Skip to main content

Language: English / GĂ idhlig

Loading…

Chamber and committees

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

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 5 September 2024
Answer status
Question type

Displaying 2295 questions Show Answers

|

Question reference: S5W-08552

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), for what reason the evidence suggesting that (a) non-mesh procedures are safer than mesh procedures for incontinence, (b) transobturator mesh tape can be too risky a treatment to treat incontinence and (c) prolapse mesh has no benefit and can be risky is in the annexe of the final report only.

Question reference: S5W-08533

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Joe FitzPatrick on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the question by Fulton McGregor to Maureen Watt on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c.53), whether any civil servant had any role in drafting the question, and what its policy is on civil servants supporting parliamentary liaison officers in their roles.

Question reference: S5W-08554

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), for what reason the declaration of interests of the members of the review group refer only to company work over the last 12 months.

Question reference: S5W-08550

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), what its response is to concerns that avoidable and unnecessary procedures take place when there are safer alternative treatments for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

Question reference: S5W-08546

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), whether it provided assurances to Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy that their chapter would be withdrawn from the final mesh report and, if so, for what reason it was included.

Question reference: S5W-08545

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), whether it will bring forward a proposal for a Parliamentary debate on the final mesh report.

Question reference: S5W-08557

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), what its response is to concerns that the final mesh report does not make clear that the EU classifies mesh as "high-risk".

Question reference: S5W-08547

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), what its response is to concerns that, despite being agreed by all members of the review group in 2015, the draft version of the mesh report was changed "beyond all recognition" when the final report was published.

Question reference: S5W-08551

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), for what reason mesh procedures for prolapse continue to be offered despite concerns that there is a lack of evidence regarding their effectiveness and reports of both Scottish and international studies regarding possible high risks.

Question reference: S5W-08556

  • Asked by: Neil Findlay, MSP for Lothian, Scottish Labour
  • Date lodged: Friday, 31 March 2017
  • Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 28 April 2017

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport on 30 March 2017 (Official Report, c. 57), in light of reports that patients asked for them to be published, for what reason the patient-friendly shared decision tables were not included in the final report.