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 323 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S4W-30706

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 10 March 2016
Current Status: Answered by Keith Brown on 22 March 2016

To ask the Scottish Government how many companies working on the M8/M74/Raith Interchange improvements employ people on zero-hours contracts and how many people and what percentage of the workforce are employed on such contracts.

The contract for the Design, Build, Finance and Operation of the M8 M73 M74 Motorway Improvements Project was awarded to Scottish Roads Partnership (SRP) in February 2014. No staff employed by Transport Scotland or SRP are employed on zero-hour contracts. Sub-contractors are employed directly by SRP, and are subject to private commercial contracts. I can confirm seven individuals out of a workforce of 984 are currently employed on a zero-hours contract, which is less than 1% of the total workforce. We are working with SRP to identify whether it is feasible to offer more stable forms of employment and hours of work to these individuals.

Transport Scotland is committed to supporting Scottish Government’s initiative to encourage fair and progressive work practices. While employment law remains reserved to the UK Government, the Scottish Government is doing everything it can to promote good working practices with the powers available.

Question reference: S4O-05644

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Wednesday, 02 March 2016
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 9 March 2016

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the RMT union-commissioned report, The Economic Benefits of Public Sector Ferry Provision, on lifeline ferry services in the Clyde and Hebrides.

Question reference: S4W-28184

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Wednesday, 28 October 2015
Current Status: Answered by Richard Lochhead on 10 November 2015

To ask the Scottish Government whether it supports the decision by the reporter to uphold the appeal by Clean Powers Properties in relation to a planning application for an incinerator at Whistleberry Road, Hamilton.

This appeal was decided by a reporter from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division of the Scottish Government, acting under delegated powers. The reporter's decision on this appeal was issued on 14 August 2015 and was final, subject to the right of any interested party to appeal to the Court of Session within six weeks of the date of the decision. As the decision is final it would not be appropriate to comment on the merits of the decision.

Question reference: S4W-28107

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Friday, 23 October 2015
Current Status: Answered by John Swinney on 9 November 2015

To ask the Scottish Government what information it has regarding how much was raised in Scotch whisky export duty in 2014-15.

Question reference: S4W-28076

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Monday, 19 October 2015
Current Status: Answered by Alex Neil on 3 November 2015

To ask the Scottish Government when it began discussions with Fusion Assets regarding financial support for its project at Strathclyde Business Park in Bellshill and when the decision was taken to provide financial assistance.

The funding for the project at Strathclyde Business Park was provided by SPRUCE (Scottish Partnership for Regeneration in Urban Centres). The SPRUCE fund was developed by the Scottish Government (SG) utilising the Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas – which is an innovative way of using SG/European Structural Funds monies to lever in significant co-investment from public/private sectors; providing loans or equity investment to revenue generating projects.

Decisions on projects to be supported are made by the Amber Infrastructure Group who adheres to the guidelines laid down in an agreed investment strategy. They were appointed by the European Investment Bank as the independent investment manager for the fund. The Scottish Government is not involved in discussions with applicants around potential investments and does not make decisions on whether or not to support projects.

Amber has indicated that it was in regular discussions with Fusion Assets on this project since 2012 with a final investment decision made in August 2015

Question reference: S4W-27622

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Tuesday, 22 September 2015
Current Status: Answered by Paul Wheelhouse on 6 October 2015

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has had discussions in the last year regarding the competence of fire risk assessors and, if so, (a) with whom, (b) when and (c) what the outcome was.

On 29 October 2014, during a parliamentary debate, Roseanna Cunningham, then Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, advised that she would write to the Regulatory Review Group (RRG) who were undertaking a review of Part III of the Fire Safety (Scotland) Act to request that the group extend the remit of the review to include the competency of persons who offer their services as fire risk assessors.

RRG agreed to the request, and we understand that its report is expected to be published before the end of 2015. We will consider carefully all recommendations for Scottish Government arising from the review, including any on the competence of fire risk assessors.

Question reference: S4W-27621

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Tuesday, 22 September 2015
Current Status: Answered by Fergus Ewing on 1 October 2015

To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made by the Regulatory Review Group in reviewing Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005.

Question reference: S4O-04679

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 7 October 2015

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the Scottish Funding Council and what issues were discussed.

Question reference: S4W-27549

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 17 September 2015
Current Status: Answered by Alex Neil on 29 September 2015

To ask the Scottish Government how many appeals on planning applications of (a) national and (b) local importance Scottish ministers have determined since 2011.

Appeals can be ‘recalled’ where issues raise matters of genuine national importance or where there is a connection with another ministerial case, for example a Section 36 energy consent application.

I attach a list of appeals on planning applications, which Scottish ministers have determined since 2011, and the reasons for recall.

1. Electricity sub-station at Beauly – “because it relates to the Beauly to Denny 400kv transmission line and other cases relating to this line have been determined by ministers”

2. Vary a condition – electricity sub-station at Beauly – “in order for this proposal to be considered jointly with a related case being determined by Scottish ministers”

3. Wind farm at Tom nan Clach, Tomatin – “to be considered jointly with the proposed wind farm at Glenkirk, which is also to be determined by Scottish Ministers”

4. Waste to energy facility at Shore Road, Perth – “because of the significant public interest and potential environmental implications of the development proposal”

5. Urban village at former Broadford Works, Aberdeen – “in view of the potential implications for the future use of the important listed buildings on the site and the potential economic impacts”

6. Supermarket at Hamilton Road, Motherwell – “because of the scale and significance of the development and potential cross-boundary impacts”

7. Wind turbines at Pearie Law, West Calder – “there are common issues with regard to the three nearby wind farms at Pearie Law, Fauch Hill and Harburnhead. Scottish ministers have decided to recall the Pearie Law appeal in order that this proposal can be considered together with the other two proposed wind farms”

Residential developments:

8. Saddlers Brae Farm, Kikintilloch

9. Burghmuir, Linlithgow

10. Clarendon Farm, Linlithgow

11. Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh

12. Cammo, Edinburgh

“because ministers consider the delivery of appropriate housing developments, particularly in growth areas, and in accordance with the recently issued Scottish Planning Policy, to be an issue of national significance”

13. Expansion of Mossend Railhead - "because Ministers recognise the importance of this interchange site in the 3rd National Planning Framework and, therefore, consider the proposals to be of national significance"

Question reference: S4W-27551

Asked by: Michael McMahon, MSP for Uddingston and Bellshill, Scottish Labour
Date lodged: Thursday, 17 September 2015
Current Status: Answered by Alex Neil on 29 September 2015

To ask the Scottish Government how many appeals on planning applications of (a) national and (b) local importance reporters have determined since 2011.

The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced a hierarchy for planning developments into primary legislation. The hierarchy was designed to help deliver Scottish ministers’ aim that the planning system should respond in a more proportionate way to proposed developments. It ensures that applications are dealt with in an appropriate way to their scale and complexity, allowing decisions to be made at the appropriate level. The three categories in the hierarchy of development to which all developments are allocated are national development, major development and local development. National developments are classed as developments that are designated in the National Planning Framework. Further information on what constitutes major and local development can be found in Scottish Planning Series Circular 5 2009.

Not all developments are dealt with under the planning consent regime and Scottish ministers have made decisions, following submission of a report and recommendations by a reporter from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA), on national proposals including compulsory purchase orders in connection with the Forth Bridge Crossing, high voltage direct current subsea cabling from Scotland to the south and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games; the Rosyth Harbour Revision Order dealing with freight capacity on the Forth; proposals to increase the baseload capacity at Cockenzie Power Station; electricity grid reinforcements relating to the Beauly to Denny power line, and applications for wind farms over 50 mega-watts under the Electricity Act.

In the vast majority of planning appeals a reporter from the DPEA of the Scottish Government is appointed to determine the appeal. DPEA has been recording what developments within this hierarchy have been dealt with on appeal to Scottish ministers since December 2013, following the roll-out of a new case handling system that allowed this information to be recorded.

In addition to the above, since December 2013 reporters from DPEA have made decisions on 68 major and 305 local planning proposals.