- Asked by: Ariane Burgess, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Mairi Gougeon on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the September 2025 update to the fisheries persistent high mortality analysis confirming that the scope of that work is limited to marine sites, and in light of reports that the Applecross hatchery has recorded approximately 10 million fish deaths over the last four years, including close to half a million deaths in January 2026 alone, during which period the facility has received regulatory consent to expand its operations, what the rationale is for excluding freshwater sites, including hatcheries, from the persistent high mortality analysis, and whether it will commit to extending that work to include the freshwater and hatchery stages of production.
Answer
There are significantly fewer fresh water salmon production sites compared to marine sites, and associated available datasets on fresh water mortality are less extensive with higher variation within the data. Therefore, different analytical approaches are required for fresh water sites, and they could not be included in the original analysis of persistent elevated mortality on Scottish salmon farms. The Scottish Government prioritised marine sites for analysis as there are many more marine sites.
There are no immediate plans to extend this analytical work to include fresh water sites. The Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) is made aware of all mortality events where mortality exceeds specified thresholds, as a result of a voluntary reporting mechanism which is in place. This includes fresh water sites; the FHI investigates mortality events as they occur.
- Asked by: Ariane Burgess, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Mairi Gougeon on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that, after the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) was informed that the Aird salmon farm had been declared fallow while fish were still present, several weeks of sea-lice count data were retrospectively reclassified by FHI as a “withdrawal period prior to harvesting”, despite no harvesting subsequently taking place, what its position is on whether such retrospective reclassification of lice count data is appropriate, and whether there is a standard process for handling incidents where a site is declared fallow while salmon remain on site.
Answer
Aquaculture Production Business(APBs)may notify the Fish Health Inspectorate(FHI)of any corrections to sea lice counts which can legitimately occur and information in the public domain states that the publicly available sea lice count record may be subject to change.
Where counts are not provided to FHI without reason, consideration is given to whether APBs have committed an offence under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007. The legal obligations regarding reporting guidance have been emphasised to the relevant APB.
The FHI is not aware of other incidents of non reporting of sea lice counts where sites have been incorrectly declared fallow while fish are still held on site. Scottish Government considers the provisions of the Fish Farming Businesses (Reporting) (Scotland) Order 2020 and published sea lice guidance appropriate for salmon farming operations.
- Asked by: Claire Baker, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shirley-Anne Somerville on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government, further to annex 1 of the Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2026-2031, for what reason the monetary investment in the Tackling Child Poverty Fund as a result of the allocation of “two child limit funds” has increased from £49 million to £61.5 million, and how this fund would have been financed had the “two-child limit” remained in place.
Answer
The Scottish Budget 2026-27 committed £61.5 million to the Tackling Child Poverty Fund, with Annex 1 of the Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2026-31 setting out further detail of how these funds have been allocated in 2026-27. This represents an increase of £49 million for the Tackling Child Poverty Fund relative to 2025-26.
The Scottish Government put eradicating child poverty at the heart of the Scottish Budget 2026-27, therefore if funding previously committed to the Two Child Limit Payment was not available, this additional funding would have been considered as a priority as part of the budget and spending review process.
- Asked by: Claire Baker, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shirley-Anne Somerville on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government, further to annex 1 of the Tackling Child Poverty
Delivery Plan 2026-2031, how it planned to fund the statutory requirement
to uprate the Scottish Child Payment, including the introduction of a £40 weekly
payment for under-one-year-olds, had the “two-child limit” remained in place.
Answer
We put eradicating child poverty at the heart of the Scottish Budget 2026-27 and Scottish Spending Review, which sets out the Scottish Government’s spending plans up to 2028-29.
If funding previously commitment to the planned Two Child Limit Payment was not available, then additional investment associated with the Scottish Child Payment and premium for children under the age of one would have been considered as a priority as part of the budget and spending review process.
- Asked by: Richard Leonard, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Mairi Gougeon on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government what (a) financial and audit checks and (b) other risk assessments Scottish Forestry carries out of applicants for forestry grants.
Answer
Full details of how the Scottish Government undertakes these checks and risk assessments can be found on Scottish Forestry’s website. Forestry Grant Scheme guidance on financial eligibility is set out on the How to apply page. Information on the supporting evidence required to claim funds is set out on the Claims and payments page, and the Inspections page details Scottish Forestry’s approach to claim inspection monitoring.
- Asked by: Richard Leonard, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Labour
-
Submitting member has a registered interest.
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Fiona Hyslop on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will establish an enforcement powers working group for the (a) passenger ferry, (c) bus and tram and (c) taxi sector, similar to the rail enforcement powers working group that was established in 2025.
Answer
The safety of staff and passengers across Scotland’s transport network is a clear priority for the Scottish Government. Transport Scotland officials are assessing the Rail Enforcement Powers Working Group’s recommendations and as part of this they will examine whether these could be extended to other transport modes.
- Asked by: Monica Lennon, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kaukab Stewart on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it can provide to former employees of Women’s Aid Argyll and Bute who have reported significant pension detriment due to historic financial mismanagement, and whether it will engage with the Pensions Regulator to ensure that these workers are not left financially penalised by the actions of past management.
Answer
I refer the member to the answer to question S6W-44387 on 20 March 2026. All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers.
- Asked by: Monica Lennon, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kaukab Stewart on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government what specific monitoring and audit protocols were in place for the funding it provided to Women’s Aid Argyll and Bute between 2016 and 2021, and how it plans to strengthen oversight of third-sector grant recipients to prevent any instances of fraud and embezzlement to happen in the future.
Answer
I refer the member to the answer to question S6W-44387 on 20 March 2026. All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/written-questions-and-answers.
- Asked by: Richard Leonard, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Mairi Gougeon on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government for what purpose Scottish Forestry has awarded grants to Jahama Highland Estates, which is part of the GFG Alliance group.
Answer
Jahama Highland Estates own two large areas of land, the western estates of Mamore and Killiechonate at Fort William and Glenshero in the upper Spey.
The latest Forestry Grant Scheme award will support a landscape scale project near Fort William focused on deer management to enable the natural regeneration of over 3,000 hectares of native woodland. This will be delivered without the use of any deer fencing or planting. This is a large project restoring and expanding Caledonian pinewoods and Scotland’s rainforest by reducing herbivore browsing that is currently damaging woodland features of designated sites.
Other Forestry Grant Scheme awards since 2016 to SIMEC Lochaber Hydropower 2 Ltd. have been to; produce a forest plan for existing woodlands on the estates, to remove some areas of invasive non-native rhododendron, to support the management of the native woodland to allow expansion through natural regeneration and, in Glenshero estate, to plant new native and productive woodland.
- Asked by: Tim Eagle, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 March 2026
-
Current Status:
Answered by Fiona Hyslop on 20 March 2026
To ask the Scottish Government how much it has spent in total to date on consultancy fees in relation to the dualling of the (a) A96 and (b) A9.
Answer
The Scottish Government has spent approximately £80m on A96 Dualling. This figure comprises expenditure on the vast range of technical and specialist advisory services required to appropriately inform the design, development, assessment, preparation and promotion of major trunk road improvements to the A96.
£261.3m has been spent on consultancy fees on the A9 Dualling Programme out of an estimated total scheme cost for the Programme of £3.97 billion, at April 2025 prices. This figure is inclusive of VAT where applicable and includes spend for taking the various component projects through design and statutory process stages, acquisition of land, demolition and preparatory works, procurement of contractors to construct the works, as well as costs of administering construction works contracts and monitoring construction works activities undertaken to date.