Monday 14 September 2015 SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT Communities John Wilson (Central Scotland) (Independent): To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the reported proximity to homes and schools, for what reason its reporter approved Clean Powers Properties application to build an incinerator in Hamilton. (S4W-27188) Alex Neil: The Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 sets out that the reporter must make their decision in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The reporter will consider the status of the plan, any emerging policies that may be relevant, and all the evidence submitted by parties involved in an appeal, and make their decision on the planning merits of the case. Having regard to the development plan the reporter considered that the determining issues in this appeal were whether there was a need for the proposal, and whether it would have acceptable effects on the living conditions of nearby residents, the historic environment, the green network, and nature conservation interests. The reporter concluded that the proposal satisfied almost all requirements of the development plan and that any conflict was of a minor nature and outweighed by the benefits of the scheme which would: Make a valuable contribution towards the significant national shortfall in the provision of waste management infrastructure. Have an acceptable impact on local communities and would cause no significant individual or cumulative local environmental effects. Have no significant impact on any of the built heritage features and has imposed a condition to secure a programme of archaeological works to protect the historic assets within the historic environment. Despite the localised adverse effect on the green network and consequent development plan conflict, cause very limited harm to the green network as a whole. Not have any significant effects on the nature conservation interests and would not threaten the objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the area. The reporter gave consideration in his decision notice to the concerns expressed by local residents over potential adverse effects on public health due to emissions of pollutant gases and dust from the site itself during construction and operation and as a result of traffic congestion, bearing in mind the close proximity of residential areas, three schools, a food factory and a leisure centre. The council s environmental health team, the roads authority and Transport Scotland all raised no objections to the proposals and SEPA also confirmed that it was satisfied with the proposals. The reporter further concluded that, subject to safeguards which SEPA have confirmed would be Pollution Prevention and Control requirements, noise emissions from the building would not have any significant adverse effects on any residential neighbour. Enterprise and Environment Mark McDonald (Aberdeen Donside) (Scottish National Party): To ask the Scottish Government what guidance it issues to the relevant bodies regarding the removal of abandoned vehicles. (S4W-27091) Richard Lochhead: Removal of abandoned vehicles is a matter for local authorities and the police. The Scottish Government has not issued guidance. Keep Scotland Beautiful has published guidance on the relevant legislation, which can be found at: http://www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org/media/148830/abandoned_vehicles.pdf. Mark McDonald (Aberdeen Donside) (Scottish National Party): To ask the Scottish Government which bodies are responsible for the removal of abandoned vehicles and whether there is a maximum time limit for such action to be taken. (S4W-27092)
Richard Lochhead: Section 3 of the Refuse Disposal Amenity Act 1978 places a duty on local authorities to remove abandoned vehicles on certain land. Where a vehicle is causing an obstruction or is dangerous, removal is principally the responsibility of the police. There is no maximum time limit for such action to be taken. Jim Hume (South Scotland) (Scottish Liberal Democrats): To ask the Scottish Government what resources have been allocated to (a) SEPA and (b) other public bodies to tackle non-native invasive plant species in the Scottish Borders in each year since 2011. (S4W-27197) Aileen McLeod: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) activities are funded through a combination of grant in aid support and charging to recover economic costs of its regulatory actions. These support SEPA s delivery of its statutory obligations with regard to the delivery of the relevant regulatory requirements such as invasive species. Through the Water Environment Fund ( it is working in partnership with the Rivers and Fisheries Trust of Scotland to implement a strategic national programme of invasives plant control across Scotland. This is funded with up to 100,000 from the Scottish Government per year since 2011. Other public bodies that take action to control nonnative plants are mainly Scottish Natural Heritage, who are the overall lead agency for non-native species, and local authorities. The majority of local authority funding, including any funding which councils may wish to allocate for the control of non-native species, is provided by means of a revenue block grant. It is the responsibility of individual local authorities to manage their own budgets and to allocate the total financial resources available to them, including any locally raised funding. They do this on the basis of local needs and priorities, having first fulfilled their statutory obligations and the jointly agreed set of national and local priorities. The Scottish Government allocates a budget annually to SNH, in accordance with published spending plans approved by the Scottish Parliament, which they are responsible for managing to fulfil their statutory functions and deliver priorities directly supporting the Scottish Government s commitments with respect to protecting and improving the natural environment. This includes advice and strategies aimed at addressing non-native species, in their role as lead agency on the issue. Strategic control of invasive non-native plants in the Scottish Borders is delivered through the Tweed Forum. In addition to this, control of some non-native species is directly supported by a number of options in Scotland s Rural Development Programme. A breakdown of relevant funding is given in the following table: Tweed Invasives Project * Integrated Catchment Management Planning * (Note that, in any given year, only 5 to 10% of this grant aid was for INNS related work) SRDP funding ** (awards to all beneficiaries within the Borders Regional Project Assessment Committee area) 2010-4,775.22 (SNH) 49,500.00 11 2011- Part funding from the 12 European Union s 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 INTERREG IVA programme through the CIRB (Controlling Priority Invasive Non-native Riparian Plants and Restoring Native Biodiversity) project 10,500.00 14,062.50 14,312.50 14,312.50 64.00 (JK) 2011 2755.20 (GH) 27,838.97 (SNH) 64.00 (JK) 2012 2441.60 (GH) 20,864.60 (SNH) 64.00 (JK) 2013 2441.60 (GH) 36,563.91 (SNH) 64.00 (JK) 2014 2352.00 (GH) 30,000.00 (SNH) 2240.00 (GH) 2015 Funding is given for financial years. SRDP funding is given for calendar years and broken down by plant:
JK = Japanese knotweed, GH = giant hogweed, no awards for Himalayan balsam or rhododendron. Jim Hume (South Scotland) (Scottish Liberal Democrats): To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to monitor and prevent the spread of Himalayan Balsam in the Scottish Borders. (S4W-27198) Aileen McLeod: At a national level, changes in distribution of plants are monitored by the Botanical Society of the British Isles. The Society periodically publishes a complete Atlas of plant distributions, based on 10km square records gathered by volunteers. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) ecologists record non-native bankside plant species at all their programmed monitoring sites, which on the River Tweed catchment includes approximately 75 sites per year. In addition, more detailed river corridor surveys are carried out on priority catchments. In the Scottish Borders the Eye Water has been surveyed, with more planned for future years. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) monitors Himalayan balsam along the River Tweed and its tributaries as part of a wider Site Condition Monitoring programme. The River Tweed Special Area for Conservation is the only protected nature site in the Scottish Borders where Himalayan balsam has been reported as a pressure on the features of interest. A river habitat survey was carried out in 2004 and 2013, and is due to be repeated in 2019. Of some 200 points sampled, 10% failed because of high densities of Himalayan balsam in 2004 compared with only 5% in 2013. The fluctuation was not linked to any coordinated control programmes and probably reflects the transient nature of high density stands of Himalayan balsam on river banks. Himalayan balsam is already widespread throughout much of the Scottish Borders but there are some areas where it is rare or absent. The priority is to understand how non-native species invade and take steps to prevent their establishment and spread. To this end SNH and SEPA promote best practice advice to the construction industry and planners through the NetRegs website and work with infrastructure managers such as Network Rail and Scottish Water to help them avoid facilitating the spread of invasive species via their networks. SEPA works with partners such as the Tweed Forum in promoting biosecurity to prevent spread of non-native species. A trial of a rust fungus as a biological control agent for Himalayan balsam is underway, with funding from Defra and the Scottish Government. One of the sites for field trials for the rust fungus is on the on the River Till in the Tweed catchment, on the English side of the border. Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-19275 by Paul Wheelhouse on 30 January 2014, how many people had attended the training by 1 August 2015. (S4W-27213) Aileen McLeod: By 1 August 2015, 2386 people had attended and completed a snaring training course. Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-22977 by Paul Wheelhouse on 14 November 2014, how many people had obtained an identification number by 1 August 2015. (S4W-27214) Aileen McLeod: By 1 August 2015, 1,166 snare users, having attended the required training, had obtained their snaring identification number from the Chief Constable of Police Scotland. Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question SW4-25062 by Aileen McLeod on 21 April 2015, what the timeframe is for the review and how it will be carried out. (S4W-27215) Aileen McLeod: The timeframe for the Snaring Review is set out under Section 11F of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This section states that the review must be completed no later than 31
December 2016. The details of the procedure for the review will be announced in due course once they have been finalised. Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government on what basis ministers consider the potential increased carbon emissions from sites with deep peat when making decisions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 where the total volumes of peat excavated to make way for windfarm developments are not available. (S4W-27227) Aileen McLeod: Section 36 proposals are assessed on their individual merits and proposals on peat are obliged to use the carbon calculator. This provides a view of carbon payback time which is taken account of in Ministers decisions, alongside other material considerations. Michael Russell (Argyll and Bute) (Scottish National Party): To ask the Scottish Government what information it has regarding how many people have been injured because of exposure to the sap of giant hogweed in each of the last five years. (S4W-27269) Aileen McLeod: The Scottish Government does not hold information on the number of people injured as a result of exposure to giant hogweed. Data coding for patients who suffer such an injury does not specify the type of plant or environmental hazard which has caused it. Cases are likely to be coded as burns or blistering of the skin. Michael Russell (Argyll and Bute) (Scottish National Party): To ask the Scottish Government what enforcement action has been taken by (a) Scottish Natural Heritage and (b) other bodies in the last 12 months regarding the (i) existence and (ii) spread of giant hogweed. (S4W-27271) Aileen McLeod: Scottish Natural Heritage has intervened to support coordinated action to control giant hogweed on three occasions in the last 12 months. All of these instances have been dealt with on a voluntary basis, with a Species Control Agreement being put in place in one case. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has not been involved in this way with any giant hogweed control. The Scottish Government does not hold information about interventions by local authorities. Michael Russell (Argyll and Bute) (Scottish National Party): To ask the Scottish Government what assessment Scottish Natural Heritage has made of the efforts of (a) local authorities, (b) the Scottish Ministers and (c) private landowners to control or eliminate giant hogweed. (S4W-27272) Aileen McLeod: The Rivers and Fisheries Trust of Scotland (RAFTS) Invasive Species and Biosecurity Programme began in 2008 with funding from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Restoration Fund. Biosecurity Plans have been prepared by 23 of the local Fisheries Trusts with geographic coverage for 90% of Scotland. Coordinated control programmes have been initiated in 11 out of the 13 local Fisheries Trust areas where giant hogweed is widespread. In some areas, such as the Tweed, populations have already been reduced to very low levels. In others, control is at an early stage and concentrated on the upper parts of the catchment. RAFTS is completing an evaluation of effectiveness and lessons learnt from these programmes, which will be shared with SNH and SEPA. The network of Local Biodiversity Action Partnership officers was recently asked to provide details of giant hogweed control carried out by local authorities. The results of this survey suggest that most local authorities control giant hogweed on land that they own or manage, but that they rarely take action on private land. SNH liaises with Network Rail, the Trunk Road Operating Companies and Scottish Water over control of invasive non-native plants. All of these bodies control giant hogweed as part of their annual maintenance regimes.
In some parts of the country regional invasive non-native species groups and forums have been set up to develop strategic plans and encourage information exchange between the various bodies involved. Regional groups with a specific non-native species remit exist in Dumfries and Galloway, Falkirk, Aberdeen-shire and Highland Council areas. In other parts of the country, bodies such as the Tweed Forum and various countryside trusts have taken on a regional coordination role. Michael Russell (Argyll and Bute) (Scottish National Party): To ask the Scottish Government whether it will instruct Scottish Natural Heritage to review the action that has been taken to control or eliminate giant hogweed. (S4W-27273) Aileen McLeod: The Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) are currently working to prioritise non-native species for action through the Scottish Biodiversity Committee s Non- Native Species Action Group. Giant hogweed is being assessed, alongside a number of other plants, for this purpose. The Group will determine what action should be taken for plants or animals that are deemed to be priorities for management in Scotland. In the meantime, where SNH are made aware that the presence of giant hogweed poses a threat to public health, they will work with the appropriate local authority to ensure that the appropriate action is taken by landowners. Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government who the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform has met to discuss the proposed by-laws for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park and when. (S4W-27278) Aileen McLeod: As part of my consideration of the camping management byelaw proposals submitted by the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority, on 8 July 2015 I met representatives of the National Park Authority, the Loch Lomond Destination Group, the 5 Lochs Management Group & Community Council, the Loch Earn Tourism Initiative and the St. Fillans Community Council. On 3 September 2015, I met Ramblers Scotland and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland to hear about their work and their views on the proposed camping management proposals. A meeting is also being arranged with Ms Baillie. Health and Social Care John Scott (Ayr) (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party): To ask the Scottish Government whether the number of junior doctors graduating meets the demand in hospitals, broken down by hospital. (S4W-27251) Shona Robison: Scottish Ministers set annual undergraduate intake targets for Scottish Medical Schools each year based on meeting the requirements for postgraduate Foundation training posts in Scotland. This takes account of the identified needs of Health Boards whilst also ensuring that trainees are able to develop the required skills and competencies relevant to their training programme, which also enables them to progress into higher specialty training in subsequent years. The 2015 undergraduate intake target was set at 848 which corresponds to the current Foundation Year 1 establishment requirement of 804, allowing for some attrition. There was a 100% fill rate of these establishment posts in the 2015 recruitment round. In addition, the Scottish Government continues to provide funding for additional Foundation posts above the establishment projection of 804 to ensure that all graduates of Scottish medical schools who wish to undertake Foundation training in the UK are able to do so. In the 2015 recruitment round, an additional 44 FY1 posts were advertised. The table below shows the distribution of the total 848 Foundation posts across hospitals in Scotland: Health Board Hospital Number of Trainees Vacant Posts Ayrshire & Arran University Hospital Crosshouse 24 University Hospital Ayr 18 Borders Borders General Hospital 16 Dumfries & Galloway Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirmary 17 Fife Victoria Hospital 38 1 Forth Valley Forth Valley Royal Hospital 45
Grampian Aberdeen Maternity Hospital 3 Aberdeen Royal Infirmary 77 4 Dr Gray s Hospital 9 3 Royal Aberdeen Children s Hospital 7 1 Royal Cornhill Hospital 1 Woodend General Hospital 1 1 Greater Glasgow & Clyde Glasgow Royal Infirmary 72 Inverclyde Royal Hospital 21 Royal Alexandra Hospital 30 1 Queen Elizabeth University Hospital 115 Highland Belford Hospital 2 Lorn & Islands Hospital 2 Raigmore Hospital 25 2 Lanarkshire Hairmyres Hospital 19 Monklands District General Hospital 22 Wishaw General Hospital 27 Lothian Royal Hospital for Sick Children 7 Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh 66 1 St John s Hospital 24 Western General Hospital 44 2 Shetland Gilbert Bain Hospital 1 Tayside Carseview Centre 1 Dudhope House (Young Persons Unit) 1 Murray Royal Hospital 1 Ninewells Hospital 67 3 Perth Royal Infirmary 17 4 Royal Victoria Hospital 2 Western Isles Western Isles Hospital 2 Orkney N/A* 0 0 Totals 824 23** NHS Orkney does not currently provide training for foundation trainee doctors. The overall figure should be 848. One is lost from international recruitment. Scottish Ministers are currently reviewing the Medical students target to allow for future NHS requirement. John Scott (Ayr) (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party): To ask the Scottish Government how many unfilled consultant posts there are in each NHS board. (S4W-27252) Shona Robison: The number of unfilled consultant posts broken down by NHS Scotland Board as at June 2015 is published by ISD Scotland and is available on the workforce statistics website at: https://www.isdscotland.org/health-topics/workforce/publications/2015-09- 01/Consultant_Vacancies_J2015.xls We currently have the highest medical staffing levels ever, with record numbers of consultants. A combination of different factors involving geography, age profile, retirement, a lack of trainee doctors in a particular speciality or difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified staff can result in vacancies being hard to fill. Increasing the supply of consultants is particularly challenging due to the length and expense of training. Any fluctuation in consultant vacancies is linked to our efforts to increase capacity by recruiting even more staff. Under this Government, consultant numbers across Scotland have increased by 1,387.8 WTE, or 38.2%, from 3,636.5 WTE in September 2006 to 5,024.3 WTE in June 2015.This includes:- 171.7% increase in Emergency Medicine Consultants (75.8 to 205.8 WTE), 36.6% increase in Geriatric Consultants (118.9 to 162.4 WTE) and 76.6% increase in Paediatric Consultants (167.2 to 295.4 WTE).
During the same period, the consultant Establishment has increased by 38.3%, rising from 3896.9 WTE in September 2006 to 5,390.5 WTE in June 2015. The Scottish Government is working with Health Boards to continue to improve workforce planning, ensuring the provision of safe, effective and high quality healthcare, delivered by the right professional at the right time. John Scott (Ayr) (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party): To ask the Scottish Government how many consultants are due to retire in the next five years in each NHS board. (S4W-27253) Shona Robison: Scotland currently has record high numbers of consultants. Under this Government, consultants across Scotland have increased by 38.2% to 5,024.3 Whole Time Equivalent. We are working with NHS Boards to ensure safe, effective and high quality healthcare is delivered by the right professional at all times, and we are developing better intelligence through robust medical workforce supply and demand profiles which take into account the effects of consultant retirement and other factors. In accordance with current legislation, we can no longer presume a retiral age as this is discriminatory. As a result, information relating to numbers of NHS consultants retiring in the next five years is not available. However, the number of consultants in post who will have reached the age of 65 within the next five years can be found in the table below. Number whole time equivalent of consultants who will have reached the age of 65 by financial year. Retirement year 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-2020 Total Consultants 65.5 27.4 48.5 45.4 71.8 258.6 It should be noted that not all staff that reach the average retirement age will retire as there is no legal requirement for them to do so. James Kelly (Rutherglen) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government whether it will present the results of the NHS national review of out-of-hours services to the Parliament. (S4W-27260) Shona Robison: The Chair of the National Review of Primary Care Out of Hours Services will present his findings and recommendations to me in the autumn. The Review process, since its establishment in February 2015 has been fully inclusive throughout with public, professional and political engagement led and facilitated by the Review Chair. I will ensure that Parliament is fully informed of the findings and recommendations of the Review following publication of the final Review Report. Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government whether the working group on charging for residential accommodation discussed the use of contractual care routes, in particular the variations in the use of route 3, at its meeting in July 2015, and what recommendations it made to help address the reported variations in the use of contractual care routes. (S4W-27393) Jamie Hepburn: The Charging for Residential Accommodation Guidance working group met on 30 July 2015 and discussed the route three contractual route for residential care. It was agreed by the working group that greater clarity is needed in the guidance to local authorities on a self-funder requesting assistance in the contracting of a care home place. The group agreed that Scottish Government officials should draft proposals for amendments to guidance and bring these back to the group for discussion at its next meeting. Strategy and External Affairs Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government how much National Galleries of Scotland pays in recruitment and retention allowances or similar market-based pay supplements. (S4W-27369) Fiona Hyslop: The National Galleries of Scotland has confirmed that it does not pay any recruitment and retention allowances, or similar market-based supplements.
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government how many posts in National Galleries of Scotland are subject to a recruitment and retention allowance or other marketbased pay supplements, and whether it will provide a breakdown of staff in these posts by (a) age, (b) gender and (c) geographical area. (S4W-27370) Fiona Hyslop: I refer the member to the answer to question S4W-27369 on 14 September 2015: the National Galleries of Scotland has confirmed that it does not pay any recruitment and retention allowances, or similar market-based supplements. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament s website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx. The following questions received holding answers: S4W-27093 S4W-27248 S4W-27249