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 48973 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S6O-04471

Asked by: Fulton MacGregor, MSP for Coatbridge and Chryston, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 12 March 2025
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 20 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what support there is for the parents or guardians of children and young people with additional support needs who require a specific school placement.

Question reference: S6O-04451

Asked by: Annie Wells, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 12 March 2025
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 19 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what community safety measures it plans to prevent antisocial behaviour, including improper needle disposal, in the area surrounding the Thistle drug consumption facility.

Question reference: S6O-04445

Current Status: Withdrawn

Question reference: S6O-04469

Asked by: Clare Adamson, MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 12 March 2025
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 20 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that local authorities provide co-ordinated support plans for pupils who need extra support.

Question reference: S6O-04447

Asked by: Stuart McMillan, MSP for Greenock and Inverclyde, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 12 March 2025
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 19 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what engagement it has had with the UK Government regarding re-joining the European Single Market.

Question reference: S6O-04443

Asked by: Rachael Hamilton, MSP for Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 12 March 2025
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 19 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what steps Historic Environment Scotland is taking to ensure that women have access to a safe working environment.

Question reference: S6W-35415

Asked by: Willie Rennie, MSP for North East Fife, Scottish Liberal Democrats
Date lodged: Tuesday, 04 March 2025
Current Status: Answered by Ivan McKee on 12 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what the value of the 85% per person funding floor, as described in the Scottish Public Finance Manual, would be if assumed council tax revenues are excluded and funding for all local authorities in Scotland is included.

The 85% funding floor and assumed council tax revenues are key elements of the needs-based distribution formula that is discussed and agreed with COSLA on behalf of all 32 local authorities each year.

Funding for all local authorities in Scotland is included in the calculation of the 85% Floor although the contribution of the three island councils and Argyll and Bute to the average calculation, is capped at 115%.

The capping adjustment has no effect on funding actually provided to those four authorities and it only applies for the purpose of calculating the average, in part to mitigate the risk that the Special Islands Needs Allowance (SINA) has a distortive impact on the calculation.

The adjustment to a maximum of 115% effectively lowers the target Scotland average. This may sometimes reduce the number of LAs qualifying for support through the 85% floor but would also lower the level of that support guaranteed.

Distribution involves a complex and dynamic calculation with the impact on subsequent years being influenced by prior year calculations, primarily through the operation of the main funding floor.

The following table provides a hypothetical static analysis of the impact, on each of the last five settlements in isolation, if the 115% limit were not applied.

	85% Floor in the actual settlement	change if we didn’t use the 15% cap
2021-22	Edinburgh received £8m	Edinburgh would have received an additional £10m

2022-23	Edinburgh received £10m	Edinburgh would have received an additional £9m

2023-24	none	Edinburgh would have received £2.4m

2024-25	none	no change

2025-26	none	no change

The inclusion of Assumed Council Tax in the overall distribution calculations reflects structural differences in the housing stock across the country and ensures that local authorities with a greater proportion of houses in band A to C are not disadvantaged, relative to those with a higher proportion of their houses in band E to H.

The absence of an Assumed Council Tax adjustment in the formula would disproportionately benefit more affluent local authorities. By way of illustration, for every £1 raised on a band D council tax bill more affluent authorities receive 50% more income than the least affluent authorities. Including Assumed Council Tax in the settlement calculations is therefore a critical element of the needs-based distribution by ensuring that the impact of those structural differences is partially redistributed.

Excluding Assumed Council Tax from the 85% floor would remove this partial redistribution and would therefore be incompatible with the concept of a needs-based distribution methodology.

The following table provides a hypothetical static analysis of the impact of excluding both Assumed Council Tax and the 15 per cent upper limit from the calculation, in each of the last five settlements in isolation.

	85% Floor in the actual settlement	change if we didn’t use ACT or the 15% cap
2021-22	Edinburgh received £8m	Aberdeen City would have received £10m, Edinburgh would have received an additional £54m

2022-23	Edinburgh received £10m	Aberdeen City would have received £11m, Edinburgh would have received an additional £53m

2023-24	none	Edinburgh would have received £50m

2024-25	none	Edinburgh would have received £38m

2025-26	none	Edinburgh would have received £45m

Question reference: S6W-35384

Asked by: Ariane Burgess, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Green Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 04 March 2025
Current Status: Answered by Alasdair Allan on 12 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what work it has undertaken to explore any reforms of the energy performance certificate (EPC) regime in (a) general and (b) relation to the EPC appraisal of (i) cavity walls and associated insulation measures and (ii) energy efficiency improvement recommendations, and what advice it has sought regarding any EPC reforms.

The Scottish Government has undertaken an extensive range of work in pursuit of reforming the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) regime in Scotland.

This has included three recent consultations to scope and refine the approach to EPC reform.

Domestic Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) reform: consultation - gov.scot

(23 July 2021)

Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) reform: consultation - gov.scot (25 July 2023)

Scottish Energy Performance Certificate Register Lodgement Fees and Penalty Charges - Questions - Energy Performance Certificate reform – lodgement fees and penalty charges: technical consultation - gov.scot (12 February 2025)

These consultation documents have been complemented by public events and workshops.

More generally, the Scottish Government has, and continues to, engage intensively with all major stakeholders in EPCs, seeking their views in taking forward our reforms. The Scottish Government regularly convenes a Strategic Advisory sub-Group and an External Reference Group focused on EPC reform. Stakeholders include representatives of Approved Organisations, local authorities (in their enforcement role), consumer groups; EPC assessors; surveyors; the UK Government; the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland; private letting agencies; and many others. We have also engaged with other European countries including Denmark and the Republic of Ireland.

In taking forward our reform of EPCs, we have been receiving advice from the Climate Change Committee, the UK’s statutory adviser on tackling climate change, and other advisory bodies including Historic Environment Scotland.

In relation to the EPC’s appraisal of cavity walls and associated insulation measures, and other energy efficiency improvement recommendations, we acknowledge concerns raised over the ability of the EPC to identify when such measures are technically suitable. In response, we are creating a short term industry group to advise on how the reformed EPC will select measures for potential improvement. We are also carrying out further user testing on how best to present this information on the certificate, in particular ensuring that it signposts the need to have detailed technical advice before installing any measures. In parallel, we are currently scoping the development of a methodology to assess the technical suitability of measures as a step beyond the EPC.

Question reference: S6W-35271

Asked by: Miles Briggs, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 26 February 2025
Current Status: Answered by Jenny Gilruth on 12 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government how much each local authority has spent on transport for (a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special school pupils in each year since 1999.

Question reference: S6W-35477

Asked by: Liam McArthur, MSP for Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats
Date lodged: Thursday, 06 March 2025
Current Status: Answered by Neil Gray on 12 March 2025

To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to renegotiate the current GP contract.