Scottish Parliament, 2 November 2000

435 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Introduction

Drugs Courts

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. I apologise for the slightly late start. There were technical difficulties with the microphone system.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On a point of order. I am concerned that—yet again—we seem to be reading about Government announcements in the press rather than hearing them in the chamber. Will you please give members guidance on how you intend to address the issue to ensure that the chamber and Parliament hear any such announcements first?

David (None, Lothians)

I share the member's concern. I will be charitable today because we have new ministers and, no doubt, new special advisers operating. However, I had a discussion on the matter with Madam Speaker Boothroyd when she was here a few weeks ago. As members know, she fought a losing battle on the issue, but I do not propose to fight a losing battle on it in this Parliament. I will use my powers under rule 7.3 and define the pre-release of speeches as being against the rule that members must

"conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner".

The sanction that is available to me is that I may decide to take a minister's speech as read and go straight to Opposition spokesmen's and Government back benchers' speeches and give them extra time. I hope that the special advisers will pay attention to that. I will let the matter go today, but it is not to happen again.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

On a point of order. On the pre-release of speeches and how you might interpret that, would your sanction extend to the pre-release of speeches to Opposition parties, prior to delivery in the chamber?

David (None, Lothians)

Yes, absolutely. We do not expect to read in the newspapers what will be said in Parliament—we expect to read what has been said.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

On a point of order. As such pre-releases have happened several times, would the Presiding Officer care to have a word with the First Minister to ensure that the Parliament will be treated with the necessary respect?

David (None, Lothians)

My words will be printed in the Official Report , so everybody will be aware of them. I take the issue seriously. If we allow the situation to continue, it will damage Parliament, so I do not propose to allow it to continue.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order. Although I recognise your efforts to ensure that the chamber enjoys the status that it should, I suggest that there is a difference between a statement that is made by the Executive prior to its announcement in the chamber and the normal campaigning of Opposition parties. In no way do I question your right to say that Opposition parties should observe the proprieties, but I think that there is a difference between an Executive statement—which will carry the force of law—and the normal campaigning of Opposition parties.

David (None, Lothians)

Obviously, normal statements—whether by Government or Opposition parties—on issues that will be debated in Parliament are perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is the pre-release of announcements—from any quarter of the chamber—before the chamber has heard them. I do not want to make a great meal of this.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On a point of order. It is important to reflect on some of the comments that you have made, Presiding Officer. I support fully what you have said about Government announcements, because those are announcements about the way in which the Government intends to spend public resources and about the way in which it intends to lead debates in Parliament.

My party has secured today's debate on drugs courts, but this morning, I have heard the Government's statement in its entirety on bulletins and I have read the statement in newspapers. The smallest courtesy that the Government could have extended would have been to come to the chamber and take part in a reasoned and measured debate in which it could set its points out.

Margo MacDonald pointed out fairly the distinction between the campaigning rights of Opposition parties and the duty of the Executive to treat Parliament with courtesy. There was a lack of courtesy in the way that the Executive went about its business yesterday afternoon. I hope that, in today's debate, the Executive will show a tad more courtesy than it showed yesterday.

David (None, Lothians)

Let us not go back over yesterday afternoon. I think that I have said enough on the subject.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On a point of order. My point of order has a slightly different twist, in that I would like some clarification. Opposition spokesmen and, perhaps, Labour back benchers will have an interest in this. Members sometimes give commitments to constituents that they will raise particular issues in particular ways. I trust that you will take account of that in whatever measures you take.

David (None, Lothians)

Absolutely. Similarly, the Executive may, from time to time, indicate general lines of policy—I am not against that. However, I object to detailed pre-announcement of what is to be said in the chamber. I hope that all members will support me in that.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I hope that none of your comments affects matters that have appeared in party manifestos over a number of years, Presiding Officer. Today's subject for debate, for example, appeared in the Scottish National Party's manifesto 18 months ago, in the run-up to the Scottish parliamentary elections.

After all this morning's coverage in the press and on the airwaves, the speech that I am about to make could probably just be handed to the new deputy minister so that he could make the speech as well. There might be a little repetition this morning, but I make no apology for having raised the subject. It is only because the SNP has insisted on having the debate in Parliament that we have heard an unequivocal statement from the Executive, which we hoped for for a number of years, but which was not forthcoming.

Like some other members, I was in the chamber for most of yesterday afternoon. When I got back to the SNP's offices, a little buzz of excitement was awaiting me, because the Executive had spent the afternoon briefing the media that it accepted, in principle, the idea of drugs courts as outlined in the SNP motion. That could be seen as something of a victory for the SNP. The former Deputy Minister for Justice already gave a helpful hint that the Executive accepted the idea in his briefing to the Sunday Herald. I wish that every SNP motion had that effect. However, the outgoing deputy minister's hint was a little surprising, given the tenor of some of his other remarks.

In recent months the Executive has been at sixes and sevens on the matter. Clarification of the Executive's position would be useful, although I am not certain that we will get it today. The Executive amendment in effect removes all mention of drugs courts from the motion. That seems surprising, given the heavy briefing that it gave that it would accept in principle the idea of drugs courts.

Members may call me naive, but I think that if the Executive truly accepts the principle of the motion, it should be gracious enough to reflect that in its amendment. Although I would not necessarily expect the Executive to accept the slightly mischievous reference to the SNP's manifesto, it is surprising that the Executive should attempt to amend the motion to remove any mention of the thing that it claims to support in principle.

We have a new Deputy Minister for Justice. I welcome him and congratulate him on his appointment to his new post. I also offer sympathy for the fact that he must be on his feet so soon after moving to a new department. I hope that we will have the same cordial and generally constructive relationship that I enjoyed with his predecessor. However, I am rather worried that today's debate will produce unobjectionable words from the new minister, but no concrete proposals, time scales or any indication of when the Executive might turn principles into practice. I sought a constructive debate about specifics—I hope that that is what we will have.

We should not have to rehearse the problems that are posed for society by the misuse of drugs—the cost, as we all know, is enormous. There is the cost to families of a disrupted and chaotic home life that impacts on every family member, regardless of whether they take drugs. We know about the devastating effects on society as a whole and on the health service in particular. The total cost is measured in blighted lives in Scotland. We all agree about the extent of the problem, just as we agree that what we have been doing until now has not worked. The problem seems to be getting worse, rather than better.

Despite the fact that drug legislation is a reserved matter, we know that an enormous amount of work can be done and that effective change can take place in Scotland. I hope that Scotland can be an example to the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than continually looking over its shoulder and blindly copying what Westminster does. The drugs courts proposal centres on the criminal justice process. It cannot stand in isolation—it is an initiative that would impact most directly on that system. That is what I want to talk about this morning.

We know that the criminal justice system in Scotland is overloaded with work that can be directly related to the use of drugs. The police cost of tackling drug crime and the criminal effects of drug abuse was, at the most recent estimate, £120 million per year. The Scottish Parliament reference centre research note on drug misuse that was issued earlier this year said:

"In 1997, drugs-related crimes accounted for 14% of all convictions in the Scottish courts."

That figure represents only cases where drug-related crime was the main offence and in which that offence was possession, intent to supply or whatever. That figure does not include convictions for crimes in which the underlying problem was drug misuse, such as theft, housebreaking and other convictions—the list can go on for page after page. Many members have seen schedules of previous convictions, most of which are a direct result of drug use, although they are not drug offences. Most evidence suggests that about 60 per cent to 70 per cent of offences that result in court appearances can be traced to a drug use problem. That is a colossal resource problem for the criminal justice system. I do not know whether the existing cost figures factor all those elements into the equation—they are the tip of the iceberg that lurks beneath the surface.

We must also remember the number of young offenders who are implicated in those colossal figures. The recent report of the advisory group on youth crime is a commendable document. Equally commendable is the fact that the Executive accepted all the group's recommendations. Many of those recommendations could have been commended if they had been made for adult offenders. The drugs courts concept fits very well into the ethos of that report.

I do not deny that some elements of what might be found in a drugs court are already in place in some parts of Scotland. Drug treatment and testing orders were introduced in 1998, but are available only in certain areas of Scotland. They give the power to impose drug treatment—including random drug testing—with the consent of the offender, but they tend to be used only in high-tariff cases. As I understand it, only a small number of DTTOs have been made, which suggests a rather conservative approach to their use.

There are also arrest referral schemes. It was my good fortune to speak last Friday at the launch of the Perth and Kinross arrest referral scheme. The scheme enables arrested persons to make contact with relevant agencies while their court case proceeds. There are several partners in the scheme, including the police, Perth and Kinross criminal justice social work department, Perth drug and alcohol team, and NCH Scotland.

All the partners in that scheme think that it is the first of its kind in Scotland. The Scottish Executive health department thinks that there is another in Clackmannan and that there might be schemes in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Tayside. Without clear guidance on what constitutes such a scheme, however, the actual number cannot be confirmed. There is unnecessary confusion, but it is clear that such schemes are largely self-starting, that they are not overseen and that no targets have been made for setting them up in Scotland. Both the initiatives have been welcomed by the SNP, but surely it would be better to ingather such schemes and set them up under a single, coherent framework—drugs courts. We seem to be inching toward that, but with no overall strategic direction. It is time that we tackled the issue head on.

I raised the issue of drugs courts with the Deputy Minister for Justice's predecessor—Angus MacKay—and with his predecessor, who is now the First Minister. What are drugs courts? They are distinctive environments that are set aside with clear rules. Participants' performance is immediately and directly communicated to a judge, who rewards progress or penalises non-compliance. There are sentencing concessions, but they are made only in response to successful participation and treatment. Such courts deal with users, but not dealers. They should be mainly about diversion from custody. That fits in with another aim, which is to reduce the prison population—an aim that the SNP shares with the Executive.

The aim of drugs courts is to provide a treatment-led response to drugs and drug-related crime that builds on partnership between all relevant agencies. They bridge the gap between punishment and treatment for the user and the discipline that is imposed on the offender is challenging. I would term it an aggressive intervention at the point of maximum impact, when the first jail term is likely.

In practice, such courts would work as follows. On being charged with an offence, or after agreeing to plead guilty, an offender would be assessed for drugs court suitability and brought before the nearest drugs court—or the most likely one—as soon as possible. The drugs court works as a team. It would be non-adversarial and offenders would have to attend court regularly for review. The important point is that offenders would see the same people every time they came before the court.

The proposal already has considerable support in Scotland. The Scottish Drugs Forum, the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and the director of Scotland Against Drugs would all welcome drugs courts. In the past, ministers have not wanted to dismiss the idea completely, but the former Deputy Minister for Justice was on the record as saying that drugs courts would not fit in to Scotland's court system. I am not sure why he would think that and I can only assume that there has been a major change of heart about the issue since the end of August, when that reason was last advanced by the outgoing Deputy Minister for Justice. In truth, Scotland's sheriff court structure does provide opportunities for the development of drugs courts. Equally, the children's panel system offers a culture of non-adversarial proceedings that could be extended to such courts.

Drugs courts—or, at least, the model that is beginning to appear in the spread of countries that I listed—are essentially methods by which we can divert from custody those individuals for whom custody is the next most likely disposal option for a judge. They allow a relationship to be built with the individual and have shown a degree of success. They are not the complete answer, but they may be part of it. Drugs courts require investment in the infrastructure of rehab and through care to work properly. Scotland is not a model of such provision, so I concede that at this stage it might be reasonable simply to develop a drugs court model that is appropriate for Scotland's justice system and pilot it in an area where the provision of back-up services is at least adequate. Let us not hang about, however.

There is already extensive international experience to call upon. At the time of the Irish commission in February 1998, there were 238 drugs courts in operation in the USA, with two or more about to start and 147 more planned. Goodness knows what the number is now. There are pilots schemes in Wakefield and Pontefract and one is about to start in Dublin. Let us get moving—let us turn the undoubted agreement in principle into practice and let us do so quickly.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the complex nature of the drugs problem in Scotland; accepts that addressing the problem requires effective law enforcement working in partnership with well resourced rehabilitation and treatment strategies; acknowledges the role that a system of specialist drugs courts could play in dealing with drug-related crime; notes that the Scottish Drugs Forum and CoSLA support the establishment of drugs courts, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to develop an appropriate pilot scheme with a view to moving towards the establishment of drugs courts in areas of Scotland where adequate rehabilitation and treatment resources exist, as proposed in the Scottish National Party's 1999 Election Manifesto.

David (None, Lothians)

I must be strict about time this morning because we have two short debates. Two amendments to the motion have been lodged. I call Iain Gray to move the first one.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I welcome the opportunity to reply to motion S1M-1303, although as Roseanna Cunningham said, perhaps it is a little early for me to be doing so. However, I can cope with that, partly because I agree with most of what she said. I am not surprised by that, because Parliament has often demonstrated its determination to get to grips with the problem—I hope that any repetition will be viewed in that context.

We are all agreed that drug-related crime imposes too heavy a cost on society. It accounts for much of the commonest property crime, such as house breaking, vehicle crime and shoplifting. Some of that might be characterised as petty crime, but its impact is not petty. It robs our people not only of their property, but—worse—of their security, their peace of mind and their sense of community. Every member knows that that is the case in the communities that they represent. The truth is that such crime blights the lives of drug-misusing offenders and their families. That is why the Executive and Parliament have made the fight against drugs one of their top priorities and why the Executive is developing a coherent and effective response to the problems that we face from drug-related crime.

The key fact is that we cannot promote one initiative in isolation. We need a package of measures that addresses the problem at every stage. That was the message that underpinned my predecessor Angus MacKay's approach to tackling the problem of drugs in Scotland. I, too, intend to pursue that approach.

We need a balanced strategy that combines the two main elements. It is important to recognise that the criminal justice system can intervene at critical times in an offender's drug-using career. It is when individuals come into conflict with the law that they are often most motivated to seek help for their addictions. At those times, we must ensure that they have ready access to the help that they need.

A strong enforcement policy is key in our fight against drugs, but often enforcement has a greater chance of success when it sets out to tackle the underlying problems, as Roseanna Cunningham suggested.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Is it useful to pick up the example of Grampian police, whose officers enforce the law while accompanied by drugs workers? They can allow folk who may be involved in crime because of drugs problems to get rid of their drug problems. In recent drugs raids in the north-east, Grampian police has followed that procedure, for which it is to be commended. We should not consider the problem as being about only enforcement or health—we should consider it as a whole.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I agree. There is a range of ways in which to bring enforcement and treatment together. The main attraction of drugs courts is that they would achieve that.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Just before Mr Adam's intervention—

David (None, Lothians)

I am sorry, Mr Gallie—your microphone is not on. I have to ask you to repeat that. We are having technical problems.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Is this the definition of cruel and inhumane punishment?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Gray's predecessor suggested that drugs courts would apply only to first offenders. Does the minister agree that that would be the way forward?

David (None, Lothians)

I will give the minister some injury time.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Although the microphones are not working, I see that the clock is.

I will say something about the drugs courts model later. The key to drugs courts is that they aim to address the underlying problem of drug misuse, when criminality first becomes its consequence. Drugs courts try to prevent people from becoming involved in the life of crime that follows that cycle of offending.

In general, drugs courts bring together enforcement and treatment, which is why the Executive is taking action in a number of ways to link offenders more effectively with treatment and rehabilitation. We have provided extra resources—almost £100 million—in the spending review to fund the broadest range of services that has ever been seen in Scotland. Within that, an extra £9.5 million is available over three years to make a comprehensive framework of alternatives to custody available to Scottish courts.

Roseanna Cunningham spoke of the drug treatment and testing orders that are being piloted in Glasgow and Fife. Such orders are designed to tackle the problems of offenders who are involved in more serious drug misuse and who have many repeated offences. The orders are important—they incorporate some of the central features of drugs courts, such as access to treatment, routine testing and review in court.

I am pleased that we are extending the pilots to Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, in order to build further on our experience of what works.

We must be able to intervene at each stage in the criminal justice process. We have announced the national roll-out of diversion from prosecution schemes, which target those who are at the other end of the spectrum for drug treatment and testing orders. The schemes are an alternative to prosecution for individuals whose offending career is just starting. DTTOs give people the chance to address their drug use before they launch into a full-blown career of offending.

We also have plans to target medium-tariff and higher-tariff offenders by developing a new model of enhanced probation, which will build in drug testing and treatment as a condition of sentence and will include regular reviews by the courts.

Roseanna Cunningham made the point that the growth in drug-related crime is not peculiar to Scotland. That is true—the problems are international and it is not surprising that countries are keen to learn from experiences beyond their boundaries. A great deal of attention has centred on the north American experience of drugs courts. In that system, drugs courts are designed specifically to supervise drug dependent offenders who have agreed to accept treatment. Thus, that system's objectives are similar to those that we have set in our policy.

It would be too easy to believe that the American system could be picked up and transferred wholesale to Scotland—our legal system, traditions and culture must be respected. However, we are keen to learn from the United States and I believe that we can move forward to introduce a Scottish drugs court model. We have been working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the issue and have commissioned research into the international experience. We will broaden our discussions on how to introduce and test that drugs court model. The judiciary and the prosecution have key roles to play and we must consult our judiciary, the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office on the roles that the judiciary and prosecution can undertake.

Drugs courts will be successful only if they form part of an overall framework. We must plan their introduction carefully and it is essential that we put in place the infrastructure to support treatment and rehabilitation services first. However, now that the spending review has provided the resources, we are well placed to develop those services. The drug action teams' role in local responses to drug problems has been strengthened during the past 18 months.

Taken together, the plans that I have outlined will provide a wide range of disposals that will be able to deal with the broad spectrum of drug-related crime. They will give Scottish courts all the options—arguably, more options than are available to the US drugs courts. Combined with the new resources that are available, our plans allow us to move forward on the idea of specialised Scottish drugs courts. That approach will be rooted in Scottish institutions and will complement existing practices. It must have the confidence of the courts and the general public alike.

For the first time, we have an opportunity to deliver a system that specialises in dealing with the problem of drug offenders, that blends enforcement and treatment and—above all—that has the possibility of being effective. I am sure that that approach will be welcomed throughout the chamber.

I move amendment S1M-1303.2, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:

"and acknowledges the work that the Scottish Executive is doing in tackling this problem."

Lyndsay McIntosh (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I support the comments that you made earlier, Presiding Officer, and I welcome Iain Gray to his new post. The debate is a baptism of fire, if ever there was one. Issues such as drugs are of concern to communities and the Parliament should devote time to debates on them.

Ms Cunningham will not be surprised to learn that for obvious reasons, we cannot support her motion unamended. Similarly, I do not expect the SNP's unqualified support for our amendment. However, we can all be satisfied that the Executive has recognised—later rather than sooner—that the SNP and the Conservative party have identified a way forward. I am genuinely pleased that common sense has prevailed.

Although we made clear our support for drugs courts in our 1999 manifesto, I was grateful to be invited to a COSLA seminar, which was held earlier this year at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan Castle. I was the only MSP who attended that event, which was laid on to provide further information to people whose work is related to drug abuse. In anticipating an intervention from Roseanna Cunningham, I advise her that I met a member of her research team there, fresh from his appearance on "Question Time".

I was glad to have the chance to speak to experienced practitioners and judges in this comparatively new area and I am particularly indebted to Justine Walker for her advice and assistance in gaining access to the acknowledged leaders in the field. Although I do not always advocate that we should follow blindly everything that happens in the US, the experiences of other jurisdictions satisfy me that we have an opportunity to tackle the problem with a new impetus. I do not know whether the minister has seen some of the material that is available on the subject, but I look forward with glee to the adjustments that he will have to make to take account of cultural differences. People who have seen the video tapes of US drugs courts will know exactly what I mean.

We must tackle drug abuse. The extent of the problem is greater than most of our citizens recognise. As Roseanna Cunningham has eloquently highlighted the point, I do not propose to repeat it. Indeed, one of the consequences of such immediate agreement by the Executive is that we are left with very little to say. However, I want to read from a letter from a doctor in Fife that highlights the difficulties. The letter says:

"A few days ago, a new patient was assigned to my list. This person is an intravenous drug abuser who tells me that he is injecting himself six times a day with MST (an oral morphine tablet usually given to terminal cancer patients), which he prepares by sucking off the coating in his mouth, then dissolving the residue and injecting it into his veins.

He has already spent time in prison for theft, which was his way of supporting his £40 per day habit. He is now anxious to stop using drugs and attempt to get his life back in shape.

He came to me for help."

The letter says that the problem in Fife is that there is

"absolutely no consultant support for drug abusers"

and that the

"community drugs team . . . is hopelessly understaffed and ludicrously overworked with minimal resources".

The letter goes on to say that the drug user's case

"is only one of many. 47% of heroin users in Fife live in the Kirkcaldy/Levenmouth area. The total is in the hundreds and yet the resources to deal with this problem are minimal. GP's like myself are overwhelmed with no medical support whatsoever. The knock on effect on families is massive. The amount of shoplifting, burglary and other crime associated with drug abuse is significant.

You will be well aware that morale amongst GP's is at an all-time low for many reasons, We are snowed under by ever-increasing demand, which is not balanced by any significant shift in resources. Early hospital discharges and shortages of beds mean that more and more ill patients are kept in the community with a corresponding increase in GP workload. Patient demand continues to increase in the "instant-service" culture. We find it hard to accept that the government sees us as anything other than a cheap option. GPs have continued to soak up the work, but have not received any significant increase in resources to help." I should pay tribute to the Scottish Parliament information centre for its research document on the subject, which is a first-class piece of work. Those who have not read it should take a look at it.

The letter from which I quoted outlines what the issue is all about. I look forward to hearing the details of implementation of drugs courts and I hope that we can build on the genuine cross-party consensus that supports their introduction.

I move amendment S1M-1303.1, to leave out from "with a view" to end and insert:

"based on the aims laid out in the 1999 Scottish Conservative and Unionist Election Manifesto."

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is good to participate again in a debate with the deputy leader of the SNP. I see that she has lost none of her zest since leaving some of us behind on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Her successor as convener is unashamedly courting favour with committee members; not only did he cancel a meeting, he extended the tea and coffee break during Tuesday's meeting and the meeting still finished early.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

That would not have happened in my day.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

This is an important, if short, debate. I accept that the SNP included a commitment to drugs courts in its 1999 manifesto. The Liberal Democrats did not do so; instead, we chose to emphasise a twin-track approach of tougher enforcement and more extensive treatment and rehabilitation programmes.

However, our thinking has moved on. I welcome today's announcement by the Deputy Minister for Justice, to whom I offer my party's congratulations on his new position.

In 1989 the present US Attorney General, Janet Reno, first established an experiment in Dade County, Florida. At the time it was described as an intensive, community-based treatment, rehabilitation and supervision programme for drug defendants to reduce recidivism. As of last autumn, drugs court activity was under way in 49 of the 50 states of the USA, as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.

The evidence in the two-volume report by the US justice department on the first decade of experience of drugs courts up to June 1999 should inform latest thinking. It found that drugs courts have led to a significant reduction in recidivism—as low as 4 per cent in those who complete the full programme. The drug use of participants in the programme has declined. A significant number of drug-free babies have been born to women who were enrolled in drugs court programmes, which saved a minimum of £250,000 per infant in health and social costs. The average cost of treatment is between £900 and £1,600 per participant, compared with an average cost of £5,000 per person who is put in prison. Many of those who have entered the programme have been able to remain employed throughout their participation in it. As confidence among law enforcement agencies and prosecutors has grown, asset forfeiture funds have been released to augment treatment resources.

I understand that nearly 140,000 US citizens from all parts of US society have entered drugs court programmes. Two thirds of them are the parents of minors. Men outnumber women on the programme by two to one, but that preponderance is decreasing. The majority of participants are long-term users and many are multiple drug users. Most have not previously received treatment and many have served custodial sentences for previous offences.

Drugs courts are not without cost. In 1994-95 there was a famous dispute, when Janet Reno had to battle—in the event, successfully—with the US House of Representatives to secure continuation of the £1 billion federal funding for the programme. However, the US experience should inform Parliament whether the drugs court concept could be adopted in Scotland, where the legal system is very different. Drugs courts cannot simply be transplanted to Scotland.

We must take action. As has been said, misuse of drugs is endemic and very few parts of our country are untouched by them. The problem affects even peaceful and relatively prosperous places. I am sure that drug cases have turned up in the surgeries of nearly all members. I dealt recently with a case in a town in my constituency where the unemployment rate is 1.6 per cent. Not all towns in my constituency have such a low unemployment rate, but the example illustrates my point that drug use is a problem throughout the country.

Some of my biggest misgivings about drugs courts relate to rural areas. How will we implement drugs courts in the one-sheriff courts that are prevalent in rural areas? There are other problems. Drugs courts need to be accompanied by rehabilitation and treatment centres—they cannot exist in isolation.

I will end by quoting the director of the office of US national drug control policy. He said:

"If you don't like paying for jails, if you don't like a waste of tax dollars, then you'll like the concept of drug courts. This is an initiative that's been working.

It is worth investigating for Scotland.

David (None, Lothians)

We come now to the open part of the debate. I ask members to keep their speeches to four minutes so that we can fit everyone in.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I welcome this debate, because I have worked in the criminal justice and drug abuse sectors.

Almost 70 per cent of criminal offences in Scotland are committed by young people under the age of 25. Although it is hard to get precise figures, anyone who works in the Scottish criminal justice system will say that a large majority of those offenders have a persistent problem with illegal drugs.

As a former court social worker, I can tell the chamber that in many cases that come before our sheriff courts, the crime has been committed by a young person who was under the influence of drugs or who committed an offence to fund his or her drug habit.

I will give an example of the extent of the problem. A survey that was carried out recently by a criminal justice social work team in Ayrshire revealed that of 50 persistent young offenders in its case load, between the ages of 15 and 18, 32 had drug problems. There is no reason to believe that that is not typical of the situation across Scotland.

We are not addressing the underlying drug problem. Those offenders are caught in a revolving door situation. They appear in court, they are found guilty and they are sentenced. Sometimes they go to prison; quite often, they get community service. Community service, like prison, is punitive and offers no opportunity to address their drug problem. The steep increase in the number of breaches of community service is, in part, a result of offenders with drug problems being unable, as a result of their chaotic lifestyles, to keep the tight conditions that are set by community service orders.

Most criminal justice social workers include a drug-alcohol assessment when they compile a social inquiry report for the courts. However, even when they highlight the underlying problem and ask the court to consider, for example, a probation order with a condition of attendance at a drug rehabilitation programme, that type of disposal is not often granted in sheriff courts in Scotland.

The concept of treatment, as opposed to punishment, is not new. It has been around for some time—a bit like myself.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh no, not at all.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Thank you, Christine.

I first encountered such a programme about 30 years ago in America, in the last few years of the Vietnam war. Do members remember that? Did Michael Matheson get that in history?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Not even in history.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In the last few years of the Vietnam war, the United States military was faced with huge numbers of returning servicemen who had developed a drug habit. The penalty for anyone who was caught using drugs in the military was severe—instant dismissal, complete with a dishonourable discharge. With the prospect of such punishment, drug use was always going to be hidden, with obvious safety and security implications for the military.

The US military, like other militaries, is not renowned for its compassion, but it decided to deal with the situation by introducing a hands-up-to-drugs scheme. A person who admitted to a drugs problem received support and rehabilitation, and no disciplinary action was taken. That model has been widely copied.

We in the SNP, like everyone else, welcome a sinner who repents; heaven knows, the Executive has got sinning down to an art form. However, we welcome the Executive's 11th hour conversion to the SNP policy of establishing drugs courts. We have had enough prevarication. Valuable time has been lost, but the Executive has our support; let us get on with it.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

This debate shows some of the best and worst features of the Parliament. The best feature is the fact that we can come together—

David (None, Lothians)

I am sorry, but I must stop you for a short while because we are having trouble with the microphones. We can hear you, but your speech will not be recorded for the official reporters.

I will allow you an extra half minute.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

The best feature is that we can come together with a common purpose on an issue that is of concern throughout the country. Unfortunately, the motion and the amendments introduce an element of political self-congratulation that is as relevant to the general public as an argument among bald men over the ownership of a comb—I leave it to Bill Aitken to explain that in more detail. The general public are not interested in politicians trying to score points on such a serious issue: they are looking for a response and for effective action. I welcome the fact that we are speaking with a common purpose today.

Several matters need to be considered in the overall context of the debate. I support what Iain Gray has said: we need a coherent response and a balanced strategy. He was also right to talk about strong enforcement being the key to effectiveness. We cannot allow the creation of drugs courts to give the general impression that dealers will somehow get off the hook. We need effective, hard action to tackle dealers who bring misery to our communities, and the new Drug Enforcement Agency has demonstrated, in recent months, that it can make a contribution in tackling drug crime throughout Scotland.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Does Hugh Henry agree that it is incumbent on the Executive to say how it will define a drug dealer and a drug user? If one is to go before the drugs court and the other before a higher court, that distinction needs to be made.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Absolutely. I welcome the Executive's opportunity to work on the detail of how the drugs courts will develop. Comment has also been made about the need to learn from best practice elsewhere. Euan Robson made the valid point that we need to examine rehabilitation in this debate.

We must also stress the fact that the route to rehabilitation is not engaging in crime. We cannot prefer for the rehabilitation route those who have been convicted, or are involved in crime, over those who are making a determined effort.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee recently visited the national drugs strategy team in Dublin, which is about to pilot a drugs court. It, too, is concerned that, although we must support the principle of drugs courts—and the things that can be done through them—they will work only with public support and if the Government gives rehabilitation and treatment to non-offenders to such an extent that there is no resentment about offenders receiving that support.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I agree. Like other members, I have been approached in my constituency by people who are trying to deal with the tragedy of family members who are victims of a drugs habit and are looking desperately for rehabilitation. In that context, I welcome the extra £100 million that the Executive has allocated to trying to tackle the problem of drugs throughout the country.

As well as rehabilitation for those who have managed to kick the drugs habit, we need to ensure that proper accommodation is available, that there is proper training and that opportunities exist for employment. We cannot view access to rehabilitation as the end of our support for drug users.

We cannot and must not ignore the role that education should continue to play in tackling the scourge of drugs throughout the country. I recommend that the minister—and his colleague, Jack McConnell, who is now responsible for education—look at a project in my constituency that has become the largest youth theatre company in Scotland. Paisley Arts Centre Education has developed a theatre programme involving young people, to deliver the drug education message to other young people in a positive and interactive way that makes that message more meaningful to them. With a combination of all those factors, we can finally come together to do something.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

As members have heard, the Conservatives are basically supportive of the concept that is being advanced today. I shall spend some time outlining why and, at the same time, underline some of the caveats.

The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee has been inquiring into how drugs affect poorer areas of Scotland. Although what manifests itself in those discussions must, for the time being, be confidential, I am not telling any tales out of school when I say that some of the evidence that we have heard has been horrendous and horrifying. The cost of the drugs scourge, in human and financial terms, is absolutely devastating.

The problem is getting worse and the evidence for that is clear in the streets of our cities, towns and villages. Against that background, anything that can possibly be done to ameliorate the situation should be considered seriously and implemented.

Let us consider drugs courts a little more realistically and in a somewhat more hard-headed manner. Not too much of what is being introduced is new. A number of disposals are available to courts at present, including probation orders, one of the conditions of which could be that the accused person be subjected to drug treatment and testing orders and required to maintain a drug-free lifestyle. That system is in place at the moment. If it is not being used, it should be used. Sentences can be deferred, so that the accused can demonstrate to the court that he or she is prepared to live a drug-free life. That option is also available at the moment.

If a problem exists with our sheriffs' expertise in dealing with cases in which the accused person is a drug addict, that should not be the case. Some 60 per cent of court cases involve people who have a drugs problem. If, bearing in mind that volume of cases, sheriffs cannot develop expertise, something must be quite seriously wrong.

The US experience seems tremendously exciting and rosy, and I listened carefully to what Euan Robson said about it. However, although it may have been entirely unintentional, he did not tell the full story about the recidivism rate. Although the percentage of those undergoing the treatment who fall by the wayside is low, the figure for those who re-enter society once the treatment has finished is not all that rosy. We must consider that aspect.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Is there any evidence or research to show what sort of drug-using offence has been committed by many of those who fall by the wayside? I suspect that a fairly high percentage will be people who are using cannabis, rather than injecting hard drugs.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I do not think that that is the case. There is a miscellany of crime, and much of it is not related to cannabis use. The harder drugs are causing the problem.

Courts have a clear duty to society as a whole, not just to those who find themselves in difficulty as a result of their own activities. There is also the issue of the diversions that are already in force. Roseanna Cunningham was quite wrong to say that the courts find themselves clogged up at the moment. In truth, there is a tremendous shortage of summary criminal work in sheriff courts throughout Scotland, such is the extent of the diversions that are being carried out. There is an argument as to whether that should be the case, but nevertheless that is the reality.

There is an appalling lack of treatment facilities. I am particularly concerned that those who are sent to prison, although they are sent there to be punished, should be given every opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. In our prison system, there is a lamentable shortage of treatment facilities.

We recognise that there is much to be said for the motion before the chamber today, but we do not consider drugs courts to be the panacea that will change everything. We should go ahead with the pilot, but we should do so with a degree of realism.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I, too, welcome this important debate. My speech will focus on the extremely worrying situation in the city of Aberdeen and in the rest of the north-east of Scotland.

When we think of Aberdeen, we think of the city that is home to the offshore oil industry and granite buildings, but how many people know that Aberdeen is also home to 2,000 to 2,500 heroin users? Last year, 25 mainly young lives were lost as a result of the use of illegal drugs. All that in a city with a population of just over 200,000 people. Examining the situation in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland will allow the Parliament to grasp the enormity of the drugs problem. Tackling drugs and their debilitating effect on society is the biggest challenge facing the Parliament. We need to explore new avenues and innovative solutions, and learn from other countries' success in tackling the problem. That is why I welcome today's debate on drugs courts.

Aberdeen is just a small city, yet tens of thousands of people there are victims of the drug culture: the addicts, whose lives follow a downward spiral and who cannot see life beyond the next syringe or the next pill; the many families who find changed personalities in their households—Hugh Henry referred to the tragedies that many families experience; and the 25 families who lost loved ones last year. However, in the city of Aberdeen alone, there are also thousands upon thousands of victims of crime, not to mention the number in the rest of Grampian. It is no coincidence that Grampian police have to deal with record levels of crime—the highest level of crime in the whole country. The number of house break-ins is double the national average. We must remember that someone has to steal roughly £100,000 worth of goods to feed a £30,000 a year habit. According to Grampian police estimates, 70 to 80 per cent of the crime committed in Aberdeen is drug-related.

Lots of people in Aberdeen live in fear; they will not leave their home because they are convinced that if they leave, it will be broken into for the fourth, fifth, or—in some parts of the city—even the 10th time. There are old people who are afraid to walk the streets because of a recent spate of assaults on older people by folk looking for cash to feed their drug habit. There are newsagents who have given up their businesses because they are fed up of being held up by syringe-wielding people who are trying to get cash to feed their habit. They have gone out of business out of fear for their safety.

We need drugs courts to break the link between drugs and crime. The cost of crime in every city and community in Scotland is enormous. We must get away from the revolving door syndrome, which has been mentioned by other members. Most of all, we must help the people who want help, who know that they will go to prison and still have their drug addiction when they come out. Those people are crying out for help to solve their drug addiction. We should lock up people who have a history of violence and the drug pushers, but we should help those who can be helped. The justice system must deliver better solutions.

I am absolutely convinced that, in many cases, if we take the addiction out of the person, we will take the criminality out of them as well. That is the key. In a city such as Aberdeen, removing one addict from the scene will remove around 360 to 400 crimes a year, which is what we want to do. I appeal to the minister to state unequivocally that pilot drugs courts will be implemented, and to ensure that Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland are top of his agenda.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I hope that members will bear with me, as I do not have my glasses with me. I left them on the kitchen table, I am afraid.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member can try mine if she wants.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No, thank you. I have tried them before.

I welcome the tone of the SNP's motion, but, like Hugh Henry, I am sorry about the self-congratulatory detail. I suppose that that is politics.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

What about the Executive amendment?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That is politics too.

I do not want to waste any more time. I welcome the SNP's motion to an extent. We are having a positive debate on drugs policy and the possibility of drugs courts, which will concentrate on rehabilitation rather than punishment. However, when we talk about drugs, we must be aware of who is listening. I am concerned about the mixed messages that our young people are getting. Some people have advocated decriminalising or legalising cannabis. Others want draconian sanctions to be used against drug dealers and users. We are sending out confusing messages to young people at a time when tremendous efforts are being made by statutory agencies and voluntary organisations to turn the tide on drug abuse.

The Young Scot survey showed that the top cause of worry for young people between the ages of 14 and 25 was drugs, followed by alcohol. It is important that we have a consistent message to give young people and that it should complement, not contradict, what they hear from teachers and youth workers. Public figures should not undermine the drug strategies that are put in place by the police, the health boards, the local authorities and the voluntary organisations. Young people need to be given a clear and consistent message.

In the Highlands and Islands, drug abuse is the biggest problem that the police face. Small communities in rural areas can have serious drug problems. For example, the Mothers Against Drugs group from Cranhill was recently invited to Easter Ross to support parents who are coping with heroin addiction among young teenagers in a particular community. We must realise that drugs are a problem not only in the cities. The numbers might be smaller, but the effects on small communities are just as devastating as they are in the cities.

The idea of drugs courts is interesting and positive. However, I am unsure how it would work in a sparsely populated area such as the one that I represent, where there may not be sufficient offenders to warrant having separate courts. If there is to be a pilot scheme or study, we must examine the logistics and costs of providing drugs courts and rehabilitation facilities in places such as Wick, Portree, Dingwall and Tain. I do not want us to have a two-tier system that ignores the realities of the drug problems of rural areas.

The drugs strategy that is being implemented in the Highlands will significantly address the drug problem and might form the basis for rehabilitation centres. As a former teacher, I welcome the fact that part of the £100 million for tackling the drug problem is going into education. I know that the social inclusion partnerships in the Highlands and Islands are beginning to work at the grass-roots level in vulnerable communities. We will not see results immediately, but we will see them.

In the Highlands and Islands, the problem is not only drug misuse. There is also a major problem with alcohol misuse, and the two are often combined.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

First, l congratulate Donald Gorrie on at last securing a members' business debate on alcohol misuse.

Does Maureen Macmillan agree that it is time that the Executive allowed us to have a full debate in the chamber on alcohol abuse? Iain Gray has been promising such a debate for some time.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I would welcome a full debate, and was also about to congratulate Donald Gorrie on securing the members' business debate. Attempts to tackle drug misuse should go hand in hand with attempts to tackle alcohol misuse.

I am pleased that Highland Council, Highland Health Board and other organisations are tackling alcohol misuse in the Highlands and Islands.

There can be no doubt that tackling drugs misuse is one of the biggest challenges that we face, if not the biggest. There needs to be a balanced approach that reflects the needs of individuals and communities, whether they are urban or rural. Drugs courts could be a positive step forward but they should not be implemented hastily without proper consideration for rural areas. Drugs courts could be considered as one part of the jigsaw that the other strategies— That makes up the other strategies— I am sorry, I am stumbling because I do not have my glasses. I cannot read my own writing without them.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Hold the paper further away.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That is a good idea.

The Executive's strategy—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Could you wind up please?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Executive's strategy, I think, would be a good idea. What a mess I made of the end of that.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I congratulate the SNP on its motion, and on the one that we will debate in a few minutes' time. It is encouraging to see positive motions that raise important policy issues. We have wasted far too much time in the past on Opposition motions that are purely mischief making or on Executive motions that are bland and self-congratulatory. That is a general sin and, no doubt, I too am guilty of it.

It is important to debate motions such as this. I welcome what the minister said, although I do not welcome the way in which the matter was handled before it came to Parliament. The Executive's change in attitude away from the London position—tsars, tackety boots, and the view that we should convict everybody in sight and arrest people who take cannabis—is very welcome. We are moving towards treatment, rehabilitation and so on. I accept that the drugs courts are only part of the picture.

I want to make a personal plea. I am expected to vote for a whole lot of simply awful Executive amendments. If I ever find out who writes them, by God he—I am sure that it is a he—will get it hot and strong. There is a lack of generosity in them. I know that people make party points, and I do not expect the Executive parties to support a motion that says how marvellous the SNP's manifesto was, but there could be more generosity of spirit. There was much more good stuff in Iain Gray's speech than there is in the amendment for which I am being asked to vote. Amendments could include more self-confidence and generosity.

I wish to pursue the general issue of alcohol and drugs. The courts are only one aspect of the matter. The Executive and the Parliament must take such issues seriously. If we cannot have a UK commission to examine all addictions—tobacco, booze and drugs—but must have separate commissions on each addiction, let us have a Scottish committee or commission on the subject, as Margo MacDonald has proposed. There is so much conflict of technical opinion that we need a committee or commission to sort it out and take the issue forward sensibly. We need a coherent and joined-up policy involving education, rehabilitation and so on.

I beg the Executive to grasp this issue and not to be frightened that we may be abused, totally unjustly, by some of the tabloid press if we establish a commission. Such abuse happens all the time anyway, so it might as well happen for a good cause as for some other reason. Let us have an overall look at the issue. Let us take booze seriously. We will have a debate on that subject in a fortnight. With due respect to Maureen Macmillan, I am sure the police in the Highlands would tell her that booze is a much bigger problem in the Highlands than drugs are. That is not to say that we should ignore drugs, but we must consider booze, too, as a problem. The two issues are joined together. I hope that we will progress from today's welcome debate to examine those issues more broadly.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

As my microphone is not on, I will shout. Picking up from where Donald Gorrie left off, there is a problem—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I have to interrupt, as we seem to have lost sound from your microphone. Could you move to Donald Gorrie's microphone?

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Okay.

We have a problem in providing a consistent message—the clear message for which Maureen Macmillan asked. I am certain that the people who took part in the Young Scot survey would say that there are more problems with alcohol than there are with cannabis, for example.

I crave your indulgence, Presiding Officer, to raise the issue of cannabis in this debate. If we are to have drugs courts to separate the sheep from the goats, we will have to decide which are the very bad drugs, which will be dealt with by the drugs courts, and which are the less bad drugs, which may be dealt with in another way, such as by treatment orders. Unfortunately, we have not had time today to address that issue.

I am keen that there should be proper examination of the different categories of drug that are used by different categories of people. The arrestee drug abuse monitoring—ADAM—methodology, which was piloted recently in Scotland, showed that well over 50 per cent of the people who were arrested for drugs offences had taken cannabis. However, we do not know whether most of them had used only cannabis, like Rosalind Henderson, who is featured in The Herald today. She used cannabis for medicinal purposes—for pain relief—in the same way that multiple sclerosis sufferers use it. Are we to categorise people who use cannabis for such purposes as less serious drug users or abusers? They are still breaking the law as it stands.

As part of the mosaic of dealing with drugs, we must consider which drugs we are talking about, how we are to classify them, who uses them and why. When it comes to whether drugs courts will diminish the level of drug-related crime, we should ask how many folk are lifted because they shoplifted in Boots, or wherever, to be able to smoke some cannabis at the weekend. The answer would be very few. We have to admit what happens, and research is required. Members should all sign my motion—they can do so easily by visiting the chamber office.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am afraid that this morning's problems with the microphone system seem to be more serious than we had thought, and we will have to suspend the meeting for approximately five minutes. I propose that, on resuming, we continue this debate for the appropriate additional period. That will affect the next debate, so we will suspend the meeting for lunch five minutes—or thereabouts—later than usual. I apologise, but there is little else that can be done at this stage.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We can now reconvene. We will move to the winding-up speeches.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I must first apologise for arriving late—I was stuck in traffic. However, that had an advantage: I heard Hugh Henry going on about the rights and wrongs, and the good and bad things in the Parliament; but all the naughty bits took place before I got here. I therefore think that this morning's debate was very good, with knowledgeable people talking about a subject that they knew well. That showed a strength of the Parliament.

We are dealing with a major problem. In my opinion and in that of the members of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee who have been working on our report, the key issue is not cannabis users, or users of the more minor drugs. The key issue is the 20,000 or 30,000 serious heroin addicts in the country. That is where drugs and crime are especially closely linked, and we have the feeding of a habit by crimes of dishonesty.

I used to appear as a duty solicitor in the district and sheriff courts until around eight or 10 years ago. Being in the courts is an eye-opening experience that I would recommend to anyone who wants to see the sharp end of what is happening to the driftwood of society, if I can put it that way. For a long time, the excuse that was given by those who had committed offences was alcohol—"I had too much to drink last night, sir." About 10 or 12 years ago, everything changed, and drugs became the excuse—there is always an element of self-excusing in these matters. There was a clear change in what was happening prior to offences being committed.

As one or two people have suggested, the issue is a mosaic. It is difficult to get the answers to the drug problem right. There is no single answer. The idea of the drugs court is a useful contribution to the debate, but I have to say that I am a little agnostic about some of the claims about the benefits of the court. A key issue is resources: we must be able to prevent people from going on to drugs in the first place, and we must have the resources to deal with them if they become habitual users.

Many issues arise. There is the issue of throughput, which involves the services that people receive when they come out of prison. There are distinct issues about the availability of resources in different parts of the country. I hear what the minister says about new money being put in, but there is a long way to go. The level of resources available is not as high as it should be, and they are often not fully known about in some areas.

There needs to be a discussion not just on the way in which we deal with the sentencing end of the matter—the drugs court aspect—but on the assessment of what works and what does not. The solution is not just a mechanistic matter relating to resources, but is about the input of family members, employment and how we get people back on track. There are many elements linked together. The people who deal with the issue need a high degree of expertise.

Another useful point was on the need for public support. That is not always available for the things that we do in the Parliament. My party has suggested—as have Donald Gorrie and Margo MacDonald today—the idea of some form of royal commission to look into the links between cannabis and harder drugs and to provide solid evidence on a series of important public issues. That would help to get public support behind the idea. We must move on the issue, with the support of the public.

Bill Aitken talked about the need to be realistic in what we do. The realism comes in what the courts can do—they can change procedures. However, I am sceptical about spending additional money specifically on drugs courts, rather than dealing with the resources that such drugs courts would feed into.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I want to begin, somewhat unusually, by referring to a member who has not participated in the debate: Keith Raffan. His presence is missed today. I know how deeply he feels about drug misuse and I am sure that members join me in sending him our best wishes and hopes for his swift return to the Parliament.

The Conservatives welcome the new Deputy Minister for Justice. He is well acquainted with the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—he spent much time with us when we discussed the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. He has also considered the drugs issue from a health perspective, which may prove extremely valuable.

The Conservatives were forced into lodging an amendment to Roseanna Cunningham's motion because of the reference to the SNP manifesto—we, too, wanted to lay a claim. However, when Hugh Henry rebuked us, he should also have rebuked the minister because the Executive has included similar self-congratulations in its amendment. Donald Gorrie also referred to that.

Roseanna Cunningham mentioned the relationship between crime figures and drugs. I am advised that more than 75 per cent of people who are brought in under a breach of the peace charge have drugs or alcohol in their bloodstream. That gives us cause for concern. Drugs courts could be used to assist in such cases, which present an early indication of people falling into bad ways. I welcome Roseanna Cunningham's point that the establishment of drugs courts is not an isolated action, but forms only part of an answer. Iain Gray went on to emphasise the point that drugs courts would form one part of a greater scene.

Iain Gray also referred to the fact that shoplifting, housebreaking and car crime are not minor crimes—they are very serious. Such crimes penetrate people's minds and destroy their faith in the fabric of society. On that basis, we will support the proposal to set up drugs courts, provided that the seriousness of such crimes is borne in mind by those who determine how individuals will be dealt with.

Iain Gray's emphasis on the application of such initiatives to early offenders is welcome. I do not think that somebody who repeats offence after offence should be offered the option, which aims to take people away from the drugs scene. To achieve that, offenders must not simply recognise the severity of the things that they have done, but must want to break with their addiction. There must be a desire on their part to come off drugs. That must be a factor for those who go before drugs courts.

Margo MacDonald made a fair point about cannabis, but I wonder how suitable drugs courts would be to deal with cannabis offenders, because we are told by those who support it that it is not addictive. On that basis, perhaps those who use cannabis should be excluded from the drugs court process. That is an interesting point. I acknowledge Margo's point about the medicinal use of cannabis. As she is aware, she has our support.

The comments made by Dr Ian Campbell, which Lyndsay McIntosh addressed, are valid. When general practitioners say that there are no alternatives and that there are problems, we must take that on board, particularly when we know that so many agencies and groups are involved in the process.

I am aware that I am over my allotted time, so I would like to make the point clearly that drugs courts are one thing; infrastructure is another. Such courts are not an easy option. The amount of input into the infrastructure, such as rehab facilities and other support measures, will be costly, which is why we offer some support to Roseanna Cunningham's motion, which mentioned a pilot exercise. We will support a pilot exercise, but we want to hear that the infrastructure will be in place when the pilot is brought to fruition. It would be helpful if the minister provided some idea of costings.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Before I call Iain Gray to wind up for the Executive, I realise that a number of members have arrived for the second debate of the morning. I should inform them that we are running about 10 minutes late because of a technical problem, which I hope has been resolved.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

As a number of members have said, at a time when we know that as much as 70 per cent of crime has some link to problem drug use, it is heartening that the Parliament chooses to devote its time today to debate the issue, and I acknowledge that the SNP chose the subject. I am also pleased that my first debate as Deputy Minister for Justice has allowed me to signal the Executive's commitment to working up a model of drugs courts for Scotland. I cannot promise that, as minister, I will always agree with the Opposition, but this is a nice start. I will probably always have the record for the quickest accusation of a ministerial U-turn, which happened before I had the chance to stand up in my new role, but I am heartened by the agreement that there has been in the debate, which has risen above the minor party political points that all sides have made.

It has become clear that, although on the surface drugs courts seem like a simple option, they are not. Done properly, however, they represent an intensive intervention by the courts and criminal justice social work services, as well as treatment and rehabilitation services, working together. A number of important points have been made about that. Maureen Macmillan and Euan Robson are right to say that in considering the Scottish context we must consider not only our legal system and traditions, but our geography and population spread. I acknowledge that a drugs court model must be practical in rural as well as urban Scotland.

Bill Aitken is correct that a range of disposals is already available. I indicated that we intend to broaden the range, but the distinctive feature of the drugs court concept is the closer relationship between the criminal justice system, the treatment regime and the agencies that are involved. The element of specialism, to which Bill Aitken alluded, makes the drugs court concept different and more effective.

On the disposals that are being developed, I say to Roseanna Cunningham that in the spending review there are resources to help spread out arrest referral schemes. To Richard Lochhead, who made a plea for the drug problem in Aberdeen not to be forgotten, I say that that is one of the reasons why drug testing and treatment orders have been extended to Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. That approach holds out the prospect of reducing the amount of drug-related crime; that will be its test. I have little interest in whose idea it was. That is a pointless argument, which Hugh Henry described rather more graphically. We have the opportunity to create an effective system. To achieve the results that we want, we must ensure that we set up systems that have the best chance of success. I do not apologise for taking the time to get that right.

Many members said that ensuring ready access to treatment and rehabilitation services would be critical to our success. The Executive has invested an extra £100 million from the spending review in the services that are required.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We are running late, so I am sorry but I cannot give way.

Lyndsay McIntosh rightly gave an example of the gaps in treatment services that we must address to make the drugs courts concept work. The additional resources for treatment are part of our programme for government commitments and give us the opportunity to move on the idea of drugs courts while ensuring that we meet the concerns of Hugh Henry and others, who want non-offending drug misusers to have access to treatment programmes too.

We are taking the right approach and learning lessons from experiences here and abroad. We are devising our own system, which will be rooted in Scottish legal institutions and traditions. As Robert Brown said, that must be part of a wider agenda that joins up services to meet the needs of the whole person for treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration into employment, family networks and the community. That will give individuals the best chance of turning their backs on drug misuse and its effects. The agenda must co-ordinate action to ensure education and prevention with consistent messages for young people, as Maureen Macmillan said. Misusers must have opportunities to move on to employment through education and training, and enforcement measures must be taken to reduce the availability of drugs on our streets.

The strength of our approach lies not in a single issue but in the breadth of our response and commitment and in the breadth of the political will shown today in the chamber. That will allow us to deliver on the agenda that we have set for ourselves and for our people all over Scotland.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the tone of the debate set by all parties, in recognition of the complex drugs misuse problem in Scotland. I also welcome the minister's recognition that the issue of drugs courts was a Scottish National Party manifesto policy commitment. Rumour has it that the Executive, as part of its on-going review of policies, is about to steal one of our other core policy areas: that of independence. I look forward to it bringing that motion before Parliament in due course. [Laughter.]

Iain Gray, in his opening remarks, referred to the blight that drugs misuse casts on Scottish society. A number of members have highlighted the true cost of the drugs problem in Scotland. The cost is not only to the individual, but to their family. It affects the individual's life, leading to loss of friendships and dignity, and a day-to-day existence that is based on feeding their habit. It is a lifestyle based on survival.

When I was at school—more recently than Kay Ullrich—my school had a drugs problem, which reflected the part of Glasgow in which it was located. The school ran a drugs awareness programme, during which a number of workshops were held by former drug addicts. The girl who took our workshop had suffered from a heroin problem for some years. She had lost contact with her family and was so desperate that she returned to her mother's house. Her mother had not let her into the house for years because of her problem, and she refused to let her back in, saying, "I'm not letting you back in until you give up drugs." At the door, she told her mother that she was home in order to give up drugs, and, on that basis, her mother allowed her back into the house. When her mother went out for the messages, the girl stole her television and video in order to pay for more drugs. That is an example of the blight of drugs on society, individuals and families.

A number of members touched on the problems that exist in the wider community. Day in, day out, we hear from people whose houses have been broken into, whose cars have been stolen and whose children cannot play in the back court because drug addicts use it for injecting, leaving the needles behind. Often, those people are not directly involved in drugs but suffer as a result of the continuing drug problems in the community.

As Roseanna Cunningham mentioned, the cost is not limited to the individual, their family and community but affects society as a whole. The Scottish Executive has indicated that in the region of £330 million a year is spent on dealing with Scotland's drug problem, £120 million of which goes on policing alone. Given the financial implications for society, it is in our interests to assist individuals who have drug problems and the communities that suffer as a result.

There is a complex drug problem in Scotland to which there is no single solution. However, as is always said in politics, it is important that we do not just bang the table and say, "We must deal with the problem." By proposing drugs courts, the SNP is genuinely attempting to bring to the table an idea that we believe offers a constructive way of dealing with the problem.

As Hugh Henry said, a balanced drug policy is important. There must be a balance between the important issue of enforcement—the Executive has established the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency—and the education of young people, in order to ensure that they do not take up drugs and, at the same time, that we provide rehabilitation services to those who have a drug problem. Even that approach must be balanced, because, as Hugh Henry said, we must ensure not only that drug addicts who commit crimes have access to rehabilitation services, but that those who do not commit crimes and who are looking for support also have ready access to those services.

The pressure for more alternatives to custody is not just political. Roseanna Cunningham mentioned a number of organisations that are committed to the idea of drugs courts and that believe that such courts will benefit Scotland.

The Executive also mentioned the alternatives to custody that are already in place. We heard about the arrest referral scheme, about which there is confusion. The Executive department that is responsible for that scheme is clear that there is no set strategy for developing it. I welcome the minister's statement that the arrest referral scheme will be extended in the Aberdeen area, but there are different approaches in different parts of the country. We must ensure that we do not end up going down the route of a two-tier system and that we tackle the problem of drugs in a uniform way.

Members also touched on the issue of DTTOs and the way in which they can be used. I recognise that the minister is committed to extending the pilot project on DTTOs. However, it must also be recognised that fewer than 50—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes, but only briefly.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Michael Matheson referred to a one-system structure, but, given the comments made about rural communities, should not the system be flexible?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes, but our responsibility should be to ensure that, if someone presents at court with a drug problem in any part of Scotland, they should still have access to services. The problem is the piecemeal approach that exists at present.

I was talking about DTTOs. Why is it that, for nearly two years, fewer than 50 DTTOs have been issued? If we are to extend the use of DTTOs, we must consider why such limited use has been made of that disposal.

Last Friday, I visited HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and spoke to the prison officer who is the prison's drugs co-ordinator. She said that, of 15 new young offenders who presented at the institution in the past month, nine tested positive in drug tests. It is estimated that between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of all young offenders at Polmont have a drugs problem. Although there are limited resources within the prison system to deal with that problem, the institution is desperate to see the introduction of a mechanism to ensure that, because of their drugs habit, people do not start down the route of a life leading from one prison to the next. Drugs courts are one of the vehicles that can help to break that vicious cycle.

Although I welcome the fact that the Executive is willing to take on board the establishment of drugs courts, I share Donald Gorrie's concerns that its amendment makes no reference to that. We need a clear, focused and determined attitude to dealing with the drugs problem in Scotland and on that basis I ask members to support the SNP motion.

Business Rates

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1301, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on rates relief for small businesses, and on two amendments to that motion. Because of the time lost through microphone failure, we have the option of running on for 10 minutes after 12.30 pm; however, looking at the list of speakers, I am hopeful of concluding on time.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I open by welcoming the new local government and finance team to the chamber—and Angus MacKay's mum to the gallery. I reassure the new ministers that we recognise that they might not be completely au fait with their respective briefs and promise to be gentle with them. Well, I promise to be gentle—I cannot give any guarantees about Fergus Ewing.

This issue is close to our party's heart. At the previous elections for this Parliament and Westminster, the SNP suggested costed proposals for a relief scheme for small business; in fact, we were the only party to do so in either election. We did so because we acknowledge that the rating system is inherently discriminatory to smaller businesses, and we recognise that small businesses pay a disproportionately larger part of their turnover and profit in non-domestic rates.

Indeed, a year ago today, the Local Government Committee was informed in evidence received from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Confederation of British Industry that, as a percentage of turnover and operating profits, small businesses pay a significantly higher proportion than large concerns, sometimes by a factor of 10. For owner-occupier small businesses, rates form the single biggest overhead. That can act only as a brake to growth, jobs and investment to the detriment of the economy, particularly in rural and remote Scotland. For some small businesses, the level of rates can mean the difference between staying in business and going bust. Such is the concern among small businesses at the level of rates paid that 87 per cent of the members of the Forum of Private Business stated that it was the issue they most wanted Parliament to address.

Introducing small business rates relief not only will help the businesses involved to survive, expand, recruit more staff and pay taxes, but will encourage new start-ups, which will help the Scottish Executive to reach its target of creating 100,000 new businesses over the next 10 years. Although the introduction of a 1p reduction in the poundage this year is welcome, it will make no appreciable difference to the bottom line of any small business. The smallest 70 per cent of all Scottish businesses contribute only 12 per cent of the business rates collected by the Scottish Government. For that 12 per cent, the profitability and viability of many Scottish businesses are fundamentally affected. It is clear that the pain caused is not warranted by the gain made.

Instead of abolishing the uniform business rate, as the Liberal Democrats proposed in 1997, or doing nothing like the Tories and new Labour, we think that a compromise is possible that will allow us to protect the income stream that local authorities receive through non-domestic rates while alleviating the burden on the businesses that are least able to pay.

It is important to emphasise that non-domestic business rates are an effective revenue gatherer for local government and a vital support for Scotland's public services. This year, more than £1.5 billion will be collected from Scottish business and redistributed to support public services across the country. That represents the second biggest contributor to local services after government grant, dwarfing the amount of money collected through council tax.

Unlike the electorate, on which council tax is levied, the business community has no say when unfair or punitive levels of taxation are imposed on it. That is why we support the principle of uniformity, a principle that is a necessary protection against the worst excesses of Mr MacKay's colleagues in Labour's rotten boroughs. I excuse Mr Peacock from that. As a recent Labour party recruit, it would be unfair to tar him with the same brush.

The principle of uniformity must extend beyond our borders, as it is vital that Scottish businesses are not put at a competitive disadvantage. Put simply, Scottish business should not pay more than business in England. That is a clear principle of the SNP. We thought that it was shared by all parties represented in this chamber—until the coalition introduced Jack's tax, as my illustrious colleague Fergus Ewing famously termed it.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am interested to hear that it is the SNP's position that we should have the same taxation rates as England. Has the SNP abandoned independence?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Certainly not. However, an independent Scotland would not want its businesses to be at a competitive disadvantage with those of our next-door neighbour.

For those members who are unfamiliar with it, I should explain that under Jack's tax Scotland's businesses pay more in business rates than their counterparts in England, through a poundage that is 8.8 per cent higher than that south of the border. That is a direct breach of Labour's 1997 manifesto and a new tax that it failed to mention in its 1999 manifesto. For the first time since the UBR was introduced, the poundage rate in Scotland will be higher than it is in England. Simply put, a building in Glasgow will now cost more in rates than a building of comparable asset value in Gloucester.

I do not want to dwell for too long on Jack's tax. From their woeful amendment, it seems that the Tories believe that today's debate is about that. I am sorry to disappoint them, but if they had read the motion, they would know that this debate is about small business rates relief. Sadly, their amendment shows their utter contempt for the small business sector.

I want to concentrate on the motion that is before us. I think that there will be consensus on the motion. In fact, I know that there is consensus on it. I am lucky enough to serve on this Parliament's Local Government Committee, which reached a consensus on this very issue. Even Keith Harding, who is now smiling, agreed, so it will be interesting to see whether he, the Liberal Democrats and Labour members maintain their position or turn turtle on this issue, the whips having won again.

For the benefit of the chamber, I will outline conclusion 1 of the Local Government Committee's report on non-domestic rates, published on 23 June this year. It states:

"The Committee is satisfied that small businesses face a disproportionate rates burden and considers that a permanent small business rates relief scheme, which is more generous than the present 1p poundage reduction, should be introduced with effect from 1 April 2001 at the latest."

It continues:

"this points to the need for a multi-banded or tapered scheme with the level of relief reducing to a small level close to the upper limit of eligibility."

The report goes on to say:

"The Committee considers that the relief scheme should be self-financed through an increase in the Scottish poundage."

To me, that says it all. As tasked by the Minister for Finance, and in co-operation with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, we conducted a lengthy inquiry into this issue and arrived at the central conclusions to which I have referred. After listening to a variety of views and considering the evidence, we came to believe that a more generous, permanent scheme was required. More eagle-eyed members will have noticed that the SNP motion this morning calls for precisely that.

Today we seek simply to build on the cross-party consensus that the Local Government Committee has already established. That is why I am somewhat disappointed by the tone of the Government amendment. Our motion seeks to reinforce the decision of the Local Government Committee. It seeks to give the chamber the opportunity to endorse that decision and to give a clear signal that we want to see progress on this matter, sooner rather than later.

Two schemes have been proposed, by the FSB and the FPB. I understand that the minister has been given the details of those. If so, he will note that both schemes are self-financing and involve a shift in the rates burden from small to larger businesses. Under the FSB scheme, for example, small businesses are effectively designated as those having a rateable value of less than £10,000—a threshold figure that the Executive accepted last year when deciding which businesses qualified for penny poundage reduction. The FSB scheme would be tapered and would mean relief of at least 50 per cent for businesses with a rateable value of less than £5,000, at a cost to larger businesses of an additional poundage of 1.9p, a figure not dissimilar to that which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is considering down south under its proposed scheme.

Eleven months ago, the former Minister for Finance stood before this chamber and promised that he would deliberate on the case that had been made by the small business organisations. He said:

"Over the next 12 months, Henry McLeish"—

whatever happened to him?—

"and his team will examine the case for small business rate relief and consider the best way forward."

He also said:

"In the next 12 months, we must examine in an open and transparent way how we can afford that, rather than rushing into a decision this afternoon.

I hope that that decision is welcomed by small businesses—it certainly should be."—[Official Report, 8 December 1999; Vol 3, c 1262, 1273.]

I can tell Angus MacKay that the 12 months is nearly up. The Executive has had 11 months to cogitate, analyse and examine the schemes put forward by small business organisations and five months to examine the Local Government Committee's report. The SNP thinks that the Executive has had long enough to produce a scheme. Our motion today is designed to bring that to a head. Vote for our motion today and the Executive will still have time to produce a scheme in its review. If the Executive votes for this motion, it will identify itself with its own back benchers, who supported this form of words as a committee recommendation. Vote for this motion and signal to small business that it will be able to plan for a relief scheme in the next financial year, not at some distant point in the future.

It is incumbent on the Government to tell us whether it favours either of the schemes put forward by the small business organisations, whether it has a scheme of its own or whether it is simply saying to small businesses that they have had their whack when it comes to help from this Government. We deserve an answer; I look forward to the minister's response.

Today, the Executive has already taken on board one SNP policy in relation to drugs courts. This is an excellent opportunity to adopt another.

I move,

That the Parliament resolves that a permanent small business rates relief scheme, which is more generous than the present 1p poundage reduction, should be introduced with effect from 1 April 2001.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I begin by thanking Kenny Gibson for his kind words in his opening comments, followed up by the ritual SNP apology for being about to punch me in the face. On this occasion it was about colleagues on the Local Government Committee; yesterday it was about my appointment as Minister for Finance and Local Government. It was done in a friendly spirit, so I take it in that way.

I should correct the record. As well as my mother I also have a cousin, a niece and a member of staff in the gallery today. It will be nice to have that noted.

The responsibility for non-domestic rates passed to the Scottish Executive as part of the devolution settlement, which occurred only months before the statutory five-yearly non-domestic rates revaluation was due on 1 April 2000. In other circumstances, that could have been a serious cause for concern in Scotland's business community. However, reviewing the work of the Executive from the outset demonstrates that it actively sought to establish good and effective working relations with representative business organisations, to get the key messages of the non-domestic rates revaluation over to their members.

The underlying principles of that approach were openness, minimum disruption for business, stability, certainty and a harmonised treatment of valuation and rating practice north and south of the border. Most important, there was no increase in real terms in the overall tax burden as a result of revaluation.

Business was—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will Angus MacKay give way?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Not this early. I will give way in a minute.

Business was consulted early on our proposals. In December 1999, some three months before the revaluation took effect, my predecessor, Jack McConnell, was able to make several announcements. The first was that the intended Scottish rate poundage for 2000-01 was 45.8p. The second was that, overall, Scottish businesses would not pay more in real terms as a result of the 2000 revaluation. The third was that there would be a 1p reduction in the rate for small businesses, and the final announcement was that a distinctive Scottish scheme of transitional relief would be established to assist businesses facing an increase in their rates bills. Those sound and sensible initiatives were widely welcomed by Scotland's business community, which was consulted and involved at every stage of the process.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

The minister says that the business community welcomed the decisions taken. Donald Turner of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, a body that is known for its political impartiality, described the departure of a common poundage and the imposition of a poundage 10.1 per cent higher in Scotland than in England as

"a retrograde step that will harm the Scottish corporate sector and undermine the benefits received from the harmonisation of cross-border business rates in the 1995 revaluation."

Was Mr Turner wrong?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am delighted to re-engage with Fergus Ewing. I feared that in moving away from the justice brief I might miss those exchanges— [Interruption.] I will pass over the comment that I just heard.

Mr Ewing, quite reasonably, has quoted a view from the business community. The business community has expressed several views about different aspects of the rating review and the requirement to move to a new system—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Which of them support Jack's tax?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

If Mr Ewing bears with me, I will continue to make my point. Several representative organisations have suggested that we should move to a new structure. The problem is that those organisations and individuals are not always in agreement with one another—I shall address that point later in my speech. It is therefore not appropriate to paint a broad picture from one selective quote. The point that I was trying to make is that the approach that was taken by the Executive, which was open and allowed business an opportunity to express its views before the Executive reached any conclusions, has been welcomed by the business community.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

rose—

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am not going to give way. Mr Ewing has already caused me to say more than I wanted to, given the short amount of time that I have.

The revaluation has gone smoothly. It is perhaps too early to give definitive feedback on the specific results of the revaluation; however, I can say that the number of appeals against new rateable values is down on the previous revaluation. That can be regarded as an indication of success in achieving the aims of openness, transparency, stability and partnership with the business community.

I confirm that the present 1p reduction in the poundage rate for small businesses will continue as we review the case for further assistance for small businesses.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Given that the deadline for appeals was 30 September and that there was a certain restriction on winners and losers, what kind of impact will the transitional relief for this year have on businesses from 1 April? Does the minister not think that a lot of businesses that do not realise that the deadline for appeals was 30 September will suddenly find themselves caught out?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Kenny Gibson raises an important point concerning the way in which businesses will proceed when the transitional relief ends. We will have to address that and have been doing so in the review that Mr Gibson mentioned in his opening speech.

I intend to do two things in my new role. First, I shall immediately engage in a dialogue with the new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, not only to consider the specific issue of rates and rating relief, but to examine the broader issues around the cost base for small business, to determine what kind of broader package it might be possible to develop.

Secondly, I shall make a further announcement, by Christmas, about what stage we have reached in the review on which Mr Gibson addressed some specific questions, about what the next stage will be and about what conclusions we have drawn. I hope that that gives some comfort about our bringing that review to an end. Kenny Gibson talked about a 12-month period, but we will make an announcement before Christmas.

From early in the life of this Parliament, the Executive has been conscious of the concerns that have been raised by small businesses over their rates liability in comparison with that of larger businesses. As I have said, the transitional relief scheme ensured that no businesses faced large increases in rates bills following the revaluation. The position of small businesses was recognised specifically in the design of that scheme, and the real increase in rates bills of businesses with a rateable value of £10,000 or less was limited to 5 per cent. The increase in rates bills for larger businesses was limited to 7.5 per cent for this year.

The Local Government Committee conducted an inquiry into the balance of the burden of business rates between small and large businesses. The committee took evidence from a wide range of business organisations, the Scottish Assessors Association and officials from the Scottish Executive. In its conclusions, the committee clearly supported the view that small businesses face a disproportionate rates burden, and it outlined the general principles that it believed should apply to a rates relief scheme without attempting to follow that through with detailed and specific proposals. I intend to have full regard to that report before making the announcement in December.

As part of the 2000 revaluation, the Executive is taking steps to address the concerns of small businesses. The Scottish Valuation and Rating Council, which comprises business representatives and others who are active in rating and valuation, was charged with undertaking a review of the 2000 revaluation as well as with considering more widely non-domestic rating practices and procedures. Among the specific areas that the SVRC was asked to look into was rates relief for small businesses. I shall take a keen interest in the SVRC's proposals, especially those that relate to support for small businesses.

In addition to the work that will be undertaken by the SVRC, the issue of wider assistance to small businesses was placed on the agenda of the small business consultative group. The establishment of that group was announced in January by the then Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Henry McLeish. The group was formed to provide a forum for collective discussion between the small business community and the Executive, with a view to improving the performance of small businesses in Scotland. That group brings together, for the first time, the main small business representative bodies in Scotland, and aims to ensure that the needs of small businesses are properly addressed by the Scottish Executive. We are fully committed to creating a business environment in which the growth of small businesses is supported and encouraged.

The vast majority of firms in Scotland have fewer than 50 employees, and account for 45 per cent of non-public sector Scottish employment. We know that our success in generating the wealth to combat social injustice and deliver social inclusion will depend on our ability to create an environment in which innovation and entrepreneurial skills are nurtured and rewarded. In the short period of time that I have had to study the Executive's record in this area so far, I have been impressed and encouraged by the constructive spirit of consultation and partnership working that has been a central feature of the Executive's approach. I intend to continue with that approach.

The Executive has already shown that it is particularly alert to the problems that face small businesses. I assure members that I will openly examine the case for assistance to small businesses. I further assure them that the Executive will continue to work for the good of the small business community and for the future of the whole Scottish economy.

I move amendment S1M-1301.1, to leave out from "resolves" to end and insert:

"commends the Executive for delivering a 1p reduction in the poundage applied to small businesses with a rateable value of less than £10,000; notes that the revaluation of business rates has been delivered with the minimum turbulence for Scottish business and was conducted on a clear partnership basis with full participation from business rate payers and local authorities at every stage in the process, and welcomes the Executive's current consideration of the case for small business rate relief."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I welcome Mr MacKay and his colleagues to the front bench for this debate. I relish the prospect of exchange with Mr MacKay, but the prospect of the wrath of his mother is another matter altogether.

I declare an interest relating to this debate. I am a partner in a business in Glasgow that pays business rates.

Today's motion, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, seems, at first glance, to exhibit certain hallmarks of economic sense, which came as a slight surprise to me. However, I have to say that it is a matter of some disquiet for me that, when I meet members of the business community, although they acknowledge the individual and personal charms of certain SNP members, they declare a more or less unanimous apprehension about the tax implications of an independent Scotland. Any debate on business must acknowledge those concerns about taxation, which is what business rates essentially are.

Mr Gibson's motion offers an accurate diagnosis of the plight of small business and enterprise. It advocates a reduction of the burdens placed on business and it identifies the fact that the present Administration is failing the Scottish economy. Unfortunately, a closer analysis of the motion reveals that it is somewhat disingenuous, as it would create, almost paradoxically, more problems than it would solve. I accept that Mr Gibson's diagnosis may be right, but his prescription is flawed.

Of course the Conservatives support the idea of lowering the burdens on small businesses and we also support reductions in the national rate poundage. However, that cannot be financed at a cost to other business and enterprise, as those other businesses may not be wealthier or healthier ones.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will Miss Goldie give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I shall give way in a moment.

Conversely, premises that would attract a rates discount under any rebate scheme based on rateable value may in turn contain a perfectly lucrative and healthy business. That is why the Conservatives' amendment—

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Miss Goldie give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I shall give way in a moment. The Conservative group has lodged its amendment because we genuinely believe that what is needed for the health of business as a whole is a uniform business rate, which has disappeared under the Labour Government, and a reinstatement of a level playing field for Scotland.

I give way to Mr Paterson.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Miss Goldie said that businesses require a level playing field. However, I recall that, for almost 18 years under the Tories, businesses in Scotland could be paying up to three times more in rates than businesses in England were paying. Does Miss Goldie not think that that was a severe disadvantage to business in Scotland?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am surprised at Mr Paterson's analysis. Having been in business, as he has been, I was frequently told by commercial clients that they could obtain premises at far less cost in the populated industrial areas of England than they could in Glasgow or Edinburgh. That is why, when faced with the strictures that emanated principally from Labour-controlled local authorities to squeeze out more taxation for their spending by applying pressure to the business community, I was relieved—as someone who was in business and was suffering from that process—when the Conservative Government introduced a uniform business rate system.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I would like to proceed further, as I do not have a lot of time.

We are a party that supports enterprise for all. We want all sectors of industry to benefit from a reduction in costs. We want business to prosper. That is precisely why we introduced the uniform business rate and why we continue to seek parity across the board. We oppose Labour's removal of the uniform business rate and continue to support its reintroduction. It is completely unacceptable financial discrimination against Scotland to have one business rate poundage for England, at 41.6p, and a higher one for Scotland, at 45.8p. The Conservatives want Scotland to be promoted, not priced out.

I share the view of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, to which Mr Ewing referred, which said in December that the removal of the UBR would make Scotland a less attractive location for large businesses in the UK. The Scottish Executive's cack-handed, blundering handling of the issue reflects an Administration that has, at best, no natural understanding of business and, at worst, an instinctive antipathy towards it.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am running out of time.

With a Conservative Administration, this debate would not be taking place.

What is wrong with the motion? In theory, it is fine, but in reality it is distorted. The only sector that would pay for business cuts is business itself, which would prove disastrous for our already fragile economy. The measure would stifle growth and would place a disincentive on firms brave enough to develop. Businesses need to be treated fairly and entrepreneurs and wealth creators should be rewarded instead of punished. That is the view of business, minister, and not just my personal assessment. Douglas Millar of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce said yesterday that he wanted to see

"a level playing field for all businesses instead of a system of business rates relief which stifles growth and enterprise."

Support for small business can come only in the form of support for all business. Relief and emancipation can be delivered only in a wider context, although to be fair, it is to the SNP's credit that it is joining us in voicing concerns on behalf of business and industry, however deficient I consider the remedy that the SNP offers to be. We need a reduction in rates. The only coherent remedy is to let businesses grow, rather than to prevent, stifle and punish their development. The reinstatement of the uniform business rate would offer such a remedy.

The Scottish Conservatives urge the Parliament to support our amendment, which proposes the reintroduction of the uniform business rate and seeks to take strenuous steps to lower the level of business rates.

I move amendment S1M-1301.2, to leave out from "permanent" to end and insert:

"uniform business rate be re-instated and that efforts be made to reduce the level of uniform business rate, thereby diminishing the financial burden on all business and stimulating business activity in Scotland."

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I, too, congratulate Angus MacKay on his promotion and welcome him to his new post. I look forward to working with him in the near future. I indicate the Liberal Democrats' support for the Executive's amendment and welcome the Executive's commitment to examine a small business rate relief scheme, which is an important issue. I welcome the minister's comments on that subject.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that, if we are to encourage more business start-ups—let us not forget that Scotland lags well behind many other countries in that respect—it is essential that we address this problem. Reducing the impact of rates on small business, especially on new businesses and those that are about to start up, will be a positive step that should encourage more people to start their own business. That must be good for Scotland. Such a reduction should also help to encourage the enterprise culture, which unfortunately is so sadly lacking in Scotland. It would be especially good for small businesses in rural areas, which tend to be on the small side—it is unusual to find big business operating in rural Scotland. Any steps to relieve the rate burden on small businesses would have a disproportionate effect on rural Scotland, and should be welcomed.

The Local Government Committee examined the proposals, to which Kenny Gibson rightly drew attention, of the Federation of Small Businesses. It called for a 50 per cent cut for businesses with a rateable value under £5,000 and a 25 per cent cut for businesses with a rateable value between that figure and £7,500. While it was sympathetic to the aims of the FSB, the Local Government Committee had reservations about the wide jumps in the taxation bands.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is Mr Lyon aware that the FSB has revamped that scheme and now has tapering bands instead of bands that create the falling-off-a-cliff difficulties that the committee identified?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Mr Gibson anticipates the next part of my speech.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Great minds think alike.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I would not say that, necessarily.

The Local Government Committee also drew attention to the need to take account of the turnover of businesses and said that that should be examined with a view to incorporating it in the calculation. Since then, as Kenny Gibson said, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has published a green paper in England and Wales that includes a small business rate relief scheme. As Kenny Gibson pointed out, the FSB has made some proposals that deal with some of the criticisms that were made by the committee and suggests having a taper, as a result of which businesses with a valuation between £5,000 and £10,000 would have differing levels of discount within the tax band.

The Scottish Executive should consider the proposals seriously. I am aware from my conversations with the FSB that Executive officials are engaged in discussions with the FSB. The FSB's arguments deserve our support. We should consider closely the detail of the arguments, but the principle is good. I hope that we can meet ministers shortly to discuss the details.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

George Lyon's excellent speech would appear to be in favour of Kenneth Gibson's motion. Will George Lyon confirm that the Liberal Democrats will back the motion?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I said that I will back the Executive amendment, which contains a clear statement that the Executive is seriously considering introducing some sort of rate relief scheme.

I want to raise one issue with the minister. The rise in rateable value caused great concern last year. In Oban, which is in my constituency, the rateable value has doubled, from £19 per sq m to £38 per sq m. The transitional relief scheme has modified the swingeing increase that would have resulted from that, but there is widespread concern among businesses in the town as, once the transitional relief starts to unwind, they will be faced with a substantial rise in their rates burden. There appears to be no explanation as to why the situation has come about, especially given that the rateable value in most other towns in my constituency is around £19 per sq m.

The calculation for the rateable value is linked closely to the rental values in the town, yet there is no evidence that the rental value has doubled in the past three or four years. I would question, therefore, whether the calculation is right. I know that the business community can lodge appeals, but I would like the minister to clarify whether ministers can intervene when there seems to have been an injustice. I believe that the situation in Oban represents a severe injustice.

Fergus Ewing and Kenneth Gibson talked about what they called Jack's tax. The SNP claims that it wants there to be a uniform rate across the UK. As we know, rateable values in England and Wales increased by 24 per cent last year, as opposed to 13 per cent in Scotland. By my calculations, if the rateable value is three and it is multiplied by the poundage in Scotland, which is eight, the figure of 24 will be arrived at. If the rateable value in England is four and is multiplied by the poundage in England, which is six, the figure is also 24. The key issue is how much is paid. That is lost on the SNP, which seems confused.

If we are to improve the number of business start-ups in Scotland, we have to consider introducing a small business rate relief scheme. I support the Executive's amendment and I hope that it will make some concrete proposals.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Six members have asked to speak. If I allow an overrun to compensate for the microphone failure, all can be accommodated—provided that speeches are kept to about four minutes.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Small businesses are the linchpin of the Scottish economy—98.8 per cent of all businesses in Scotland employ fewer than 50 people and small businesses employ 47.6 per cent of the total Scottish work force. It is very important that we give all the support we can to our small-business community.

A couple of weeks ago, I attended a useful meeting with the Dundee branch of the Federation of Small Businesses, at which I spoke to everybody in the room about the issues that affect them. The same problems and barriers were mentioned time and time again, such as the problems of accessing finance for start-up and growth, local bureaucracy, and the maze of advice agencies. Of course, the main issue that was raised was the burden of business rates.

Anyone who had any doubts about the arguments in favour of retaining the uniform business rate should have attended that meeting: everybody in the room said that it would be a disaster to move away from the uniform business rate. It would be particularly disastrous in a city such as Dundee, where because of the lack of Executive funding for local government, the cash-strapped council would be extremely tempted to raise the level of the business rate in the city to make good the shortfall in funding. Of course, that would drive small businesses beyond the city boundaries. There was unanimous support for the retention of a uniform business rate scheme, albeit with the introduction of a system of relief for small businesses.

Small businesses pay a disproportionate level of rates in relation to their profit and turnover—they pay 10 times as much as larger firms. Business rates are a tax burden on the occupancy of property and have nothing to do with the income that is generated by the business. The burden is made worse by the fact that revaluation sometimes results in rates increasing above the rate of inflation. We need to lessen that burden to enable our small business community to thrive. Too few Scottish businesses start up and too few survive. The current annual rate of business start-up is below that of 1995, so there is no room for complacency and it is crucial that we remove some of the barriers.

For a long time, the SNP has proposed a banded system for business rates. I am happy that the Local Government Committee has undertaken a review of business rates and come out in favour of a tapered small business rate relief scheme. I look forward to seeing the detail when the scheme is presented to Parliament.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Will Shona Robison comment on the implications of introducing a tapered or a threshold scheme? Will she acknowledge the difficulties that the Scottish Executive may have with such schemes? I think the Local Government Committee accepted everything Shona Robison has said, but the issue is the implications of implementing any scheme.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The details of any scheme will have to be debated. It is of note that two of the key proposals were self-funding schemes, so schemes would not necessarily have to be a burden on the Parliament. This debate is about the principle. It is also about hearing what the Scottish Executive thinks about proposals and what its priorities are. It is about which scheme the Executive favours, rather than my personal preference.

As well as addressing business rates, we need a package of measures for small businesses. Access to finance remains a problem.

It is frustrating that the Parliament cannot tackle all the underlying problems that affect small businesses—they, unfortunately, remain the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament—such as high interest rates, the strength of sterling and the hikes in fuel tax. All those issues were raised at the meeting that I attended in Dundee. That is why we argue that this Parliament requires more powers, genuinely to tackle the problems faced by the small business community.

We can tackle the unfair burden of business rates on small businesses. I hope that, after 11 months of dilly-dallying, we will hear some answers this morning.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am grateful to Kenny Gibson for giving us an SNP policy to discuss. All too often, we have had to confront a degree of vagueness or the orientation towards independence. We actually have something quite concrete to talk about. However, I point out that the SNP's proposal is, yet again, not costed. There is no financial limit.

I ask Kenny how the SNP's commitment relates to the £90 million which, in its 1999 manifesto, the SNP said it would use to reduce the burden of business rates on small firms. How much of that £90 million is he talking about? Can he put a figure on it?

I also want to ask Kenny about the notion of a permanent relief scheme. The Executive is attempting to even out the rise in business rates and to reduce uncertainty. Proposing a move from that to a permanent rates relief scheme leads inevitably to a discussion about what should happen in 2005 when, presumably, some revaluation would be required. I would like to hear a response on that.

Kenny referred to the arguments that were advanced on behalf of the Federation of Small Businesses. The federation made a presentation to the Local Government Committee and subsequently presented a revised version. Which of those submissions is Kenny supporting? Does he support the idea that the burden of the relief scheme should come from the Scottish block? Does he support the idea that it should fall on larger businesses? Which version is Kenny Gibson proposing?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Des McNulty is wandering all over the place. He clearly did not listen to what the minister or I said. We made it fairly clear: that all the schemes we are considering would be self-financing.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

That is very interesting. Self-financing at whose expense? There is a burden of expectation with regard to the Federation of Small Businesses' review scheme that bigger businesses would have to pay more to compensate for the rates relief given to smaller business.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

indicated agreement.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Spot on.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Does the SNP support that idea? Does it instead support the argument that local government ratepayers should pay more?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Okay—that is clear.

How does that relate to the points that Mr Gibson made about small business growth strategy? Annabel Goldie referred to this: if there is a general relief for small businesses, how does that address the issue of small business growth? There are considerable arguments— [Interruption.] Sorry? I will give way to Andrew Wilson.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

This has been one of Des McNulty's more ignominious contributions. If businesses pay less in rates, they have more money to reinvest in their businesses and there will be more growth. It is basic stuff.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

That is not the view of the Confederation of British Industry, nor of many other people involved.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The views of the CBI were not accepted by the Local Government Committee and I am sure that Des McNulty's colleagues on that committee will support my comments on that subject. Does Des not accept what was even admitted by the CBI: that small businesses pay up to 10 times more than larger businesses as a proportion of their turnover? By relieving some of that burden on smaller businesses we will not only help them grow—and possibly recruit more staff—but, in some instances, help them survive.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I accept, as most people do, on the basis of available research, that small businesses pay a considerably higher proportion of their turnover in rates. That is an issue that is being looked at and I hope that ways to deal with it will be found. The real issue is whether bigger businesses should pay more in compensation—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

—and whether we need to look at discriminating between different kinds of businesses in the way we support growth. Or is the SNP arguing that there should be a general relief for small businesses? If so, what is the economic logic to that?

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I often feel that Des McNulty's sole purpose in life is to act as a warning to others.

I draw the chamber's attention to my interests as appear in the register. I want to talk about some of my experiences in business and, on the iniquitous burden of business rates, to highlight the folly for the Scottish economy of moving away from the UBR and to caution against any move to reintroduce local authority control of business rates.

The background to the issue is so well documented that it seems strange that that is not obvious to the Executive. The revaluation in 1995 produced the anomaly that England's property rates rose by 5 per cent while Scotland's rose by 32 per cent. A uniform business rate was set and Scotland paid. It is unfair that Scotland, having accepted the principle of the UBR at the previous revaluation and having paid more rates than would otherwise have been paid, should now find that UBR is abolished and pay a higher poundage than does the rest of the UK.

In 2000, Scotland's revaluation was to the tune of 13 per cent. As George Lyon said, in England it was 24 per cent. To maintain the tax rate, the UBR was set at 45.8p in Scotland as against 41.6p in England. A similar exercise on large industrial properties now means that Scottish businesses will pay 10 per cent more than they would if they were located in England. When such a levy is imposed, why should a business decide to locate in Stirling rather than Swindon or Clackmannanshire rather than Cheshire?

One of the challenges that the Parliament must face is to keep its attention focused not just on the disbursement of moneys—something that we seem to be good at—but on the source of that revenue. Non-domestic rates in Scotland raise a staggering £1.8 billion—almost 29 per cent of the spending on education in Scotland. Last year, the company of which I was a director paid £650,000 in rates. Our profit was half that sum. Our rateable value was around £130,000 on each of 10 properties, so with a work force of 470 people that amounted to a head tax of £1,382 per person.

A manufacturing plant I visited recently in Mid Scotland and Fife pays £1,500,000 in business rates. It employs 1,400 people, so that is a payroll tax in all but name of £1,071 per person. A further irritating point for that business is that when it has appealed the valuation it has usually taken five years. It usually wins the appeal but it has had to pay that high level of rates for the five years. On the basis of 2 million workers in Scotland, that hidden, business rate tax amounts to an average of £960 per worker.

The Conservative philosophy is simple and uncomplicated—like most of our policies. If it is the genuine desire of the Executive to produce the investment to allow companies to expand and take on more staff, the burden of cost must be reduced; costs of compliance, costs of regulation and hidden business taxes must be slashed. Douglas Miller of Glasgow chamber of commerce said:

"The present arrangement on forcing companies to consider investing South of the Border and further burdens will only serve to precipitate this. Confidence in Scottish Business will only return when some kind of parity is reached with the rest of the UK."

The third area I want to touch on is the proposal to return to a system of local authority control. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is proposing a supplementary rate on business. Will the Deputy Minister for Finance and Local Government give a categorical assurance that that will not be an added burden on business in Scotland?

In Scotland, we have a tendency to think small. We have heard this morning about the schemes offered by the FSB, the FPB and the CBI. I do not have time to go into them, but those schemes only scratch the surface of the problem. It is a long-held principle that there should be no taxation without representation. The general principle that my party holds dear is that the economy would grow faster if savings were made to allow all burdens on business to be reduced, not if we forced large enterprises to subsidise and finance cuts for smaller businesses.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate and would like to speak on a specific issue on which I corresponded with Jack McConnell when he was Minister for Finance—automated teller machines.

It is unacceptable that many rural and poorer areas in my constituency and throughout Scotland are disadvantaged compared with the more affluent areas of the country. How are they disadvantaged? Either because banks and building societies have closed their branches or because they have never had the luxury of having banking facilities close at hand. With modern technology, we can provide a limited range of banking services and, through the new ATMs, we can provide business to commerce e-commerce to every community. ATMs offer cash withdrawal, account checking and other limited facilities 24 hours a day, but internet ordering through ATMs, and e-points in post offices and in small shops and garages in deprived areas provide the security of a personal interaction with a shopkeeper and cash exchange for communities without banking or readily available credit facilities.

ATMs in banks and building societies are rated as part of the building, but ATMs in other locations—of the sort that I have described—are rated separately, as separate lands and heritage. The locations are then banded into categories of net annual value, based on the number of transactions each year. That is not a socially inclusive policy. A site with 25,000 transactions is categorised as a poor location and is rated with a net annual value of £2,500; a site with fewer transactions is categorised as a very poor location, but is still rated with a value of £1,500. Small supermarkets that are located in what are termed secondary and tertiary sites—such as those operated by Sands, a business in my community—are faced with bills that, in some communities, make the use of ATMs uneconomic, even when they can be used for e-commerce.

The scale of the challenge grows as the number of transactions increases—such sites may be rated with net annual values of up to £25,000.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I appreciate that Dr Simpson has a constituency interest, but surely this Parliament has the responsibility of addressing the core of today's motion on business rates. We should not use our time on an issue that could be pursued elsewhere.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I want to be helpful to you, Dr Simpson, and I am being patient, but I have to tell you that you are on the margin.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Those small businesses have a rateable value that is already high. An additional burden in small and rural communities creates a major problem. Not only is that not socially inclusive, the rating system will affect the extension into e-commerce, which is vital. In the development of socially inclusive policies in rural areas and deprived communities, it is important that the rating policy be reviewed. I hope that the Executive will consider that.

In my constituency, iATM of San Francisco has just announced that its world headquarters for the design of software for ATMs and their extension into e-commerce will be in Alloa. Those jobs will be put in jeopardy by the present system. I hope that the Minister for Finance and Local Government and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will consider that.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

This is a key debate in terms of kick-starting the engines of growth in our economy. The new Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning has not troubled herself to be here, but yesterday, in her first statement as the new minister, she lauded Scotland's two quarters of recession followed by a limping 0.5 per cent growth in gross domestic product during the past quarter. She said that that was another indication that the Scottish economy is performing robustly.

If recession followed by meagre improvement—barely one fifth of the long-term trend rate—is a robust performance, I would hate to see what the Executive would regard as relative decline. Relative decline is what the Executive is presiding over. Labour may be happy to preside over decline by dismissing it and making Orwellian statements to the contrary, but the fact is that Scotland has a continuing problem with economic growth, driven by the fact that our small business sector is at a serious disadvantage.

Today's debate is about not just the plumbers, electricians and village businesses, but the new businesses struggling to establish themselves through new ideas and innovations. It is about the unfair burden being targeted on small businesses—the engines of growth in the economy—by the state. In Scotland, across the political divide, we have long been exercised about the problems of business start-up and growth. A major reason has to be the state burden that is imposed disproportionately on small businesses as they start up.

We feel for Angus MacKay in that he has inherited a situation from a man whom he was not keen to promote previously. As a result of Labour's position, Scottish business has the highest tax in the United Kingdom, which puts it at a massive competitive disadvantage. George Lyon made the point that it is not the growth rates that matter, but how much tax businesses pay. I can tell him that the average business rate that is paid in Scotland is £1,000 more than the average business rate that is paid in the rest of the UK. That puts Scottish businesses at a competitive disadvantage, which has been imposed on them by the Labour party.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I welcome Mr Wilson's comments, which strike at the heart of a difficult problem for business. However, is not his argument a reason for supporting an urgent return to the uniform business rate, followed by a genuine attempt to lower the prevailing level?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The SNP is suggesting that, within the constraints of the Parliament, we should take the opportunity to re-band business rates and to remove the burden from small companies. We made a commitment in our manifesto on how we could take that further. However, today, we are seeking to be helpful within the financial constraints of the Government to take the matter forward. I was reading the 1999 Labour manifesto—as I do of a night. It said:

"Scottish business must not be asked to shoulder a rates burden that affects its ability to compete against firms in other parts of the country."

Why, then, is the rates burden in Scotland on average £1,000 higher than it is in the rest of the UK? That damages the ability of small business to compete with firms in the rest of the country. It is another example of a Labour let down—to go along with the many ways Labour has let down the electorate and businesses of Scotland.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

rose—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If Des McNulty can say anything coherent, I would be delighted to hear it.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I would be interested to know whether Andrew Wilson can explain how shifting the burden of rates from smaller to larger businesses generates growth. What evidence does he have to support that view? How does that promote business start-ups?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

If we shift the burden we get rid of the disproportionate burden, taking into account the turnover and profitability of small firms. That helps start-ups to survive because, as such businesses would pay lower rates, the cost of starting up would be lower. It is not rocket science; it is relatively simple.

The Liberals can be exonerated, because at least they were honest enough to include in their 1997 manifesto the promise to abolish the UBR, thus damaging the businesses of the north-east, Fife, the Borders and elsewhere in Scotland. At least the Liberals were honest enough to predict the disaster that they were going to support.

The Conservative amendment is a predictable disappointment. The party that once held the majority in Scotland does not seem to know where it stands anymore. At one time, it would have spoken up for the self-employed and the new entrepreneurs. Now, however, the Conservatives are the prisoners of the old economy lobby. That is a shame. What would the grocers of Grantham think—and what will the voters of Eastwood and Ayr think?

As for the self-congratulatory Labour amendment, it shows that Mr MacKay should think carefully as he gets his feet under the desk. In it he admits the turbulence caused by the policy and lauds a 1p cut, which is welcomed by small businesses, but which on average is worth only 96p a week. That is not going to set the heather on fire. However, Labour seems to be taking the line that that is satisfactory.

I urge members to support the motion, which is reasonable and considered, within the constraints that are placed upon the Parliament. Kenneth Gibson and Fergus Ewing have brought back a good idea from the business lobbies—we can start to remove the unfair burden on small business and lift the sights of the Scottish economy.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I am pleased to speak in the debate, because the Local Government Committee has discussed and debated business rates at great length, having been afforded the opportunity to listen to and learn from various sections of the business community. There are more than 138,000 small businesses in Scotland and they represent nearly three quarters of all businesses in Scotland. In attempting to ensure that extensive consultation takes place and to ensure maximum effectiveness, our first principle must be to get the scheme right, rather than to introduce it quickly. Therefore, I am pleased that the Executive is attempting to obtain appropriate and independent evidence before jumping feet first into such an important and consequential decision and that, in the meantime, it has set out guidelines to provide stability and predictability for businesses in the future.

The SNP outlined its key policies in its manifesto, which included

"a package of measures to promote small businesses"

and an input of £90 million to address the burden of business rates on small firms. As with everything else that it proposes, the SNP fails however, to tell us exactly how the money will manifest itself. In the arguments that SNP members are putting forward this morning, they appear to contradict themselves by agreeing with the business community that any changes must be self-financing. Evidently, the SNP's economic policies have not improved under a new leader, or possibly the back of Andrew Wilson's envelope has finally been filled up.

During its consideration of the issue, the Local Government Committee received representations, as Kenny Gibson said, from a wide range of bodies. None had a solution, but all offered suggestions that are worthy of consideration. Kenny Gibson is correct in his assertion that the Local Government Committee was unanimous in its view that, although a transitional relief scheme was introduced to phase in increases in rates bills that arose from the revaluation, small businesses face a disproportionate rates burden. The committee also felt that a small business rates relief scheme that is more generous than the current system's 1p poundage reduction should be made with effect from 1 April 2001. There is no disagreement on that. However, the committee also said that we must assess the issue in the light of a number of other considerations.

There have been suggestions about the methodology that should be used to identify genuinely small business, which would permit them to qualify for rates relief.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I understand what Michael McMahon says, but why did the Executive say that it would come back to Parliament within 12 months, if it has no intention of doing so? Is not it about time that the Executive came back to Parliament with a proper scheme?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

I am going to ask a similar question, so we are not in disagreement.

One method, which was proposed by the Forum of Private Business in Scotland, would make use of national insurance contributions and would take into consideration the size of the business rather than the size of the property. Another method would relate to business turnover, rather than to property tax, as occurs in the current system. It has also been suggested that the relief proposals would interact with other relief schemes, such as the relief scheme for village shops.

After careful deliberation, the Local Government Committee came to a number of conclusions. First, it is essential that the relief scheme should avoid small changes in rateable values that produce large increases in rates bills. Also, an objective should be to reduce the incentive for businesses to appeal against their rateable value simply because they hope to obtain benefits from the relief scheme, while encouraging them to grow without the risk of step increases in their bills. That points to the need for a tapered multi-banded scheme. The scheme should also be self-financing, possibly through an increase in the Scottish poundage system, so that only genuinely small businesses would benefit from the scheme. Those points should be considered while considering regional variations.

The committee recommended that the issue of a relief scheme be kept under review. I say to Kenny Gibson that that is the point that I was trying to make. The Local Government Committee would welcome further suggestions on the Executive's thinking on the matter. The Executive should liaise with the groups that I mentioned and it should contemplate statistical evidence from local government assessors, the Scottish Assessors Association and the Local Government Committee so that an informed and effective judgment can be made. That is what the small business community seeks—it is in all our interests that it should get it. I do not believe that the positions of the Local Government Committee and Angus MacKay's amendment are incompatible. I will have no difficulty in supporting the Executive.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As I said in the first debate this morning, it is constructive that the SNP has lodged a motion that tackles a serious issue. I am pleased that Michael McMahon has had the opportunity to set out the Local Government Committee's position. That committee has paid great attention to the issue.

I will start at the top and work down. It is essential that the Executive scrutinises local government funding properly. The Local Government Committee was discouraged because Jack McConnell set his face against that, but was encouraged when Angus MacKay appeared before it, because he seemed to hold the door open a wee bit. When the committee has finished its inquiry and the changes have bedded down, a proper inquiry could be conducted. Many vital issues are involved, so it is important for the Executive to undertake a properly funded examination.

The Local Government Committee is studying local government finance as well as it can. The role that local businesses play in local government finance is important. As Michael McMahon said, an early change on rates, if possible, is important. We need not wait for more elaborate examinations to be conducted before we help small businesses. The two organisations that represent most small businesses have strong ideas on the issue. One has produced a revised idea for a tapered scheme that would be based purely on rateable values. The other is keen that another measure is used, such as national insurance contributions or another way of measuring the size of the business rather than the size of the building it occupies. Both those schemes can be scrutinised carefully and a good scheme can be proposed.

I cannot understand Des McNulty and Annabel Goldie—they do not seem to comprehend that if small businesses pay less in rates, more small businesses will start up. They might, in due course, grow into bigger businesses. That is elementary and I do not know how anyone can take a different view.

The Confederation of British Industry gave a remarkably unimpressive performance before the Local Government Committee. [MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It did not seem to care a toss about small businesses and was clearly speaking for bigger businesses. If we had a personal taxation system in which poorer people paid a higher percentage of their income in tax than richer people did, there would be an outcry, but that is precisely what happens with businesses. We are not asking big business to subsidise small business, but at the moment, small business subsidises big business. That is totally unjust and damned stupid if we want the economy to develop.

The Local Government Committee and—I think—the Liberal Democrats think that there should be a self-funding scheme. That would mean that bigger businesses pay a wee bit more. There might have to be some arrangement for what we might call the middle-sized businesses—that sort of thing can be worked out. There would be a small percentage increase for big businesses.

There is an issue about urban and rural shops and other small businesses, which we must tackle. On the bus on the way here, I passed about five shops in one block on a main road that were either for sale or for rent because they had not been doing well. The motion is welcome and I urge the Executive to grasp the issue along the lines that have been suggested by the Local Government Committee.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As a member of the Local Government Committee, which devoted considerable time and effort to discussing non-domestic rates, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

The committee's report was finalised some months ago. As far as I am aware, today's Executive amendment is the first indication that it is considering the case for small business rates relief—better late than never.

From the considerable evidence that was taken by the Local Government Committee, it was concluded that it appeared that small businesses faced a "disproportionate rates burden". The committee's report said that

"if at all possible, a rates relief scheme should apply only to genuinely small businesses, and not to medium or large businesses occupying small premises."

The committee also recognised that

"any scheme which simply used a RV threshold as the basis for eligibility would not differentiate between those categories of businesses."

We believe that that is a fundamental flaw in the present 1p poundage reduction. Despite that flaw, however, the reduction is welcomed by some businesses.

One of the main difficulties in introducing a small business rate relief scheme is in determining what constitutes a small business. On the one hand, one could have a highly profitable business that operates from one room—particularly given the rapid rise of information technology—yet, on the other hand, one could have a business that operates out of large premises, but which struggles to survive.

Alternative suggestions to the use of rateable values were made to the committee, including, as Michael McMahon said, collections that are based on national insurance contributions, business turnover and profitability. However, according to the evidence that was taken by the committee, those schemes all have flaws.

The Local Government Committee requested that the then Minister for Finance respond to its submission and to report in the autumn on the development of the Executive's thinking on this issue. Autumn is here, but if Kenny Gibson had not initiated this debate, I suspect that we would have been none the wiser. Incidentally, Conservative members welcome the SNP's support for our motion to introduce UBR throughout the United Kingdom.

We were told last October that Scottish Executive officials were considering the proposals from the Forum of Private Business—more than 12 months ago. When will we hear about the outcome of those discussions and deliberations?

The one issue that appears to unite small businesses throughout Scotland is business rates. It has been calculated that some small businesses pay 10 times more—in terms of profit and turnover—in business rates than larger businesses. I say to Donald Gorrie that that anomaly must be addressed in the interests of promoting employment and entrepreneurs.

There must not be a quick fix—certainly not by next April. There is no easy answer. The issue is complex and I urge the Scottish Executive to commission research on how a fair and equitable system can be devised and delivered.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr Harding give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No—I am sorry, but I have no time.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Go on.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No—we have already heard one of Mr Gibson's lectures.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Time is short, Mr Gibson.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We welcome the assurances that were given by the minister that he is considering further initiatives to assist small businesses.

The weakness of any property-based tax system is that it does not take into account ability to pay. The argument over why small businesses pay a greater percentage of their total income than larger businesses do must be addressed. That said, we would not wish for the introduction of a scheme that would increase the burden on any other sector of the business community. Labour's removal earlier this year of UBR makes Scotland a less attractive location in the UK for larger businesses.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

rose—

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That situation would be exacerbated by further increases.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr Harding take an intervention on that point?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Deputy Presiding Officer suggested that I should not take an intervention.

The first and overriding priority must be to restore UBR. We could then consider a possible review and overhaul of the current system.

In conclusion, and in supporting the Conservative amendment, I urge the minister to address the matter as a priority and to advise Parliament and its committees of his thinking. When he does so, the Local Government Committee will be able to conclude its findings and assess how his proposals measure up to the principles that were outlined in the report that was submitted in February 2000.

I support Miss Goldie's amendment.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Like Angus MacKay, I welcome the fact that we have had this early opportunity to display the full depth of our understanding of business rates—I would welcome answers to that particular point on the back of a postage stamp.

On a technical point, I refer members to my declarations in the register of members' interests in case any of those interests impact on matters on which I will touch in my speech.

A range of interesting points have been made and I will try to pick up as many as I can in my response on behalf of the Executive.

I repeat the point that was made by Angus MacKay: the Executive has a clear understanding of the importance of the small business sector to the Scottish economy. We want to listen to and to work with representatives of small businesses throughout Scotland and to weave into the Executive's programme for government the needs of small businesses, however those needs might manifest themselves across our range of interests. We want to support businesses wherever we can, through rating policy—where possible—and through Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. Alasdair Morrison is attending the debate in order to pick up issues that arise in relation to the wider portfolio for which he now has responsibility. Equally, we must try to support small businesses at UK level through UK taxation policy and the benefits that can be brought to taxation from the booming UK economy.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I want to make some progress before I take any interventions.

We must help small businesses to expand and we must help to establish new small businesses so that they can continue to provide a rich seam of employment throughout Scotland. As many members have said, small businesses are fundamental to how the Scottish economy works and progresses. As someone who has run a small business for years, I understand the significance of fixed business costs and overheads to the success of any small business.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

From his experience, will the minister acknowledge that the cost to Scottish small businesses of paying a rates bill is, on average, £1,000 more than their competitors' bills south of the border?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will pick up those points later in my speech.

Another factor for small business is that we must ensure not only that we influence rating and taxation policy to an appropriate extent, but that the Government co-ordinates its actions across a range of different matters such as enterprise, education and health service issues. Government must deal with all those factors because they impact on the potential success of small businesses. Such co-ordination will be very important.

Kenny Gibson rightly pointed to the high percentage of turnover in the small business sector compared to other business sectors in Scotland. We recognise that, which is why—as Angus MacKay indicated—we will review the prospects for extending relief schemes to small businesses.

Kenny Gibson also said that we in Scotland should not pay more headline rate poundage—another example of how the London-led SNP is forming its policies. It is also another example of how some people in the SNP have tried to mislead people in Scotland about what has happened following the recent revaluation, as Fergus Ewing will, no doubt, do in his speech. The valuation principles in Scotland and England are actually exactly the same—the revaluation has made no difference to that position. Although valuations of properties in Scotland have risen, they have not done so as quickly as they have in England and Wales. In Scotland, they have risen by an average of 12 per cent, but south of the border, they have risen by 24 per cent. That is why the headline poundage figure in Scotland is different from the English figure. However, when the two factors are multiplied together, we get the same yield. The purpose of the revaluation is to get exactly the same yield after revaluation as before it. Although the values will change within business sectors, the fundamental equation does not change. Fergus Ewing understands that, but has failed to tell members so.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

If the minister is right, why do the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Scottish Financial Enterprise, the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses all agree with me, but not with him?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Minister, you have about a minute left.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I would be astonished if all those organisations agreed with Fergus Ewing. He is portrayed as the leading expert on small business matters in the Ewing family, but that is the extent of his expertise. Indeed, the SNP itself is a small business that has experience of these matters—I hope that it will be a much smaller business in a few years' time. No one would follow the SNP's advice on running small businesses if they examined how the party runs its own business.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I understand the essence of the minister's argument. However, if he accepts that the valuation of property throughout the UK will by implication be a variable factor, is not it absolutely desirable to have the rate poundage as the constant factor?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No. It has been interesting to hear that argument from certain members. I understand why the Conservatives make it—they believe in a united kingdom. However, I do not understand why the same argument should be made by the SNP, which does not—allegedly—hold that view. The inevitable consequence—

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Gibson should wait a minute.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Minister, you have a minute and a half left.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will try to sum up quickly.

To be tied to a UK-led system would mean one of two things The inevitable consequence of having a UBR throughout the United Kingdom is that Parliament and the Executive would lose their discretion over non-domestic rates. So, either we value equally across the whole UK and, by doing so, lose our discretion—I do not know why the SNP would want to do that—or we constantly tie the Scottish budget into subsidising the business rate in Scotland on the basis of economic activity in England and Wales. That cannot be a sensible argument for anybody who believes in devolved government in Scotland to make.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

rose—

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot give way—I am running out of time and I am testing the patience of the Presiding Officer.

I could go on. George Lyon and others made points about the need to take the issue seriously. I assure Parliament that we are doing that. We want stability in the small-business sector. As Angus MacKay said, we are prepared to consider all the different schemes that have been put to us. The problem is that they are different schemes; there is no common view on these matters. We will try to make progress soon and we will make announcements before Christmas on how we propose to take the discussion forward. In the meantime, I commend the Executive's amendment to Parliament.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I call Fergus Ewing to wind up on behalf of the SNP. You must finish by 12.44 at the latest.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

The first political speech that I made was in 1985, at an SNP conference in Dunoon. This might not come as a surprise, but it was on business rates. I would not say that it was a poor speech, but if anybody has it on video, I will pay handsomely to get it back.

Even if the delivery of the speech was not brilliant, the sentiment that I expressed in it was right. It was quite straightforward—that the SNP does not believe that Scotland and Scotland's businesses should be taxed more highly than businesses south of the border. It is not that we think that taxes should be identical in England and Scotland—

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

It is far too early, Bristow. I will see you in the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

The principle is very simple; we do not think that Scottish businesses should be penalised. I have campaigned with others on the matter since 1985, when I campaigned to end the disparity that existed under the Conservatives. Credit should go to Gil Paterson—now a member of the Scottish Parliament—who took legal action on the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, on the basis that Scotland was being discriminated against. The case did not succeed—the court found that Scotland was a region and not a nation and that it was therefore unable to take action to protect itself.

Credit should also go to business leaders such as Craig Campbell of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, Bill Anderson—who is now of the Forum of Private Business—and Bill Mann, a leading Glasgow businessman. They have campaigned over a long period to secure fairness.

What does a level playing field mean? With respect to Mr Peacock and Mr Lyon, they have failed to appreciate that a UBR has two components. The first is the rateable value and the second is the poundage. The victory of parity and fairness was secured by two battles. The first battle was won largely in 1990, when harmonisation of rateable values in respect of most properties was achieved. The second victory was in 1995, when the higher poundages that existed in Scotland were reduced and a common poundage was introduced throughout the UK. That was a hard-fought battle. We had 16 years of Tory rule with higher business rates—a fiscal apartheid that was directed against business in Scotland—before the victory was achieved. However, it was at least achieved.

The Tories had 18 years in power; the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament has had only 18 months, but in that time it has reimposed a higher business tax in Scotland. That higher business tax stands at 10.1 per cent—I want to put the position quite clearly to Mr Peacock so that he can understand it.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Not yet. If there is a shop in Inverness that has a rateable value of £20,000 and a shop in Colchester has the same rateable value—valued according to the same principles of valuation—the shop in Inverness will pay £840 more this year. I hope that Des McNulty will accept that computation. If not, he should tell me exactly which bit of it he does not understand.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Fergus Ewing is proposing, and the motion refers to, a self-financing scheme. Is it the case that under the scheme, medium-sized and larger businesses in Scotland would pay higher taxes?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Obviously Des McNulty has not been listening—I have not moved on to the separate question of a rates relief scheme for small business.

I would like to read briefly from a letter dated 22 December 1999 by Mr Mann to The Herald. He said that Labour and Jack McConnell tried to justify the

"higher poundage for Scotland on the grounds that Scottish rental values have increased by less than south of the Border over the past five years. In doing so he ignores the experience of the previous five years when values in England increased on average by only 5% whereas in Scotland they had increased by 33%. If there had not been a UBR for the UK this would have meant a materially lower rate poundage in Scotland than in England and Wales from April 1995 to date."

That is the end of the argument. As I mentioned, the business organisations in Scotland are united around the simple argument that Scottish businesses should not be discriminated against by any tax regime. That is a simple principle, which Labour has breached.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

rose—

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I would like to move on to the text of the motion.

The SNP has brought forward the proposal that there should be a rates relief scheme for small business. First, how do we measure small business? There are various criteria for measurement. One, as the Forum of Private Business has identified, is employment. The Federation of Small Businesses has referred to a rates relief scheme that relies on property. The SNP is minded to support the FSB scheme, but there are still unanswered questions of detail about it. For example, what would the cost of computer programmes be for the implementation of the FSB scheme? The FPB scheme is imaginative, but it would require measures to be taken by Westminster. If the Executive was minded towards implementing the FPB scheme—which is unlikely because of the small business consultative group—that would be a test of whether action between Westminster and Holyrood would work.

If the FSB scheme were to be implemented, I can announce to the chamber that a business that has a rateable value of £9,500 would save £1,600 a year on its rates bill. Is not that a prize that is worth achieving? Are we not right to bring forward a scheme that would grant small business the opportunity for growth and expansion, which the Executive—in terms of its target of creating 100,000 new businesses—is supposed to support?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Where would that money come from?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

The scheme would be self-financing. [Laughter.] It would be self-financing. That was the recommendation of the Local Government Committee. If Andy Kerr has not read its report, he should do so.

I point out that that the Conservatives—Mr Harding is not in the chamber, but he is a member of the Local Government Committee—did not demur from the conclusions of the report. Why have the Conservatives withdrawn their support today? They have not said why and I am disappointed, as we usually hear from Annabel Goldie, nor have they denied that discrimination exists as an inherent characteristic of computing rateable values in accordance with the rules of assessment. However, we know that when the Tories were in power for 18 years they pursued anti-Scottish policies for 16 of those years. The Labour party has been in power in this Parliament for 18 months and in those months it has pursued anti-Scottish policies.

I am delighted that the Labour party—bereft of ideas of its own—has stolen our policy on drugs courts. I am delighted that, bereft of ideas, it has copied our policy of having an external affairs minister. I urge it to copy our policy on business rates relief. I have no objection to the Executive being the political plagiarist of Scotland.

Business Motion

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-1304, in the name of Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out the business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) The following programme of business--

Wednesday 8 November 2000

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Executive Debate on Equality Strategy followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1229 Mr Andrew Welsh: Nuclear Testing Related Illnesses Thursday 9 November 2000

9.30 am Ministerial Statement followed by Executive Debate on NHS Governance and Accountability followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on Sport followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1210 Donald Gorrie: Misuse of Alcohol Wednesday 15 November 2000

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Ministerial Statement followed by Executive Debate on Social Justice followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 16 November 2000

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and, (b) that Stage 1 of the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill be completed by 14 December 2000— [Mr McCabe.]

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As no member has asked to speak against the motion, I will put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion S1M-1304, in the name of Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — Scottish executive

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to reassess the current record of needs provisions for children. (S1O-2463)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The Scottish Executive, with advice from the National Special Educational Needs Advisory Forum, is currently reviewing all aspects of the record of needs process.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I hope that the deputy minister appreciates that there is great concern among parents about the record of needs. It is a protection for children and their parents. There appears to be a suggestion among certain local authorities that they move away from a record of needs and towards an individual learning programme. Will the minister comment on that?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

On 6 October, in response to reports that some local authorities were refusing to undertake assessments and were moving to other forms of assessment, the Executive wrote to the local authorities concerned to advise them that they should continue to apply record of needs legislation as it stands.

Lloyd Quinan will be aware that many parents think that the system has become too bureaucratic. It is difficult for parents to understand and there is not, in all circumstances, a right of appeal. The situation needs to be updated and it seems inconceivable that the record of needs process will remain in its present form. In the meantime, the current system should operate and we have taken steps to require local authorities to proceed on that basis.

David (None, Lothians)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what provision it has made to fund mental health strategies in 2000-01. (S1O-2462)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The Scottish Executive has increased general spending in both the national health service and local authorities. The "Framework For Mental Health Services in Scotland" sets out an agreed policy framework. It is for local health boards and local authorities to decide how best to fund and deliver services locally.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister will be aware of my concerns about the implementation of the agenda of the "Framework For Mental Health Services in Scotland" in the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board area, where year 2 funding of the programme has been postponed.

Will the minister inform the chamber of the action that she will take to rectify the situation as described in a report of the Executive's mental health and well-being support group on its visit to Ayrshire? The report brought into question the commitment of senior officers of the board to the effective implementation of the strategy. It also highlighted the absence of any information management system, which will severely hamper any understanding of what it is that the services are doing and what they intend to do. And finally—

David (None, Lothians)

Order. The standing orders say that questions must be brief.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is important to put the question in context.

David (None, Lothians)

I am sorry, but the standing orders are clear: questions must be brief. Please sit down.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

It is precisely because I want the "Framework For Mental Health Services in Scotland" to be implemented across Scotland, not only by Ayrshire and Arran Health Board, that I established the mental health and well-being support group, which is visiting every part of the country to meet health boards, local authorities and other agencies to see how effectively the strategy is being implemented.

Scotland has a good policy framework for mental health. We know that we have much to do in many parts of the country to ensure that it is implemented effectively. The exercise that Adam Ingram described is an integral part of ensuring that change happens.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

The minister will be aware that one of the key at-risk groups in terms of mental health is that of young women suffering from depression. Some such people in my constituency are as young as 12 or 13 years old. Can the minister give an assurance that mental health strategies and funding will adopt an holistic approach to the problem and will not be too reliant on prescription drugs and anti-depressants?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I share Irene Oldfather's concern to ensure that we take an holistic, person-centred approach to dealing with mental health and other health problems. We cannot see health as being about just the absence of disease. We must recognise that people's mental health is affected by a range of different factors that also affect their overall well-being. I want to ensure that, where appropriate, we offer people suffering from depression the best possible medical support through the national health service, but I agree that support for such people must be wider than that.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I want to ask about the mental well-being of students in particular. Recently, I attended a conference organised by SKILL Scotland. I acknowledge that the current First Minister granted that organisation £115,000 last year—a result of my successful begging letter. Will the minister pay attention to the high suicide rate among young students, which may be linked to the crushing poverty in which they live?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The Executive has explicitly recognised the rise in suicide rates among particular groups—not least young men—that has occurred in Scotland but mirrors patterns elsewhere in the UK and abroad. Some of our investment through the £26 million health improvement fund is targeted at action in that area. It is a complex and sensitive area, and we should not rush to conclusions on the causes. We are certainly determined to continue to work to improve the situation.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer by Mr Jack McConnell to question S1W-6297 on 4 October 2000, when it expects the review of the formula that determines the level of grant-aided expenditure distributed to individual police forces to be concluded. (S1O-2454)

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The review is making good progress and is expected to be concluded next year.