Chamber and committees

Questions and answers

Parliamentary questions can be asked by any MSP to the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The questions provide a means for MSPs to get factual and statistical information.

Written questions must be answered within 10 working days (20 working days during recess)
Other questions such as Topical, Portfolio, General and First Minister's Question Times are taken in the Chamber

Urgent Questions aren't included in the Question and Answers search. There is a SPICe fact sheet listing Urgent and emergency questions.

Find out more about parliamentary questions

Filter your results Hide all filters

Displaying 2411 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S2W-10051

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Wednesday, 18 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Ross Finnie on 19 August 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will report on the outcome of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council held in Brussels on Monday 19 July 2004.

Margaret Beckett representedthe United Kingdom at a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Councilin Brussels on 19 July 2004.

The new Dutch Presidency presentedits work programme for the next six months and identified as its key themes, sustainableagriculture and its public responsibilities, and initiatives to reduce the administrativeburden on the industry.

On agriculture. The Presidency and Commission presented plans for greaterMember State co-operation on agricultural research in order to maximisevalue for the money spent, an initiative which the UK Government strongly supports.

The Commission reported on negotiationswith Russia to renew certification arrangements covering animal andanimal product imports from the EU. The negotiations are currently deadlocked andthe Presidency indicated that it was planning an intervention at the political levelin attempt to unblock them.

Member states were asked whethertheir views had changed with regard to a Commission proposal to authorise the marketingof a variety of GM maize which had failed to get qualified majority support in theStanding Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. The UK had supportedthis approval on the basis of the safety assessments carried out and our positionremained unchanged. Member states failed to give the proposal majority support but,under the rules of procedure for such approvals, the Commission now has the authorityto make a final decision.

The Council held a public debateon the Commission’s new proposals for changes to the Rural Development Regulation.The UK stressed the need for more flexibility and better value; a greater transferof resources from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy; more emphasison environmental schemes, and a fairer allocation of rural development resources.There will now be detailed negotiation at official level which will extend overa number of months.

The Council also debated a newCommission communication on its preferred option for reform of the CAP sugar regime.The proposal calls for significant cuts in EU price support with a further reviewof the regime in 2008. The UK gave a general welcome to the proposals as a step inthe right direction, while urging a swifter end to quotas and emphasising the needto address urgently the impacts on those developing countries which currently enjoypreferential access to the EU market. Again, the proposal will now be remitted fordetailed consideration at official level.

The Council was asked to voteon proposals to change the import tariffs for rice which the Commission has beennegotiating with India, Pakistan, Thailand and the United States. The Commission had failed to getagreement with the last two countries which felt that the proposals increased tariffsto a degree that breached WTO rules. While welcoming the agreement with India and Pakistan, theUKvoted against the proposal on the grounds that the Commission was seeking to implementthe changes on a basis which was contested by some of the parties and that theyshould instead continue negotiations. The Council, however, voted by qualified majorityto adopt the proposal although a number of those voting in favour urged the Commissionto continue negotiating with the United States and Thailand with a view to reachingan agreed conclusion.

The Presidency urged the Commissionto come forward soon with proposals to address the illegal timber trade. The UK endorsed thiscall.

In an informal exchange of viewsafter the Council had ended, the Commission updated ministers on the latest developmentsin the current round of WTO negotiations. The UK supported the Commission’s effortstowards securing a framework agreement at the WTO General Council on 27 and 28 July.

On fisheries the Commissionpresented its proposal for a European Fisheries Fund to replace the existing FinancialInstrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). The main focus will be to eliminate excessfishing capacity and use structural measures to reinforce stock recovery plans.

Question reference: S2W-09862

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Friday, 06 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Ross Finnie on 18 August 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive whether any payments remain outstanding for the disinfection of farms during the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001 and, if so, when these payments will be made.

Question reference: S2W-09757

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Monday, 19 July 2004
Current Status: Answered by Allan Wilson on 17 August 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive what conditions require to be met before a license to control sparrow-hawks under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981 can be granted.

The Scottish Executive may grant licences only for specified purposes, such as in the interests of public health and safety, where there is serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water interests or for the protection of flora and fauna. A licence can only be granted when the Executive is satisfied that the purpose of the licence falls under one of the derogations listed in Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, that there is no other satisfactory solution, and all other methods have been tried to resolve theapplicant’s problem prior to making a licence application.

The relevant legislation is Article 9 of the Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC), “the Birds Directive”, which is transposed into UK legislation by Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Question reference: S2W-09767

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Monday, 19 July 2004
Current Status: Answered by Tom McCabe on 12 August 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will publish its response to the consultation Modernising NHS Dental Services in Scotland.

Question reference: S2W-09646

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Wednesday, 07 July 2004
Current Status: Answered by Hugh Henry on 10 August 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive how many disclosure checks have been processed by Disclosure Scotland and what the average processing time has been in each week since 1 April 2004.

The information requested is set out in the following table. In all cases, the processing times quoted are average times and apply to applications which did not require the correction of errors in the application form, clearance of payment arrangements or enquiries to police forces for any relevant non‑conviction information.

Week Ending	Disclosures Processed	Processing Time (Calendar Days)
Standard/Enhanced	Basic	Standard/Enhanced	Basic
4 April 2004	6,131	7,668	16	12
11 April 2004	2,977	4,021	13	9
18 April 2004	4,887	7,824	13	10
25 April 2004	4,992	6,557	10	18
2 May 2004	3,809	9,603	16	16
9 May 2004	2,099	4,323	14	14
16 May 2004	4,378	7,745	12	12
23 May 2004	2,937	8,713	12	12
30 May 2004	2,580	6,035	17	17
6 June 2004	3,508	4,284	18	18
13 June 2004	5,811	2,714	20	20
20 June 2004	4,864	2,386	18	18
27 June 2004	4,804	4,051	13	13
4 July 2004	5,988	4,413	19.5	19.5
11 July 2004	4,488	4,934	17	17
18 July 2004	9,306	2,935	13	13
25 July 2004	10,134	6,145	11	11

Question reference: S2W-09647

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Wednesday, 07 July 2004
Current Status: Answered by Hugh Henry on 10 August 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-8969 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 June 2004, why Disclosure Scotland's helpline on 7 July 2004 provided, on answering incoming calls, a message stating that due to the increased volume of applications Disclosure Scotland would ask that if callers submitted their application less than two weeks ago for standard and enhanced disclosures or less than six weeks ago for basic disclosure they should call again.

The purpose of the helpline message was to inform callers and give them enough information about the status of their application to enable them to make a decision about whether or not they needed to speak to an operator. The periods quoted in the message related to the Service Level Agreement times which are 14 calendar days for enhanced and standard disclosures and six weeks for the basic disclosure applications.

Question reference: S2W-09253

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Tuesday, 22 June 2004
Current Status: Answered by Jim Wallace on 21 July 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive how many exchanges are unviable for ADSL broadband and how it will ensure that 100% of the population will be able to access broadband by 31 December 2005.

Question reference: S2W-09254

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Tuesday, 22 June 2004
Current Status: Answered by Nicol Stephen on 21 July 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive how it ensures that it obtains value for money in regard to the routine and structural maintenance of trunk roads.

All trunk roads in Scotland are inspected and surveyed on a regular basis, the specific timescales of which can vary subject to the strategic nature and classification of the route. Any defects that are identified are measured against pre-defined standards to assess the need and priority for carrying out repairs. A prioritised works programme is then developed, subject to the availability of funding.

All contracts to carry out work relating to the maintenance and management of the trunk road network are subject to competitive tendering procedures.

In respect of my answer to parliamentary questions S2W-8790 to S2W-8795 given on 21 June 2004, the majority of routine maintenance work carried out by the TROC’s is either cyclical or routine in nature. The cyclical work is undertaken as part of the TROC’s tendered lump sum payment and the reactive work is undertaken at tendered rates but not allocated to specific locations. Consequently, it is not appropriate to allocate this work to specific routes.

Structural maintenance work is allocated on a site specific basis and must comply with the value for money requirements detailed in Schedule 4 Part 3 of the Trunk Road Operating Company Contract. (Scottish Parliament Information Centre, Bib. number 16573) Details of the structural maintenance works carried out in each of the financial years since 1999-2000 on the A7, A701, and the A76 have been placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Bib. number 33295). Because of the way the data is held providing this information for part of a route would involve considerable cost.

Question reference: S2W-09252

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Tuesday, 22 June 2004
Current Status: Answered by Nicol Stephen on 20 July 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-8575 by Nicol Stephen on 21 June 2004, which harbour authority has responsibility for the River Nith.

Question reference: S2O-02877

Asked by: Elaine Murray, MSP for Dumfries, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Wednesday, 16 June 2004
Current Status: Answered by Allan Wilson on 24 June 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive how it will avoid the charge of “paying farmers not to break the law” as referred to in Scottish Environment Link's evidence in respect of cross-compliance rules in Common Agricultural Policy reform.