. I am sure that Mr Brown means non-departmental public bodies, which have to have regard to the Scottish Executive's relocation policy. We expect them to pay close attention to it and follow its terms.

I am not aware of the particular circumstances of the Scottish Water laboratory to which Mr Brown refers. Members should, however, reflect on the extremely tough cost-reduction targets that that organisation has to meet. I presume that those have implications for the issues that Mr Brown raised.

Will the minister detail the socioeconomic criteria that are used in the Executive's job dispersal programme? Will he explain why my constituency, which has lower-than-average wage rates, did not make the list for VisitScotland? Will he indicate whether the overall strategy will contain provisions for smaller work units being dispersed to smaller towns?

The initiative on small units within the Executive will deal with the point that Roseanna Cunningham makes. The Executive intends that the small-units initiative, announced by the First Minister late in 2002, will ensure that such units are relocated to areas around the periphery of Scotland, if I may use that terminology.

As for the member's wider point, socioeconomic factors account for some 50 per cent of the analysis in relation to a decision on a particular relocation. That will continue to be the case; indeed, we will put more stress on that approach.

The minister will be aware that my area has lost out more than once on bids for relocation, including its bid for the recent relocation of VisitScotland jobs. Will he assure me that areas that have lost out will receive appropriate feedback and guidance and that due consideration will be given to the factor of unemployment, which is very high in my constituency?

Irene Oldfather makes an extremely good point about feedback. We think that that area needs to be strengthened to ensure that we are very clear and transparent about why a particular area has benefited from the relocation policy and why other areas have not been successful in particular cases. In that context, it is important that local authorities, local enterprise companies and other partners who work together in pursuit of relocation options are clear about why they have or have not achieved something.

---

Civil Registration (Archives)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has advised the Registrar General for Scotland to allow local authorities to retain paper copies of the birth, marriage and death registers in local archives and to make available the appropriate funding for this purpose. (S2O-594)

The Registrar General has made it clear to local authorities that they will be allowed to retain paper records locally after electronic images of the registers become available. An authority that wished to hold those records in local archives would meet the cost of such storage, as for other records held in such a way. The Registrar General will continue to meet the cost of storage of the principal paper copy of the registers and the cost of providing the electronic version.

I welcome the minister's response. However, the Registrar General's guidance has not yet been conveyed to local family history societies, which have expressed considerable concern about the matter. In addition, will the minister assure us that he will meet the societies to find out whether other records that are valuable in Scotland might be useful and to help and encourage the societies to develop family history as a tourism niche market?

I am surprised that people in Brian Adam's area are not aware that the Registrar General has made that information clear. They might well wish to take up that issue with the local authority. If Brian Adam thinks that his local authority is still in the dark about the matter, he should by all means let me know about it and I will take up the issue with the Registrar General. That said, I have no reason to believe that that information did not go out.

As for meeting local family history societies, I am sure that if they wish to make a case to the local authorities and then both parties decide to raise the matter with the Registrar General, he will arrange whatever meeting is required to examine the most sensible way of providing a service throughout Scotland.

---

Tourism

To ask the Scottish Executive what the outcome was of the recent meeting of the steering group on tourism with regard to promoting tourism. (S2O-590)

The group of ministers on tourism held its sixth and latest meeting on 1 October. We focused on how the £90 million of public sector tourism expenditure is spent and how effectively the various agencies that support tourism in Scotland integrate their activities and their investment. The group hopes to report its findings to the Cabinet soon.

What is the Executive's decision on the future of the area tourist boards? Moreover, what is it doing to promote the training of tourism skills to Scottish youth to ensure that young people properly represent and benefit the tourism industry and take pride in their jobs?

The deliberations on the future of ATBs form part of the broader debate that is taking place in the ministerial group. I hope that we will report on that matter when we report to the Cabinet.

As for skills issues within the tourism industry, I meet VisitScotland and various other agencies regularly to ensure that we address such matters. Earlier this week, I met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses to discuss the issue. Moreover, I met my colleague Allan Wilson this morning to discuss how we can utilise skills development, particularly in relation to the development of the Cairngorms national park. I am sure that that will be of interest to Mr McGrigor's constituents.

Does the minister share my concern about the exclusion of four Scottish cities, including Dundee, from VisitBritain's new short-break campaign? Will he join me in expressing concern about VisitScotland's statement that the promotion of Dundee as part of that campaign would have been a waste of money? Moreover, does the minister agree that we need to promote Dundee in the European market to ensure that the city is put on the map as a destination for Europeans who come to Scotland?

To clarify, it was questioned whether the inclusion of Dundee would give an effective return for the investment involved, which is a remarkably different turn of phrase from that which was used by the member. The SNP's tourism spokesperson complained this week that Aberdeen, too, had not been successful, but that city did not apply to be successful in the first place.

Other cities from throughout the United Kingdom that were not included have larger populations than the two or three in Scotland that were not fully included. Our two largest cities were included in the scheme because of the proportion of Scotland's population that they have and because those cities have direct routes to Europe, the promotion of which was the main purpose of the scheme. If the member took the time to examine the scheme, I am sure that she would see that other aspects of it involve the promotion of other cities in Scotland to ensure that we access that important market.

---

Animal By-Products (Scotland) Regulations 2003

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the impact on rural businesses of regulations that ban the sale of animal by-products. (S2O-589)

The Animal By-Products (Scotland) Regulations 2003, which implement European Commission regulation 1774/2002, came into effect on 1 October. A regulatory impact assessment accompanied the regulations through the consultation stage and the parliamentary scrutiny process. The main objective of the legislation is to ensure that animal by-products that are not intended for human consumption are controlled through to final use or disposal to ensure that they do not pose a threat to public or animal health or to the environment.

Does the minister accept that small rural butchers will bear a disproportionate cost as a result of the requirements of the regulations and that the increased costs may threaten the future viability and availability of butchers in rural communities? Will the minister investigate whether, subject to the state-aid rules, it is possible to introduce a national disposal scheme to help small butchers, similar to the scheme for fallen stock which is to be introduced for farmers?

One must be careful when talking about the extent to which the regulations have imposed new requirements. I accept that there are new requirements in relation to disposal, but confusion exists in the butchery trade and others about the distinction between products that are for human use and products that can be used for pets and other purposes. There appears to be confusion about whether additional action is required, other than simply complying with the regulations. Some butchers have doubts about the matter, which I hope will be resolved. Butchers are beginning to believe that they cannot supply products that, in fact, they can supply. We hope, by explanation, to assure those people that that is not the case and therefore to reduce the burden to which Mr Mundell alluded.

Most people welcome the simplification of the common agricultural policy, which will lead to simpler regulations for farming and other businesses in rural Scotland. However, it was reported in the press this week that the minister thinks that the reform of the common agricultural policy may lead to job losses in the civil service. Will the minister guarantee that any loss of civil service jobs will not occur in rural communities, which will need on-going support during the intense period of transition in the years ahead?

I am not aware that the Animal By-Products (Scotland) Regulations 2003, to which the original question referred, will give rise to job losses in the civil service. Mr Lochhead alone in the chamber could possibly have arrived at that interesting conclusion. However, I can tell Mr Lochhead that the completely different regulations that govern the CAP reform might give rise to streamlining in my department. As usual with the Executive, value for money will be a key objective and we will use the savings to good purpose.

I return to the original question to seek further clarification. The new regulations mean that small butchers can no longer dispose of bones and by-products to landfill. Will the minister consider whether bones might be uplifted under the fallen stock scheme, which, I believe, is due to come into operation in January? Given that in the Highlands and Islands there is a derogation that allows people to bury fallen stock, surely, in those derogated areas, people should be able to continue to send bones to landfill.

Yes. I am happy to take on board the issue of what to do in the derogated areas, where there would be an illogicality in the application of these two quite separate regulations. I am happy to look into that.

---

Prejudice

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is tackling prejudice in Scotland. (S2O-613)

The Executive is fulfilling its commitment to tackle prejudice and discrimination through a combination of legislation, policies and campaigning, backed up with research and training. We are also working closely with groups and organisations that represent their interests that share our commitment.

Will the minister consider working with those organisations to produce guidelines, useful material and suggestions to help groups of all ages, through informal education or social activity, to address issues arising from prejudice? For example, the Executive could suggest that pensioners groups and youth clubs get together for a talk by somebody from an ethnic minority or somebody with a disability, or that young people from the two sides of the sectarian divide play in the same football team.

In principle, I am sympathetic to that approach. The Executive attempts to stimulate that kind of approach across the raft of activities that it undertakes, in partnership with organisations. At the core of what Donald Gorrie says is the fact that prejudice often stems from a lack of understanding, knowledge and experience of another group. We want to break down those barriers through a variety of mechanisms, and we would be happy to pursue those issues.

That is interesting. In Lanarkshire, on 22 October, we will go through an exercise involving the police, the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party and a group of schoolchildren. We will be implementing exactly what Donald Gorrie was suggesting. It is on drugs—

You must ask a question, Mr Swinburne. What is your question?

I was just saying that—

Well, it is question time, Mr Swinburne.

I ask the minister to address prejudice in planning issues. Does she think that equal weight should be given to individuals' views regardless of how long they have lived in an area?

As the member will know, we are giving great consideration to the planning system and people's involvement in it—obviously, with a degree of scrutiny of the balance. It is important that different views are represented, but we still need to reach the required outcomes in the planning system. Mary Mulligan spent some time explaining that at last week's question time. We want to have a well-balanced planning system in which people are involved.

---

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003

To ask the Scottish Executive how much funding is being made available to local authorities to ensure that they are able to develop the core path network, as set out in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. (S2O-610)

The local authority settlement includes £6.5 million for 2003-04, £7.4 million for 2004-05 and £8.1 million for 2005-06 to enable local authorities to prepare for and to implement the new access legislation, including planning a system of core paths.

The consultants' report indicated that, if communities are to get what they expect out of the land reform legislation, a figure nearer £340 million over 10 years will be required. How does the Executive intend to close that gap to ensure that—as Jack McConnell said this morning—speedy progress is made in that area?

Mark Ballard has certainly identified a fairly significant funding gap. I think that he perhaps misunderstood my original response. The sums of money that I explained are available are for planning a system of core paths. When we come to establish the core path network, we will have to consider the financial requirement for that.

The core path network will not be the only means by which we will provide wider access to the countryside. Many other funders are involved in providing that, including Scottish Natural Heritage. The core path network is an important means of providing access for people of differing abilities, but it is only one means by which we will provide wider access.

Will the minister indicate when Parliament might be able to see the final version of the access code that is so vital to the operation of the important Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003? Does he agree that it is important that the access code reflects the Parliament's intentions and that we get to debate the access code before it is finally agreed in its correct form? Does he further agree that it is important that issues that have yet to be resolved, such as passage around farmyards, are finally and properly resolved?

I agree with those points. It is important that the access code is subject to the fullest consultation. It is only recently that SNH has completed its consultation. The matter will then come to ministers for approval and from there to Parliament for its approval. I expect that some of the issues about disputes over access rights to which the member refers will be covered in the local authority access forums that will be set up and will be designed to facilitate dispute resolution.

I welcome the £22 million over three years that the minister has indicated will be available. I take it that the money applies to the consultation and the publishing of maps and so forth. Will the minister tell us how many miles of core paths the money will provide and what proportion will be existing rights of way? What further funding will be available thereafter to develop new paths?

Ask the mayor of Sligo.

No, but I will get on the case right away. We will get out the maps and the cartographers to check just how many more core paths will be introduced.

I repeat the serious point that the core path network is but one means of ensuring wider and more responsible access to our countryside. We expect that in due course the entire countryside—excluding Sligo—will be opened up to wider access. I know that Stewart Stevenson will support those aims.

---

Student Funding

To ask the Scottish Executive whether there would be any changes in the repayment of student loans and the graduate endowment if proposals by Her Majesty's Government on the reform of student loans and tuition fees are implemented. (S2O-568)

Her Majesty's Government proposes to increase the income threshold at which student loans are repaid and to allow universities to vary the tuition fees that they charge.

Although student support is devolved in Scotland, repayments of student loans are collected through the UK-wide tax system. Therefore, it makes sense to continue with the UK-wide income threshold and we have made a commitment in the partnership agreement to support the proposal to raise the threshold. Student loan repayments made by Scotland-domiciled borrowers, including graduates who have chosen to meet their graduate endowment liability by adding it to their student loan account, will be made at the new threshold when it is introduced.

Any proposed changes to tuition fees that are implemented by Her Majesty's Government will affect Scotland-domiciled students who study at English institutions that charge higher fees. We are currently considering the effect of that change as part of the third phase of the higher education review.

The minister is aware of the concerns of the universities of Glasgow and Paisley about the funding of their places at the Crichton campus in Dumfries. Will he assure Parliament that any financial consequences of the reduction in graduates' annual payments—which would be welcome—will not affect the funding of or the number of places at Scottish universities?

As Parliament might know, the reason for establishing the third phase of the higher education review is to enable us to gain a thorough understanding of the competitiveness of Scottish higher education in the United Kingdom. We will not have a knee-jerk reaction to what might or might not happen with regard to all that has been said about the possibility of top-up fees south of the border; rather we will work through the issues about the recruitment and retention of staff, which affect student choice; capital funding, including teaching infrastructure; and the possible sources and uses of income.

I welcome the developments at the Crichton campus in recent years. It is a worthwhile addition to the delivery of higher education in the south-west of Scotland.

Does the minister agree that tuition fees and top-up fees—if they are introduced—in England will have a direct effect in Scotland? On the point about competitiveness, will he consider as a matter of urgency the proportion of the budget that is spent on higher education, bearing in mind the fact that it will have an increase in the next few years of only two thirds of the increase in the Scottish block? If we are to be competitive, we must ensure that we have funding in higher education.

As I indicated to Elaine Murray, the point of establishing the third phase of the higher education review is to examine the implications for the Scottish higher education sector if changes take place south of the border. The review will give us a better idea of the likely implications, so any policy decisions that we make will be made on the informed basis of evidence. I welcome the fact that the Enterprise and Culture Committee, chaired by Alasdair Morgan, is engaged in similar work.

On the funding of higher education, it is important to put on record the fact that, in every year since the Parliament was established, we have increased the funding for higher education above the rate of inflation. During the period of the spending review, there will be a 15 per cent cash increase in higher education funding and a 6.9 per cent increase in real terms from more than £700 million to more than £800 million. That shows the Administration's commitment to higher education in Scotland.

Given the adverse impact on Scottish universities of top-up fees in England, will the minister tell us what representations he and his colleagues in the Executive have made to Her Majesty's Government in relation to the white paper? Has he stressed to the UK Government the damage that will be done to Scottish universities if top-up fees are introduced in England?

I can assure Murdo Fraser that those matters have been discussed not only at official level but also between me and Charles Clarke, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. However, as Mr Fraser well knows, the contents of such conversations are inevitably kept confidential.

---

Broadband

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in extending the availability of broadband throughout the country. (S2O-563)

Sixty-three per cent of the Scottish population now has access to affordable broadband services, compared with 43 per cent at the time of the launch of our broadband strategy in August 2001. With current and planned interventions, we expect to exceed our target of 70 per cent by March 2004, and we are currently examining opportunities for extending coverage beyond that.

Does the minister accept that we have to extend broadband throughout the country, particularly to places such as Aberdeenshire, where fewer than 10 per cent of British Telecommunications exchanges are currently connected to broadband? Will he explain to Parliament how Northern Ireland is able to tender for 100 per cent roll-out in the province while we are apparently unable to do so in Scotland? Will he also confirm whether he has inquired as to how much it would cost to achieve, say, 95 per cent or 100 per cent roll-out in Scotland? If he has, what figure was he given?

I can assure Richard Lochhead and the entire Parliament that those matters are indeed under active consideration, as we wish to extend broadband. The implication underlying his question is that broadband is a valuable part of improving our infrastructure for economic and social development in all parts of Scotland. Like our counterparts in Northern Ireland, the Scottish Executive is pursuing a strategy that aims to achieve pervasive, affordable broadband coverage. We are currently implementing the demand-side measures, and have the benefit of increasing take-up as well as stimulating additional coverage. However, we must acknowledge that any supply-side interventions must be consistent with state-aid regulations.

I accept that, in some parts of Aberdeenshire, there are topographical, or topological—I mean geographical—[Laughter.] There are geographical reasons why there have been difficulties with specific exchanges, and that has increased the cost. However, where demand is insufficient to support the commercial deployment of ADSL, the Executive and the enterprise networks are certainly willing to help local communities to identify and procure alternative broadband solutions, such as the wireless network.

---

Water Industry (Charges)

To ask the Scottish Executive what consultations will be carried out with businesses by Scottish Water and the water industry commissioner before water charges are set for the next financial year. (S2O-586)

Scottish Water has already undertaken consultation with a selection of key businesses and with business representatives, and both Scottish Water and the water industry commissioner are in regular contact with individual businesses and their respective organisations.

The minister will be aware that Scottish Water has submitted its proposals for next year's water charges to the water industry commissioner. At a recent public meeting in Campbeltown, the water industry commissioner indicated that he thought that it would be a waste of time to consult the small business sector ahead of his decision on next year's water rates. Will the minister use his influence with the water industry commissioner to ensure that he consults and listens to the small business sector before agreeing to next year's water charges?

I was not present at the meeting, but I would be surprised if that were an accurate reflection. After all, the role of the water industry commissioner was expressly constituted to reflect consumer interests. Therefore, that response seems surprising and I certainly want to look into it.

Will the minister commission an independent inquiry into water charges and ask it to consider the situation in Ireland? As he knows, domestic water users in Ireland are not charged and the costs are borne by big business and by general taxation. I am sure that the minister is aware that that system's attraction is that it would relieve the burden that currently falls disproportionately on the poorest people in Scotland.

No, I do not think that there is a case for an inquiry into any aspect of the water industry. Members are aware that the water industry commissioner produced a large and detailed report in 1998, which revealed for the first time the difficult situation that the three water companies that existed at the time were in: there was massive underinvestment, great inefficiency and a charging policy that simply was not capable of being sustained. Indeed, North of Scotland Water could not have been sustained at all. Given the size of its consumer base, it would have been almost impossible to have kept the company in being.

The Scottish Executive has taken a pragmatic step in the past four years by establishing Scottish Water in a way that allows the company to set objectives. Scottish Water has not got there yet, and there is no question of complacency on the part of the Executive. We have set Scottish Water the target of supplying water and sewerage services of the highest possible quality and at the lowest possible price. That is the right objective and I stand by the decision to establish Scottish Water on that basis.

---

Submarine Decommissioning

To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to Her Majesty's Government about the decommissioning and storage of nuclear submarines in Scotland. (S2O-588)

The Executive has made no such representations to the Ministry of Defence.

Members will be somewhat surprised to hear that no representations on the matter have been made by the Executive to Her Majesty's Government. Will the minister tell us whether, at the end of the day, he will support the decommissioning and storage of redundant nuclear submarines in Scotland? Yes or no?

Bruce Crawford's questions always involve a "Yes or no" interlude. I know that he was unsuccessful last week when he asked a question in identical terms. I thought that Allan Wilson dealt with him admirably and I recommend that diligent readers of the Official Report reread his answer.

Mr Crawford must understand that the Scottish Executive and others have a role to play in the matter. [Interruption.] I do not know why anyone should be surprised that we have done nothing yet because the Ministry of Defence has, quite properly, only just begun its consultation process on a matter for which it has the proper powers. There are three bites at the cherry and Mr Crawford can have at least one of those by participating in the consultation process.

As far as the Executive is concerned, at the end of that process and depending entirely on what the Ministry of Defence then proposes—we do not know what it will propose, as the matter is only now going out to consultation—we have powers under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and under planning legislation to take full account of all the proposals' implications and ramifications for Scotland. That seems to me to be a sensible way in which to proceed. It is also the procedure that is provided for in statute.

I wish to question the minister on planning powers. I understand that the Executive and the UK Government have reached agreement on the removal of Crown immunity from the planning system. Will the minister confirm the timetable for that change and say whether the proposal for the decommissioning of nuclear submarines will be considered as a normal planning application?

I regret to say that I am unable to advise the member on the matter. The precise timing is a matter for the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons. The member is absolutely right to say that there is total unanimity between this Executive and the Westminster Executive that immunity should be lifted. I very much hope that it will be, but I point out to the member that, even if it is not, there are administrative planning procedures for development by Government departments and the Crown and those procedures mirror the requirements for environmental impact assessments of such applications. It is not as though we will be left in a complete void. However, it would be helpful if the motion were proceeded with.

The point of order took a minute, so I will allow an additional question.

---

Education (Pupil Placement Requests)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to review legislation on pupil placement requests. (S2O-569)

We have no immediate plans to suggest changes to the legislation. However, we are monitoring the system to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of changing circumstances.

Is the minister aware that in certain areas with growing populations, such as West Lothian, there can be pressures on local schools, which children in the catchment area cannot access? Will he give due consideration to any request to revise pupil placement legislation to allow schools to bank places for more than one year to allow children to go to their local school?

As Fiona Hyslop will know, I am aware of the situation in West Lothian, which Mary Mulligan raised with me recently. I have a recent letter from her about the particular circumstances at Linlithgow High School. West Lothian Council has also written to me. My officials are due to meet West Lothian Council officials to discuss the issues that have arisen.

I am sympathetic to the points that Mary Mulligan and Fiona Hyslop have made. I will examine closely whether and how it might be possible for us to assist in the situation. However, assistance would have to be subject to any legislative considerations.