Chamber and committees

The information requested is not routinely gathered or held centrally by the Scottish Government. Any outstanding liabilities to settle equal pay claims will be reflected in a public body's annual accounts. Information of this nature can be obtained by approaching individual public bodies.

The next steps in the process for the Grangemouth Flood Protection Scheme are to be undertaken by the local authority.

Should Falkirk Council confirm the scheme in its current form and wish to access further Scottish Government funding, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the scheme, in whole or phased elements, is value for money, and assessed against other flood protection schemes across Scotland.

The Grangemouth Flood Protection Scheme (GFPS) as proposed by the council, is exceptional in terms of scale and financial cost and requires careful consideration to ensure that it delivers for the local community.

The Scottish Government must weigh up any investment decision both in terms of the impact to the individual project, but also to the impact any individual project has on its ability to invest in other areas. As such, in 2023, Ministers and Falkirk Council agreed that the Grangemouth Flood Protection Scheme would be removed from consideration as part of the existing national funding agreement with local authorities for flood protection schemes because its size had a distorting effect on the affordability of the overall programme.

A Task Force approach has instead been used to examine how to take forward improved and affordable flood resilience for Falkirk and Grangemouth residents and local communities.

The development and delivery of flood protection schemes is a local authority responsibility. As such, the business case for Grangemouth Flood Protection Scheme (GFPS) was prepared by Falkirk Council. This included an economic assessment of the costs and benefits of their proposed scheme.

SEPA carried out a prioritisation process for all the flood protection schemes put forward in the 2015 Flood Risk Management Plans. This prioritisation was largely based on the cost benefit ratios supplied by the relevant local authorities.

The Scottish Government has made clear that it accepts the judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 establishes an important separation of roles between the Scottish Funding Council and Scottish Government, whereby the statutory responsibility for decisions on funding to individual institutions sits with the SFC - not with government. However the Scottish Government continues to engage with the SFC and sector bodies on matters concerning funding allocations, including the SFC’s teaching grant.

Following discussions between the Scottish Government, SFC and Universities Scotland, the SFC’s indicative allocations for 2025-26 met an ask from Universities Scotland to remove 2,500 additional ‘SQA’ places introduced in academic year 2021-22 and repurpose the associated funding to enhance the teaching unit of resource – teaching subject prices for 2025-26 have therefore increased by 3.3% across all six subject price groups.

The Scottish Government is open to exploring the future funding model of our universities with the sector, from the clear starting point that we will not reintroduce tuition fees. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and I will continue to engage with Universities Scotland on the sector's future funding, and we welcome contributions from all stakeholders.

The Scottish Funding Council (SFC) has a statutory duty set out in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 to secure the coherent provision by the post-16 education bodies (as a whole) of a high quality of fundable further education and fundable higher education. As autonomous institutions, universities have the key role in mitigating financial pressures and external risks.

Universities are autonomous institutions with responsibility for their own academic misconduct policies, including in relation to students’ use of generative Artificial Intelligence tools.

The Scottish Government has engaged with key sector stakeholders, including the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) and Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), on the ways in which these bodies are supporting universities with use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and adaptations to academic integrity policies.

The SFC, as the body with statutory responsibility for quality assurance of provision by colleges and universities, has worked alongside the QAA to develop guidance and share best practice across the sector to address the risks and opportunities presented by generative AI tools, and their potential impact on assessments, academic integrity and standards.

Universities are autonomous institutions with responsibility for their own academic misconduct policies. The Scottish Funding Council (SFC) has statutory responsibility for quality assurance of provision by colleges and universities. With the support of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the SFC is continuing to work with universities to address the risks and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence, and its potential impact on assessments, academic integrity and standards.

This includes funding provided by the SFC to JISC, who offer specialist and expert advice and guidance to institutions on accessing useful and effective tools to detect and address AI-assisted plagiarism and misconduct.

I have asked Teresa Medhurst, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), to respond. Her response is as follows:

Each establishment has a stock of clothing for all individuals in our care. This is included within the annual clothing budget and is not considered as extra expenditure.

The total spent by SPS from 2021-22 to 2024-25 on wigs and other gender-affirming items was £168.60.