This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
It is the only recognised alternative target.We have followed the views of the WHO. We now want to move forward in considering the effect of particles on health and the costs and benefits of their reduction, and in monitoring new information on particle levels.
We may not choose to accept such proposals, but that is an idea that we could lift.My second point follows on from what Helen Eadie said about GNER's difficulties.
Nevertheless, I have much sympathy with what the minister said. I am sorry—I did not follow everything that the minister said, so I have some brief questions for clarification.I would like the minister to repeat his views on my amendment's possible inadvertent effect.
The issue that Dr Murray has raised relates particularly to what we call local forestry frameworks, which we are piloting in two areas in Dumfries and Galloway and which operate at a more detailed level than the indicative forestry strategy. They were introduced following a case in which someone applied for woodland grants scheme money to plant a farm.
Committees must be aware of the cost implications of all the inquiries that they undertake throughout the year and of the total cost. That follows on from Richard's point. We must encourage them to be aware of the cost implications of their inquiries, unlike select committees in the House of Commons.