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 2757 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S2W-10018

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Friday, 13 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by George Reid on 10 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) when the report by Lord Fraser on the Holyrood parliament building project will be published; whether Lord Fraser is still adhering to his target of publishing the report “in late August or early September” and, if not, whether the SPCB will inquire as to the reasons for a delay in publication.

Question reference: S2W-10020

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Friday, 13 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by George Reid on 10 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what information it has on whether Lord Fraser has issued any “Salmon letters” and, if no such letters have been issued, what information it has on when he expects to issue

Question reference: S2W-09555

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Friday, 02 July 2004
Current Status: Answered by Patricia Ferguson on 10 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive, with reference to the email regarding Holyrood landscaping of 2 July 1999 (Holyrood Inquiry reference SE/9/011 under “Landscaping”), what the agreement made by the First Minister was; whether the agreement was that the landscaping would have a budget of #10 million; on what date the agreement was made, and who was notified of the agreement in the civil service and the Parliament.

The other papers submitted by the Scottish Executive to the Inquiry on this issue (for example SE/9/013 and SE/9/051) make it clear that the agreement referred to was that the Scottish Executive would meet the costs of roadworks and landscaping associated with the Holyrood building project. There is no indication from the papers the Scottish Executive has on this matter that a budget for the works formed part of that agreement.

Question reference: S2W-09971

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Allan Wilson on 9 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive what response it will make to the submission of July 2004 by NFU Scotland (NFUS) regarding the EU Water Framework Directive; in particular, whether it will endorse the position that water abstraction controls in agriculture should only exist where a threat to ecological quality arises from a significant affect on water quantity; whether it will exclude very small water users from registration and, if so, how it will define this category; whether it will adopt the NFUS suggestion that all producers farming 50 hectares or less of enclosed land should be excluded from registration unless requiring water for irrigation or unless situated in a sensitive area; whether it will endorse the proposal that the lower boundary of registration under general binding rules be raised, subject to these provisos regarding irrigation and location, with a minimum threshold of 30 cubic metres per day consumption, and whether it will endorse the NFUS proposal that the upper boundary of registration under general binding rules be raised, subject to the proviso that those affected should not be irrigating in a sensitive area and, if so, whether it will endorse the upper threshold of 200 cubic metres per day.

The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003-Controlled Activities Regulations consultation document was issued to a wide range of stakeholders and comments were invited on the issues raised. The Executive is currently in the process of analysing all responses, including that of the NFU Scotland (NFUS). In developing the final regulations, the Executive willensure that all responses to the consultation are properly considered. Itwould not be appropriate to comment on any specific proposals at this stage.

Question reference: S2W-10075

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Monday, 23 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Frank McAveety on 9 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-9569 by Mr Frank McAveety on 3 August 2004, what publicity was given to the fact that the decision regarding the restoration of Castle Tioram was taken by Historic Scotland (a) at the time the decision was made and (b) subsequently.

Scottish ministers' decisions on Scheduled Monument Consent applications are routinely delegated to Historic Scotland, an agency directly accountable to Scottish ministers. Historic Scotland receives around 200 such applications each year. It has not been the agency’s normal policy to publicise the outcome of consent applications either at the time of the decision or subsequently. However, copies of the decision letter are routinely sent at the time of issue to the local authority and those with a specific interest in the land affected e.g. as owner or tenant. In the case of Castle Tioram, no additional publicity was given to the decision at the time nor, for legal reasons, during the period when the applicant’s appeal was before the Court of Session. Since then information on the decision has been provided in answers to parliamentary questions and in discussions, for example at a meeting of Highland MSPs.

Question reference: S2W-09954

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 11 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Malcolm Chisholm on 8 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Ambulance Service should continue to provide three full accident and emergency ambulances 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in Badenoch and Strathspey; whether a decision to provide such a service is a matter for the Scottish Ambulance Service; whether the Executive's targets in respect of response times would require the maintenance of three full accident and emergency ambulances; whether such targets would require the continuance of the service by means of a full accident and emergency ambulance rather than a car or small van acting as a rapid response unit and incapable of carrying patients, and whether such a rapid response unit is defined as an ambulance.

It is for the Scottish Ambulance Service to determine how best to deploy the ambulance resources to achieve the response time standards agreed with the Scottish Executive. The eight minute response time target for Category A(life-threatening) calls that is the key benchmark for priority based dispatch canbe met in two ways. An accident and emergency (A&E) unit arriving at the incidentwithin eight minutes of the call is an achievement of the target. Alternatively,where a rapid response unit is dispatched, arrives within eight minutes and is inturn supported by an A&E unit arriving within 14, 18 or 21 minutes (dependingon population density) then the target is also considered to have been achieved.

Question reference: S2W-09939

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Monday, 09 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Tom McCabe on 6 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any further plans to increase the availability of NHS dentistry services in the Highlands and, if so, what these plans are, whether they involve enhancing existing measures and what new measures it will take in this regard.

Responsibility for the overall provision of NHS dental services in Highland rests with NHS Highland. It is, however, recognised that there are increasing problems with access to NHS dental services in Highland. For this reason Highland is one of the designated areas of Scotland which will benefit from changes to the existing recruitment and retention initiatives and the introduction of a number of new measures aimed at improving access, which came into effect on 1 April this year. In addition, NHS Highland was successful in a bid for funding under the Primary and Community Care Modernising Programme to develop a new five surgery dental facilities in Wick. We will also continue to approve salaried dentist posts where there is a gap in provision.

We also intend to announce the Executive response to the consultation Modernising NHS Dental Services in Scotland in the autumn.

Question reference: S2W-09876

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Friday, 06 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Ross Finnie on 3 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it will take to assist prawn fishermen and whether the Minister for Environment and Rural Development will meet a deputation of representatives of fishermen to hear the arguments they have made in relation to the west of Scotland nephrops quota so that an application can be made for an increase in that quota.

I discussed West Coast Nephrops (prawns) in detail at my meeting with leaders of Scottish Fishermen’s Federation on 21 July, and also with local representatives on my visit to Western Isles on 16 August. I do not believe that there would be any additional value in further discussions at this time.

The Scottish Executive continues to press the case for an increase in the total allowable catch (TAC) and the UK has written accordingly to the European Commission, requesting a review of current TAC arrangements, and to the International Council for Exploration of the Sea’s, requesting a review of the most recent scientific advice. The requests have been underpinned by increased scientific effort and detailed submissions demonstrating a greater abundance of Nephrops on the West Coast than had been previously assessed.

Question reference: S2W-09892

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Friday, 06 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Ross Finnie on 3 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the national beef envelope scheme will increase or decrease the amount of regulation and red tape for farmers.

Question reference: S2W-09893

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Friday, 06 August 2004
Current Status: Answered by Ross Finnie on 3 September 2004

To ask the Scottish Executive who has supported its proposals on a national beef envelope; whether some individuals or bodies who may have expressed broad support in principle for a scheme have not supported the actual scheme as far as its detail has been announced and, in particular, if retail interests have supported the scheme as announced, whether it will place in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre copies of any letters or other indications of support from these interests and which supermarkets have supported its proposals.