Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government provides grants to local authorities to fund capital investment as a General Capital Grant. Local authorities have the flexibility and freedom to determine how this grant is used to address local needs and priorities. The distribution of the General Capital Grant includes an element which reflects the need for local authorities to fund flood prevention and coast protection schemes. This distribution reflects the need to provide funding for a list of agreed schemes receiving an allocation based on 80% of the cost identified at the time the 2007 settlement was agreed. A further sum is allocated to all local authorities on the basis of known flooding risk.

COSLA has agreed the way the General Capital Grant is currently distributed. To ensure the needs of future flood prevention schemes are reflected in future distributions of the General Capital Grant a review of the flooding element will shortly be undertaken in partnership with COSLA.

Under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961, which was revoked on 24 December 2010 with the coming into force of Part 4 of the Flood Risk Management Act 2009, flood prevention schemes became eligible for flood prevention grant on confirmation by Ministers subject to meeting certain criteria. There are no equivalent provisions for flood protection schemes under the 2009 act.

Instead, the Scottish Government provides grant funding to local authorities through the provision of a General Capital Grant. Local authorities have the flexibility and freedom to determine how this grant is used to address local needs and priorities. The distribution of the General Capital Grant includes an element which reflects the need for local authorities to fund flood prevention and coast protection schemes.

COSLA has agreed the way the General Capital Grant is currently distributed. To ensure the needs of future flood prevention schemes are reflected in future distributions of the General Capital Grant a review of the flooding element will shortly be undertaken in partnership with COSLA.

The Cross-border Healthcare Directive codifies existing European case-law, established over the last 10 years or so, which has determined that EU citizens'' have the right to travel in the European Economic Area (EEA) to receive healthcare services that are the same as, or equivalent to, services provided by their home state healthcare system and to be reimbursed on their return.

The directive is not designed around particular health conditions. Therefore, any assistance that Scottish patients might derive from the directive will depend on their personal circumstances, the specific treatment or services they wish to access, and whether they meet the relevant criteria for reimbursement. This will be limited to the amount the healthcare would have cost the NHS had it been provided at home, or the actual cost if that is less.

Under the terms of the directive, before travelling in the EEA to obtain health services, Scots seeking treatment that includes hospital care; specialised care; or expensive diagnostic equipment will require a referral by their general practitioner (as the gate-keeper to secondary care) and prior authorisation from their NHS board. The decision on whether or not to grant prior authorisation will take into account prevailing factors including: medical need, whether the board provides the diagnosis and treatment and on what basis, and its availability.

The Scottish Government endorses, and adopts as policy, the World Health Organization''s guidance recommending exclusively breastfeeding for an infant''s first six months, and the introduction of solids, for all infants, at around six months.

This is not only Scottish Government and World Health Organization policy but the consensus of international clinical opinion. Therefore we have no plans to reappraise current guidance on infant feeding, however we will continue to monitor emerging evidence.

I have asked John Ewing, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service, to respond. His response is as follows:

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) announced in October 2008 that it planned to replace HMP Inverness with a new prison, HMP Highland. Work was taken forward in conjunction with Highland Council to identify potential sites for this development within or near to Inverness. This exercise identified a number of sites which merited consideration and further detailed work was then carried out to evaluate the suitability of these sites. From this work, SPS identified that the most suitable site for the development was a site owned by Highland and Islands Enterprise (HIE) which is located adjacent to the Inverness Retail Park. SPS met with HIE on 2 September 2010 to discuss the possible sale of the site land. HIE confirmed at this meeting that it would not be prepared to sell the land to SPS therefore SPS is currently considering its options for taking forward the proposed development.

The present needs-based distribution formula for local government funding is one which has been in place for many years. The formula was reviewed jointly, by the Scottish government and COSLA, in 2009, and it concluded that the existing indicators were reasonable and should be retained and updated for 2011-12.

The key changes which have led to the Moray Council''s reduction in share are as a result of the following reasons:

Population is the key driver and latest estimates show that the Moray Council''s population for young people aged five to 15 has fallen by 8.2% for 2011-12 compared with those used in the 2010-11 settlement. The Scottish average is a reduction of 4.6%.

The Moray Council''s share of the former ring-fenced grants has fallen to 0.98% for 2011-12 compared to 1.27% in 2010-11. This represents a drop of £2.8 million from 2010-11. Again, this is a result of updated needs-based indicators as agreed with COSLA.

The Moray Council will receive £11.735 million for Loan Charge Support in 2011-12 compared to £13.611 million 2010-11, a decrease of £1.876 million. This is equivalent to a 13.8% fall in funding compared to the Scottish average of 11.6%. These allocations are based on the council''s outstanding debt and latest interest charges.

In allocating the available capital grant the funding allocations for flood prevention schemes that were approved earlier were protected. That is why the Moray Council receives the lowest reduction in its overall capital support of -9.0%, compared to 2010-11, than other councils (Scottish average is -18.0%). It is also why in 2011-12 the Moray Council receives the highest per capita capital funding of any mainland authority and 111% above the Scottish average.

This question relates to operational matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Court Service (SCS) corporate body. The question has been passed to the Chief Executive of the SCS who will reply in writing.

Under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, it is incumbent on the medical practitioner primarily responsible for the medical treatment of an adult to complete a section 47 certificate once they have established that the adult is incapable in relation to a decision about the medical treatment in question. Part 5 of the act, and certification under section 47, should not be used as justification for the administration of unwanted, unnecessary or potentially harmful medication whether such medication is given covertly or otherwise. Subsection 47(7) of the act prohibits the use of force or detention, unless it is immediately necessary in the circumstances.

Covert medication is permissible in certain, but limited, circumstances: for example, if it is required to safeguard the health of an adult who is unable to consent to the treatment in question and where other alternatives have been explored and none are practicable. A revised code of practice on part 5 of the act was published by the Scottish Government in October 2010 and can be found on its website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/10/20153801/0. The Mental Welfare Commission has published guidance on this issue: Consent to Treatment and Covert Medication - a legal and practical guide are both available on the Mental Welfare Commission website at http://www.mwcscot.org.uk/mwc_home/home.asp.

Care home operators are responsible, as part of the package of care provided to residents, for medication supervision and support. It is the responsibility of each patient''s GP to ensure that medicines prescribed for each patient are appropriate. There is a provision for NHS boards to contract with community pharmacies to provide advisory services to residential homes. Each board negotiates local payments for these services.

A public consultation seeking views on the recommendations contained in the review group''s report was carried out by the Scottish Government over August/November 2009. A Scottish Government report on summary of responses was published in March 2010.

The formal Scottish Government response to the McManus Review Report was published on 1 October 2010. That response indicates how ministers would intend to take forward the issues relating to advance statements, advocacy, named persons, medical matters and tribunals (all of which were covered in the review group''s review of the legislation).

The full Response by the Scottish Government to each of the original recommendations by the review group may be found on the Scottish Government Mental Health Division law website pages:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/health/mental-health/mhlaw/mhareview.

As indicated in the response, primary legislation would be required to take forward some of the agreed recommendations, others will require secondary legislation, whilst certain other recommendations would be taken forward by means of policy initiatives (such as guidance). It is intended that any amendments to the 2003 act will be taken forward as part of a future legislative programme.