- Asked by: Miles Briggs, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 18 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Graeme Dey on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government how many courses have been withdrawn in each college in each year since 1999.
Answer
Information is not held centrally. Courses ran by colleges are decided by colleges, as such individual colleges would have this information.
- Asked by: Clare Haughey, MSP for Rutherglen, Scottish National Party
-
Submitting member has a registered interest.
-
Date lodged: Friday, 28 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Initiated by the Scottish Government.
Answered by Neil Gray on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S6W-34287 by Neil Gray on 27 January 2025, which outlined specific commitments relating to NHS renewal, when it will publish the operational improvement plan setting out more detail on delivery.
Answer
I am pleased to confirm that the NHS Scotland Operational Improvement Plan has published today: www.gov.scot/isbn/9781836914556
The plan focuses on the following four critical aspects to help protect the quality and safety of care, supported by the increased investment for health and social care in the 2025-26 Scottish Budget:
- improving access to treatment;
- shifting the balance of care;
- digital and technological innovation;
- prevention.
It details how the specific commitments outlined in the answer to question S6W-34287 will be delivered – building on health boards’ own delivery planning to prioritise how services will be improved across NHS Scotland. This plan will be followed by publication of a population health framework later in the spring and a health and social care service renewal framework in June.
- Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 17 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jenni Minto on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government whether there are any plans to allow people who received Zostavax when they became eligible for a shingles vaccination in recent years, before it was replaced by Shingrix, to receive a further inoculation with Shingrix, in light of reports that it provides a greater level of protection and for a longer duration.
Answer
There are no plans to revaccinate individuals who have had a previous Zostavax vaccination. The need for booster doses following previous vaccination has not yet been determined by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).
A statement on the shingles vaccination programme was published on 13 November 2024, advising that the offer of Shingrix vaccination should be expanded to include older adult cohorts aged 80 years and over.
JCVI recognise that some of these individuals will have already received a Zostavax vaccination. However there is a clear cost-effective benefit from offering a single dose of Shingrix to this age group as this would help prevent severe illness and other serious complications from shingles, which can cause illness or hospitalisation.
The Scottish Government, Public Health Scotland and NHS Boards will work together to consider these recommendations.
- Asked by: Liam Kerr, MSP for North East Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 17 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Maree Todd on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Camphill organisation regarding long-term funding for its work.
Answer
A. There have been no discussions between the Scottish Government and the Camphill organisation regarding long-term funding for their work.
- Asked by: Alexander Burnett, MSP for Aberdeenshire West, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 17 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jenni Minto on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has asked the UK Health Security Agency to conduct a review into any health effects of electromagnetic fields from overhead lines.
Answer
The Scottish Government recognise there could be public concerns relating to the potential health effects of electromagnetic fields from overhead lines.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) take the lead on public health matters associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields for the UK.
Central to their advice is that exposure to radio waves should comply with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).This is the approach adopted by officially mandated authoritative organisations and these bodies conclude overall that a causal relationship between exposure and long-term health effects has not been established.
UKHSA is committed to carefully continue monitoring the emerging scientific evidence in between the publication of comprehensive evidence reviews and providing any necessary advice to Scottish Government.
Therefore, the Scottish Government have not requested the UK Health Security Agency to conduct a review into any health effects of electromagnetic fields from overhead lines.
- Asked by: Craig Hoy, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 17 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Alasdair Allan on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to amending the regulations governing the location of battery energy storage systems to account for any community safety concerns where developments are close to housing and other public amenities and services, such as schools and parks.
Answer
We have no current plans for legislative change regarding battery energy storage systems. Our Fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4) guides spatial development, sets out national planning policies, designates national developments and highlights regional spatial priorities. It is an integral part of the development plan and so influences planning decisions across Scotland. NPF4 Policy 11 part e) (energy) recognises that potential impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity are important considerations in the decision making process and all applications are subject to site specific assessments.
- Asked by: Douglas Lumsden, MSP for North East Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 25 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Angela Constance on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government how many fatal accident inquiries have involved delays to the publication of the final inquiry report in each of the last five years, and what the reasons were for any such delays.
Answer
This question relates to operational matters that are the responsibility of the Scottish Court and Tribunals Service (SCTS) corporate body. The question has been passed to the Chief Executive of the SCTS who reply in writing within 20 days.
- Asked by: Brian Whittle, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 21 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Neil Gray on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on continuing the treatment of people who move to Scotland from abroad with an existing diagnosis and treatment plan, where such treatment is approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium, as opposed to requiring their condition to be investigated and diagnosed anew in line with NHS Scotland pathways.
Answer
When a patient moves to Scotland from abroad with an existing diagnosis and treatment plan, and where such treatment is approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium, clinicians will make a decision whether to reassess the patient to ensure it is safe to go ahead with their existing treatment plan.
Patients with an urgent clinical need will always be prioritised.
In all cases, we expect Health Boards to make every effort to ensure equity of care and that any disruptions to the patient’s journey are minimised.
- Asked by: Sharon Dowey, MSP for South Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 21 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Fiona Hyslop on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will establish a formal system for reporting and tracking antisocial behaviour on buses, and, if so, when.
Answer
There are no plans for Transport Scotland to introduce a formal reporting and tracking system for antisocial behaviour as there is no requirement on all operators in this deregulated sector to collect and share this data, which will affect the coverage of any data collected. Additionally, operator thresholds for reporting antisocial behaviour will vary affecting the consistency of any shared data.
Nevertheless, Transport Scotland is working with the Confederation of Passenger Transport and operators to encourage the industry to collect more data and to similar standards to improve knowledge of antisocial behaviour on buses. This supports the recommendations from the Independent Working Group on antisocial behaviour. Furthermore, the Transport Focus Your Bus Journey survey provides an indication of perceived trends in behaviour on buses. The results for Scotland show that in 2023 5% of respondents stated that passenger behaviour caused concern (8% in England). This increased to 6% in 2024.
- Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 25 March 2025
-
Current Status:
Answered by Fiona Hyslop on 31 March 2025
To ask the Scottish Government what guidance it offers to local authorities to ensure that disabled, older and infirmed people are supported, when required, to park their vehicles in local authority car parks without incurring a penalty charge notice, and when any such guidance was last reviewed.
Answer
It is the responsibility of each local authority, who operates Decriminalised Parking Enforcement to ensure their parking attendants are issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) lawfully and the level of discretion that can be applied in individual situations. It is not for the Scottish Government to specify when discretion should be applied. Stringent appeals processes are also in place to assist those who feel they may have been issued a PCN unfairly.