- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Monday, 09 June 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Michael Matheson on 18 June 2014
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-21127 by Michael Matheson on 28 May 2014, what progress each NHS board is making on achieving the national target for treatment initiations for 2013-14, and whether it expects the overall target to be met.
Answer
The Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework does not contain any board-specific targets for treatment initiations. Progress against the national target for number of persons commencing therapy is detailed in the following table.
The targets set out in the Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework were informed by a long-term goal to significantly change the shape of the epidemic in Scotland, and were based on the hepatitis C therapies in use at the time the framework was written. Since the framework was published there have been changes to standard therapies for hepatitis C in Scotland, including the introduction of protease inhibitors in 2012-13, which have improved treatment outcomes for many patients, and which mean more people commencing treatment are clearing the virus.
Decisions about initiating treatment must be made by clinicians and patients together. Some patients may choose to delay commencing treatment for a range of reasons, in discussion with clinicians.
| Year | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14* |
| Number of persons commencing therapy | 904 | 1049 | 1002 | 1052 | 1000 |
| Scotland target | 750 | 1000 | 1100 | 1150 | 1200 |
*Data for 2013-14 is provisional
- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 May 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Alex Neil on 29 May 2014
To ask the Scottish Government,further to the answer to question S4W-19628 by Alex Neil on 20 February 2014, whether it will provide an update on the progress of the publication of the report of the Scottish Public Inquiry into Hepatitis C/HIV.
Answer
Lord Penrose, Chairman of the Scottish Public Inquiry into Hepatitis C/HIV acquired infection from NHS treatment in Scotland with blood and blood products (The Penrose Inquiry) wrote to me on the 26 February 2014 updating me on the inquiry’s progress.
The Penrose Inquiry is independent of Scottish Ministers and it is for the Chairman to decide on the progress and timetabling of the Inquiry.
The inquiry is currently in the process of issuing warning letters arising from the final report and the Chairman has agreed to provide me with another progress report at the end of May 2014.
The most recent information relating to the report can be found on the inquiry’s website at:
- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 May 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 29 May 2014
To ask the Scottish Government,following the reported call by the Solicitor General for the law on domestic abuse to be strengthened, what steps it will take to look at introducing a new domestic abuse offence into criminal law; what the timetable will be, and what discussions it has had with stakeholders.
Answer
Tackling domestic abuse is a key priority for Scottish Ministers and for Scotland’s justice system. In addition to increased investment in initiatives to tackle domestic abuse, we took swift action in 2010 to close a loophole in the criminal law to ensure cases of domestic abuse could continue to be dealt with under a new threatening or abusive behaviour criminal offence.
We are giving the proposals for a specific domestic abuse offence, and a separate domestic abuse aggravator, careful consideration. This will include engaging with justice agencies and key stakeholders, including Scottish Women’s Aid and ASSIST, to hear their views and these discussions will inform consideration of next steps. This forms part of our wider work to address the causes and consequences of violence against women and girls and other forms of threat and violence.
- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 May 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Michael Matheson on 28 May 2014
To ask the Scottish Governmentas the current Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework is due to expire in 2015, when it will update or renew the framework and whether it will continue its focus on hepatitis C.
Answer
The Scottish Government is working with NHS boards, local authorities, third sector partners and other key stakeholders to produce an updated Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework to be published in 2015 once the existing framework period comes to an end.
The refreshed framework will continue to incorporate sexual health, HIV and viral hepatitis and will maintain the focus on the five high level outcomes contained within the current framework.
- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 May 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Michael Matheson on 28 May 2014
To ask the Scottish Governmentwhat it is doing to help support the development of new hepatitis C treatments.
Answer
The Scottish Government is supportive of the development of new treatments for a wide range of health conditions. The Chief Scientist Office (CSO) funds high quality research, including clinical trials, of relevance to the health and well-being of the people of Scotland.
The Scottish Government is currently funding the ViaDUCT study researching whether vitamin D supplementation can improve hepatitis C cure rates. The CSO welcomes any new research proposals linked to the development of novel treatments for hepatitis C. These would be evaluated according to standard peer-review processes.
- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 May 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Michael Matheson on 28 May 2014
To ask the Scottish Governmentwhat efforts are being made to ensure that new treatments are made available to patients with the hepatitis C virus.
Answer
The National Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Advisory Committee, which is chaired by myself, has established a subgroup to look at hepatitis C treatment and therapies in light of the rapidly developing treatment landscape. The subgroup, which is chaired by Professor David Goldberg from Health Protection Scotland, will report back to the National Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Advisory Committee at the end of 2014. The group will set out principles and priorities for the use of Government funding under the Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework in relation to hepatitis C therapies.
- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 May 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Michael Matheson on 28 May 2014
To ask the Scottish Governmentwhat is being done to ensure that people with the hepatitis C virus continue to be treated.
Answer
As a result of the Hepatitis C Action Plan and, subsequently, the Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework the numbers of people being initiated onto treatment for hepatitis C in Scotland has increased significantly in recent years. A total of 1,052 individuals were newly initiated onto treatment in 2012-13. This compares with only 468 treatment initiations in 2007-08.
The diagnoses and treatment of hepatitis C infections continues to be a priority for the Scottish Government, as reflected in the high level priorities within the Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework.
-
Current Status:
Withdrawn
- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Monday, 28 April 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Richard Lochhead on 13 May 2014
To ask the Scottish Government whether its Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate has carried out forecasting in the last five years on potential changes to local area grant and subsidy distribution from each local area office in the Highlands and Islands.
Answer
The Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate is not responsible for economic analysis. A specialised division of the Scottish Government, Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) handles this work.
RESAS, in conjunction with The James Hutton Institute, undertook a scenario analysis in April 2013 that identified examples of the outcomes of using region and budget combinations to define payment rates for the Basic Payment Scheme in Scotland from 2015. The resultant paper sets out summary results from all of the scenarios that were modelled for the regionalisation of the Basic Payment Scheme in Scotland. There are 30 in total, and each is comprised of: a different way of defining regions; a given number of regions; and a different way of allocating regional budgets. Subsequent analysis has examined preferred scenarios alongside other aspects of the reform including the reduced budget, coupled payments and redistributive payments.
The impact of the various scenarios are shown separately for ‘Highland’, ‘Elieanan an Iar’, ‘Orkney’ and ‘Shetland’. The analysis can be accessed using the following links:
;
- Asked by: Rhoda Grant, MSP for Highlands and Islands, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Monday, 28 April 2014
-
Current Status:
Answered by Richard Lochhead on 13 May 2014
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide a breakdown of common agricultural policy funding distributed by each Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate area office in the Highlands and Islands in each of the last five years.
Answer
The quinquennial breakdown of common agricultural policy funding by each Rural Payment and Inspections Directorate area office is in the following tables that should be read in conjunction with the following explanatory comments.
‘Highlands and Islands’ has been taken to mean all the parishes within the geographical boundary of the Highlands and Island constituency of The Scottish Parliament.
“…the last five years…” has been taken to mean the most recent five years for which data is available, which for expenditure funded by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund ends in 2013 and for the European Fund for Agricultural Rural Development ends in 2014.
The level of common agricultural funding varies according to the source of funding. Direct payments are fully funded (100%) from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, whereas rural development funding from European Fund for Agricultural Rural Development involves a co-financing arrangement between the European Commission and The Scottish Government.
| | Expenditure | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 |
| Ayr | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £2,063,169.21 | £1,802,368.31 | £1,855,164.60 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £222,607.24 | £388,042.11 | £430,569.73 |
| | Domestic | £502,255.74 | £388,044.12 | £430,570.74 |
| | TOTALS | £2,788,032.19 | £2,578,454.54 | £2,716,305.07 |
| Benbecula | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £1,639,896.29 | £1,515,214.08 | £1,527,477.94 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £455,221.31 | £1,022,232.68 | £1,059,266.36 |
| | Domestic | £1,158,722.95 | £1,022,237.49 | £1,059,270.26 |
| | TOTALS | £3,253,840.55 | £3,559,684.25 | £3,646,014.56 |
| Elgin | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £18,063,327.39 | £17,204,533.09 | £17,311,371.24 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £1,103,243.45 | £2,645,876.56 | £3,538,701.20 |
| | Domestic | £2,490,612.38 | £2,645,879.56 | £3,525,669.20 |
| | TOTALS | £21,657,183.22 | £22,496,289.21 | £24,375,741.64 |
| Golspie | Guarantee/AGF Expenditure | £3,967,209.79 | £3,702,052.99 | £3,779,045.82 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £767,597.75 | £1,932,651.34 | £2,687,240.30 |
| | Domestic | £1,536,572.25 | £1,932,655.44 | £2,687,262.75 |
| | TOTALS | £6,271,379.79 | £7,567,359.77 | £9,153,548.87 |
| Inverness | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £25,060,626.24 | £23,276,655.42 | £23,495,703.51 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £2,291,896.85 | £6,152,501.25 | £8,609,461.02 |
| | Domestic | £5,356,337.58 | £6,152,505.15 | £8,599,502.39 |
| | TOTALS | £32,708,860.67 | £35,581,661.82 | £40,704,666.92 |
| | Expenditure | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
| Ayr | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £1,721,387.22 | £1,732,368.63 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £478,761.82 | £502,073.84 | £391,420.00 |
| | Domestic | £199,659.20 | £613,347.78 | £269,471.71 |
| | TOTALS | £2,399,808.24 | £2,847,790.25 | £660,891.71 |
| Benbecula | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £1,420,383.51 | £1,469,167.64 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £1,388,205.34 | £1,156,853.41 | £1,310,413.17 |
| | Domestic | £590,014.03 | £1,170,505.27 | £758,250.87 |
| | TOTALS | £3,398,602.88 | £3,796,526.32 | £2,068,664.04 |
| Elgin | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £15,690,614.10 | £15,913,391.21 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £4,145,248.69 | £2,794,445.02 | £2,566,943.22 |
| | Domestic | £1,807,926.71 | £3,137,246.76 | £1,592,933.23 |
| | TOTALS | £21,643,789.50 | £21,845,082.99 | £4,159,876.45 |
| Golspie | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £3,524,511.25 | £3,644,130.10 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £3,684,964.20 | £2,904,844.68 | £1,640,380.22 |
| | Domestic | £1,567,106.33 | £2,700,581.79 | £982,269.39 |
| | TOTALS | £8,776,581.78 | £9,249,556.57 | £2,622,649.61 |
| Inverness | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £21,815,178.06 | £22,366,296.63 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £12,469,740.86 | £7,252,320.14 | £6,611,627.31 |
| | Domestic | £5,308,494.41 | £7,594,175.49 | £3,973,554.82 |
| | TOTALS | £39,593,413.33 | £37,212,792.26 | £10,585,182.13 |
| | Expenditure | Total of all |
| Ayr | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £9,174,457.97 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £2,413,474.74 |
| | Domestic | £2,403,349.29 |
| | TOTALS | £13,991,282.00 |
| Benbecula | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £7,572,139.46 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £6,392,192.27 |
| | Domestic | £5,759,000.87 |
| | TOTALS | £19,723,332.60 |
| Elgin | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £84,183,237.03 |
| | Guidance / rural Development Expenditure | £16,794,458.14 |
| | Domestic | £15,200,267.84 |
| | TOTALS | £116,177,963.01 |
| Golspie | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £18,616,949.95 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £13,617,678.49 |
| | Domestic | £11,406,447.95 |
| | TOTALS | £43,641,076.39 |
| Inverness | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £116,014,459.86 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £43,387,547.43 |
| | Domestic | £36,984,569.84 |
| | TOTALS | £196,386,577.13 |
| | Expenditure | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 |
| Inverurie | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £3,642,709.77 | £3,437,297.56 | £3,511,201.89 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £151,314.54 | £343,152.14 | £340,281.49 |
| | Domestic | £329,936.65 | £343,154.14 | £340,284.49 |
| | TOTALS | £4,123,960.96 | £4,123,603.84 | £4,191,767.87 |
| Kirkwall | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £16,142,634.06 | £15,254,063.91 | £15,365,297.74 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £1,593,248.56 | £3,951,547.13 | £4,718,583.52 |
| | Domestic | £3,665,779.43 | £3,951,550.94 | £4,718,575.98 |
| | TOTALS | £21,401,662.05 | £23,157,161.98 | £24,802,457.24 |
| Lerwick | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £5,143,260.63 | £4,796,618.47 | £4,802,425.04 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £1,924,205.77 | £2,501,196.66 | £2,372,684.94 |
| | Domestic | £3,757,287.33 | £2,501,198.30 | £2,372,689.40 |
| | TOTALS | £10,824,753.73 | £9,799,013.43 | £9,547,799.38 |
| Oban | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £17,045,086.86 | £16,344,609.92 | £16,457,080.94 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £2,686,610.55 | £6,732,564.52 | £7,012,941.31 |
| | Domestic | £6,263,784.49 | £6,732,572.94 | £7,012,954.03 |
| | TOTALS | £25,995,481.90 | £29,809,747.38 | £30,482,976.28 |
| Perth | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £1,898,562.66 | £1,834,902.06 | £1,798,742.02 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £168,140.59 | £546,716.42 | £361,611.17 |
| | Domestic | £425,083.77 | £546,717.42 | £361,613.18 |
| | TOTALS | £2,491,787.02 | £2,928,335.90 | £2,521,966.37 |
| | Expenditure | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
| Inverurie | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £3,227,165.25 | £3,297,125.77 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £564,695.78 | £244,374.41 | £181,083.31 |
| | Domestic | £241,306.72 | £297,458.77 | £123,559.74 |
| | TOTALS | £4,033,167.75 | £3,838,958.95 | £304,643.05 |
| Kirkwall | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £14,059,006.21 | £14,391,594.74 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £5,948,767.85 | £3,534,932.73 | £3,488,118.96 |
| | Domestic | £2,501,449.57 | £4,255,306.91 | £2,275,402.27 |
| | TOTALS | £22,509,223.63 | £22,181,834.38 | £5,763,521.23 |
| Lerwick | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £4,488,220.47 | £4,547,783.88 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £3,199,602.60 | £1,714,388.45 | £2,153,268.09 |
| | Domestic | £1,336,537.49 | £2,258,039.84 | £1,423,687.77 |
| | TOTALS | £9,024,360.56 | £8,520,212.17 | £3,576,955.86 |
| Oban | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £15,084,843.56 | £14,997,919.69 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £10,329,717.08 | £6,387,500.93 | £6,940,356.32 |
| | Domestic | £4,335,273.64 | £7,908,953.72 | £4,394,900.69 |
| | TOTALS | £29,749,834.28 | £29,294,374.34 | £11,335,257.01 |
| Perth | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £1,906,370.40 | £1,939,099.37 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £798,213.47 | £442,945.18 | £326,293.20 |
| | Domestic | £334,040.71 | £519,646.71 | £226,631.51 |
| | TOTALS | £3,038,624.58 | £2,901,691.26 | £552,924.71 |
| | Expenditure | Total of all |
| Inverurie | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £17,115,500.24 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £1,824,901.67 |
| | Domestic | £1,675,700.51 |
| | TOTALS | £20,616,102.42 |
| Kirkwall | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £75,212,596.66 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £23,235,198.75 |
| | Domestic | £21,368,065.10 |
| | TOTALS | £119,815,860.51 |
| Lerwick | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £23,778,308.49 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £13,865,346.51 |
| | Domestic | £13,649,440.13 |
| | TOTALS | £51,293,095.13 |
| Oban | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £79,929,540.97 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £40,089,690.71 |
| | Domestic | £36,648,439.51 |
| | TOTALS | £156,667,671.19 |
| Perth | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £9,377,676.51 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £2,643,920.03 |
| | Domestic | £2,413,733.30 |
| | TOTALS | £14,435,329.84 |
| | Expenditure | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 |
| Portee | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £2,959,504.45 | £2,760,318.72 | £2,758,885.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £593,390.35 | £1,343,939.85 | £1,359,068.70 |
| | Domestic | £1,567,595.08 | £1,343,944.88 | £1,359,073.16 |
| | TOTALS | £5,120,489.88 | £5,448,203.45 | £5,477,026.86 |
| Stornoway | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £1,759,593.80 | £1,606,384.77 | £1,627,779.39 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £364,846.80 | £986,278.28 | £1,208,231.45 |
| | Domestic | £963,501.42 | £986,282.29 | £690,676.89 |
| | TOTALS | £3,087,942.02 | £3,578,945.34 | £3,526,687.73 |
| Thurso | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £12,445,765.27 | £11,670,954.42 | £11,669,593.69 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £1,558,259.17 | £3,620,598.60 | £3,916,993.12 |
| | Domestic | £3,362,717.52 | £3,620,594.40 | £3,916,999.68 |
| | TOTALS | £17,366,741.96 | £18,912,147.42 | £19,503,586.49 |
| | Overall Total of All Offices | £157,092,115.94 | £165,417,004.49 | £180,650,545.28 |
| | Expenditure | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
| Portee | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £2,587,898.24 | £2,638,030.56 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £1,967,741.90 | £1,483,609.39 | £1,280,791.84 |
| | Domestic | £842,701.05 | £1,775,393.84 | £888,673.96 |
| | TOTALS | £5,398,341.19 | £5,897,033.79 | £2,169,465.80 |
| Stornoway | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £1,536,530.88 | £1,535,812.56 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £1,359,293.34 | £1,118,084.46 | £1,056,147.13 |
| | Domestic | £576,701.16 | £1,181,879.17 | £651,599.86 |
| | TOTALS | £3,472,525.38 | £3,835,776.19 | £1,707,746.99 |
| Thurso | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £10,779,984.49 | £10,795,202.71 | £0.00 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £5,163,148.68 | £3,475,487.03 | £3,323,728.26 |
| | Domestic | £2,152,277.48 | £4,257,043.10 | £2,141,529.04 |
| | TOTALS | £18,095,410.65 | £18,527,732.84 | £5,465,257.30 |
| | Overall Total of All Offices | £171,133,683.75 | £169,949,362.31 | £50,973,035.89 |
| | Expenditure | Total for all |
| Portee | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £13,704,636.97 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £8,028,542.03 |
| | Domestic | £7,777,381.97 |
| | TOTALS | £29,510,560.97 |
| Stornoway | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £8,066,101.40 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £6,092,881.46 |
| | Domestic | £5,050,640.79 |
| | TOTALS | £19,209,623.65 |
| Thurso | Guarantee/EAGF Expenditure | £57,361,500.58 |
| | Guidance/rural Development Expenditure | £21,058,214.86 |
| | Domestic | £19,451,161.22 |
| | TOTALS | £97,870,876.66 |
| | Overall Total of All Offices | £895,215,747.66 |
