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 1068 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S6W-41293

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

To ask the Scottish Government, for each of the 46 recommendations in the report An Investigative Review into the process of establishing, managing and supporting Independent Reviews in Scotland that it decided to accept, whether it will set out the evidence in each case that demonstrates that the recommendation has been implemented.

Question reference: S6W-41292

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

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the 46 listed recommendations in the report, An Investigative Review into the process of establishing, managing and supporting Independent Reviews in Scotland, which of the recommendations it (a) accepted and (b) rejected.

Question reference: S6W-41294

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

To ask the Scottish Government, for each of the 46 recommendations in the report An Investigative Review into the process of establishing, managing and supporting Independent Reviews in Scotland that it decided not to accept, what the reasons were in each case for the decision not to implement the recommendation.

Question reference: S6W-41298

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

To ask the Scottish Government, for each of the 21 recommendations in the report Transvaginal Mesh Case Record Review that it decided not to accept, what the reasons were in each case for the decision not to implement the recommendation.

Question reference: S6W-41297

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

To ask the Scottish Government, for each of the 21 recommendations in the report Transvaginal Mesh Case Record Review that it decided to accept, whether it will set out the evidence in each case that demonstrates that the recommendation has been implemented.

Question reference: S6W-41296

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Monday, 13 October 2025
Current Status: Answer expected 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.

Question reference: S6O-05047

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 01 October 2025
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 9 October 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with Glasgow City Council regarding its proposals for an "at-city-boundary congestion charge" and a toll on the Clyde Tunnel.

Question reference: S6W-40490

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 September 2025
Current Status: Answered by Jenni Minto on 25 September 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what further analysis it has made of the recommendations in the Patient Safety Commissioner report, The Hughes Report: Options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh, published on 7 February 2024, for mesh injured women to receive compensation through (a) an interim and (b) a main scheme, and what engagement it has had with the UK Government regarding the possibility of financial redress.

The Hughes report was commissioned by the UK Government and was concerned in the first place with patients in England. But patients across the UK were affected by transvaginal mesh and by valproate, and this is acknowledged by the UK Government. The Scottish Government is unable to reach a view on the report until the UK Government sets out its position on the UK-wide aspects, including regulation.

Scottish Government Ministers stand ready to discuss the report with UK Ministers, and with Ministers from the other Devolved Governments. The Cabinet Secretary and I have offered to meet with the UK Government on three occasions since the July 2024 UK General Election. While the UK Government has agreed to a meeting in principle, and liaison between officials continues, no arrangements have been made and no proposals that could be discussed among Ministers have been offered. Ministers in Wales and Northern Ireland have also sought meetings.

We will keep the Parliament informed of significant developments as the Government is acutely aware of the cross-party interest in this important issue.

Question reference: S6W-40122

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 26 August 2025
Current Status: Answered by Neil Gray on 10 September 2025

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has plans to make capital funding available to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for the specific goal of building new GP premises in the NHS board region, including in the Eastwood constituency.

The 2025-26 budget provides £139 million additional investment for health infrastructure which allows some work to resume on delivering new acute facilities, and supporting Boards’ priority maintenance.

Despite this increase, following the outcome of the UK Government’s Spending Review, the capital funding position remains challenging. As a result, it remains the case that we cannot replace or upgrade health infrastructure as quickly as we might wish to –a position that is not unique to Scotland.

We are working with all health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to develop a whole-system NHS infrastructure plan to inform strategic investment priorities across the NHS estate. This work supports continued safe operation of existing facilities and will inform determination of longer-term investment priorities.

A key part of this longer-term planning work is development of an investment strategy for primary care, considering both priorities and delivery model.

Question reference: S6W-40124

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 26 August 2025
Current Status: Answered by Neil Gray on 3 September 2025

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding paragraph 8 in part 2 of The Primary Medical Services - (Premises Development Grants, Improvement Grants and Premises Costs) Directions 2004, whether it plans to strengthen the requirement to “consider” an application to one where there would be a presumption for NHS boards to support a proposal for new or improved premises if a suitable proposal and adequate funding package can be formulated.

Paragraph 8 in part 2 of the Primary Medical Services (Premises Development Grants, Improvement Grants and Premises Costs) Directions 2004 sets out that:

Health Boards must have in place a plan for the development of premises to support the provision of Primary Medical Services. This plan must be approved in consultation with the local Area Medical Committee. This plan should be updated annually and be consistent with the Health Board’s wider Property Strategy.

The Scottish Government does not believe that including a presumption in the directions that NHS boards should support proposals for new or improved premises if a suitable proposal and adequate funding package can be formulated would be a material improvement on the general requirement for NHS boards’ wider property strategies to cover the needs of primary medical services.