Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

Criathragan Hide all filters

Displaying 1080 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S6W-43225

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 21 January 2026
Current Status: Answer expected on 4 February 2026

To ask the Scottish Government what workforce assessment it has carried out of hairdressing businesses, and what its position is regarding whether there will be sufficient fully-qualified hairdressers to meet future demand.

Question reference: S6W-43224

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 21 January 2026
Current Status: Answer expected on 4 February 2026

To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to the support that it can provide to hairdressing businesses towards (a) training apprentices and (b) the recruitment and retention of staff, including what assistance it can offer to reduce the cost of this.

Question reference: S6W-43226

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 21 January 2026
Current Status: Answer expected on 4 February 2026

To ask the Scottish Government how many hairdressing courses there have been at colleges in Scotland in each year since 2021-22, also broken down by how many students have (a) enrolled on and (b) graduated from these.

Question reference: S6W-43151

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Friday, 16 January 2026
Current Status: Answer expected on 30 January 2026

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will confirm the total number of existing (a) residential, (b) commercial and (c) industrial properties that are considered at risk of flooding, based on SEPA's use of the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 emissions scenario, broken down by local authority area.

Question reference: S6W-42637

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 16 December 2025
Current Status: Answered by Gillian Martin on 12 January 2026

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with SEPA over its adoption of Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, in which a global temperature rise of 4.3 degrees centigrade is anticipated, as set out in the document, Climate change allowances for flood risk assessment in land use planning Version 6, and what its position is on whether the principal environmental regulator has chosen to use an overly precautionary emissions scenario, when COP30 projections had a maximum temperature increase of 2.8 degrees centigrade.

SEPA has a statutory duty to reduce overall flood risk and will provide advice accordingly to planning authorities in its role as a statutory consultee on development proposals. SEPA’s guidance has been taken forward with an approach consistent with advice from the Climate Change Committee.

NPF4 policy aims to strengthen flood resilience and reduce the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. The planning system requires decision makers to weigh up all relevant policies, for example, flood risk, quality homes, brownfield development and town centre living, in applying balanced planning judgement.

Question reference: S6W-42638

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 16 December 2025
Current Status: Answered by Gillian Martin on 12 January 2026

To ask the Scottish Government whether it can provide an estimate of the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average cost of flood insurance for existing residential properties in circumstances where SEPA's high emissions scenario has placed the homes in an area that is deemed to be at a high risk of flooding.

The Scottish Government does not hold information on the specific costs of flood insurance for residential properties. Insurance premiums are set by individual insurers who use commercial risk maps, developed by a number of providers, for pricing purposes.

SEPA’s flood risk maps are produced to inform public awareness, planning, and flood risk management. They are not commercial risk maps and are not developed for insurers to use to set premiums.

The Scottish Government continues to work in co-operation with the UK Government and the other devolved administrations to ensure flood insurance remains widely available and affordable. This includes engaging with the UK Flood Re scheme. Every insurer that offers home insurance in the UK must pay into the Flood Re scheme, raising £160m annually that is used to cover flood risks in home insurance policies for properties that might otherwise find it difficult to get insurance. Over 22,000 properties in Scotland were part of the scheme in 2025.

While insurance regulation is a reserved matter, the Scottish Government continues to engage with the UK Government and industry partners to ensure that the needs of households in Scotland are fully considered.

Question reference: S6W-41928

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Friday, 14 November 2025
Current Status: Answered by Jenni Minto on 1 December 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on what the evidential basis is for the Scottish Medicines Consortium's decision not to approve the use of the targeted treatment (a) elacestrant and (b) capivasertib for secondary breast cancer, in light of the drug being approved for use in the NHS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The SMC | Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) appraisal is undertaken independently of Scottish Ministers. Making decisions about whether or not to recommend that people should routinely have access to new medicines is a complex task, and the independent SMC bases its decisions on the best available evidence provided to it.

Where licensed medicines, such as elacestrant and capivasertib, are not routinely available on the NHS in Scotland, doctors can use the PACS Tier Two system to request access on a case-by-case basis. The cost of the medicine is not a decision-making criterion when considering PACS Tier Two applications.

Question reference: S6W-41927

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Friday, 14 November 2025
Current Status: Answered by Jenni Minto on 1 December 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) regarding its decision not to approve the targeted treatment (a) elacestrant and (b) capivasertib for secondary breast cancer, and what information it has on the SMC's reasons for not approving the use of each drug in NHS Scotland.

The SMC | Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) appraisal is undertaken independently of Scottish Ministers and is based on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newly licensed medicines at a population level, ensuring value for both the NHS in Scotland and taxpayers.

Following a submission for (a) elacestrant (Korserdu®), as a treatment for postmenopausal women, and men, with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, the SMC published ‘not recommended’ advice in November 2025, and (b) capivasertib (Truqap®), as a treatment for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast secondary breast cancer, the SMC published ‘not recommended’ advice in October 2025.

In both cases, the submitting pharmaceutical companies did not present a sufficiently robust economic analysis to gain acceptance. The SMC would welcome a resubmission from both companies at any time.

Question reference: S6W-41847

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 13 November 2025
Current Status: Answered by Jenny Gilruth on 26 November 2025

To ask the Scottish Government how many teachers have been promoted to a senior leadership position within secondary schools, including (a) headteachers, (b) deputy headteachers and (c) principal teachers, who have completed a formal management training programme to support them in the discharge of their increased responsibilities, in (i) each of the last three full financial years and (ii) 2025-26 to date, broken down by local authority.

Statistics on the overall number of teachers in promoted posts are published as part of the teacher census statistics, available on the Scottish Government website here: https://www.gov.scot/publications/teacher-census-supplementary-statistics/

The Scottish Government does not collect data on the number of teachers promoted to a senior leadership position within secondary schools.

While the Scottish Government does not hold data on the number of teachers who have completed a formal management training programme, we provide funding of over £800,000 per year for the Into Headship programme which aims to ensure aspirant head teachers are supported to develop and build the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding required in senior leadership roles, and the In Headship programme for headteachers early in post to support them to build the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding required of headteachers.

Question reference: S6W-41296

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Monday, 13 October 2025
Current Status: Answered by Jenni Minto on 10 November 2025

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the 21 listed recommendations in the report, Transvaginal Mesh Case Record Review, which of the recommendations it (a) accepted and (b) rejected.

The Scottish Government did not reject any of the recommendations from the Transvaginal Mesh Case Record Review.

Recommendations 1, 2 and 5 were about how similar case record reviews might be conducted, and in particular how they might be conducted in a more cost-effective fashion. The Government has no plans to conduct further case record reviews.

Recommendations 3 and 16 were about training of General Practitioners and surgeons. Training about transvaginal mesh and possible complications has been made available to GPs in Scotland, and we continue to support the introduction of a GMC credential in mesh removal surgery.

Recommendation 4 was about a registry. It is being implemented by the establishment of a Scottish Pelvic Floor Registry and Audit Programme by Public Health Scotland. It will collect, understand, and measure data to improve pelvic floor services for women in Scotland, and contribute Scottish data to the UK-wide registry being progressed by NHS England. The SPFRAP will begin collecting data in 2026, with the first report expected in 2027.

Recommendations 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 were about communication to and decision making with patients. NHS Scotland seeks to exemplify the implementation of these recommendations through the operation of the NHS Scotland Complex Mesh Surgical Service (CMSS). The CMSS forms part of a national, published patient pathway and its services are explained on a dedicated website and through other information resources. It places patient-centred decision-making at its core, ensuring that patients have access to high-quality decision aids, sufficient time to consider their options, and support in reaching a final decision about their treatment. Patients are contacted in advance of attending the service, encouraged to bring a companion, and invited to record consultations. All decisions are documented to ensure clarity between patient and clinician, and patients are offered postoperative photographs showing the mesh that has been removed. The service is committed to continuous improvement and regularly surveys patient experience. More generally, the Chief Medical Officer wrote, on October 2023, to Health Boards highlighting the report and emphasising the importance of fully informed consent in all circumstances. With respect to patients returning from the independent sector surgeons, these individuals will receive two follow-up telephone or video calls from their surgeon or specialist nurse post-operation. Any further aftercare will be provided by the patient’s local Health Board.

Recommendation 19 was about guidance on significant adverse events. Healthcare Improvement Scotland continues to improve guidance on significant adverse events.

Recommendations 20 and 21 were about collaboration between mesh centres in the UK. The CMSS in Glasgow continues to collaborate with other UK mesh centres to share and disseminate best practice.