- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 24 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Nicol Stephen on 8 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive how it monitors local authority funding for the provision of purchased bus services.
Answer
The provision of localsupported bus services is a matter for local authorities which receive funding forsuch services by means of formula allocation from the Executive. The provisionof supported bus services is covered by normal public procurement andaccountability rules. The Scottish Executive requires authorities to provide periodic financialreturns on supported bus services.
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 23 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Malcolm Chisholm on 8 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether funding by NHS boards for referrals to the Sleep Centre in Edinburgh is ring-fenced.
Answer
NHS boards are responsiblefor arranging and funding treatment for their residents in other NHS boardareas, where that is appropriate. Core funding for the Sleep Centre is part ofNHS Lothian’s general financial allocation.
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 23 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Malcolm Chisholm on 8 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive what monitoring takes place of the funding to the Sleep Centre in Edinburgh with regard to evaluating outcomes.
Answer
This is a matter for NHS Lothian,as part of its responsibility for planning, monitoring, evaluating and managingthe performance of the services it provides to patients.
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 23 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Malcolm Chisholm on 8 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-5926 by Malcolm Chisholm on 10 February 2004 and the reduction in funding for the Sleep Centre in the current financial year from the 2001-02 and 2002-03 levels, whether it intends to increase funding to the centre and what the reasons are for its position on the matter.
Answer
Funding of the Sleep Centrein Edinburgh is a matter for NHS Lothian. I understand that theapparent reduction in funding referred to was a consequence of Grampian NHSBoard setting up a local sleep disorder service in 2003-04. Patients fromGrampian no longer require to travel to Edinburgh for treatment, and Grampian NHS Board, therefore, nolonger makes payments to NHS Lothian in respect of this service. There is noindication that overall funding for sleep disorder patients in Scotland hasbeen reduced.
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 23 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Malcolm Chisholm on 8 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-5925 by Malcolm Chisholm on 10 February 2004, whether the number of patients waiting for a first appointment at the Sleep Centre in Edinburgh at 3 February 2004 was 1,069 and how the figure of 655 patients referred to in that answer was calculated.
Answer
I have asked for the figuregiven in response to the earlier question to be checked. This checking hasrevealed that the earlier figure, which was provided by NHS Lothian, wasincorrect, since it excluded those patients who were referred to the SleepCentre before 1 April 2003, and also excluded those patients waiting for ajoint first appointment and sleep study. I apologise for this error.
The total number of patientswaiting for a first appointment with a consultant, following referral by a GP,at the beginning of February, was indeed 1,069.
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 04 December 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Nicol Stephen on 8 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive what funding has been given under the Rural Transport Fund to Scottish Borders Council in (a) 1999-2000, (b) 2000-01, (c) 2001-02 and (d) 2002-03, broken down by project.
Answer
The Rural Transport Fund comprises three elements: the Rural Community Transport Initiative (RCTI), the Rural Petrol Stations Grant Scheme (RPSGS) and the Rural Public Passenger Transport Grant Scheme (RPPTGS). Scottish Borders Council received no funding under RCTI or RPSGS, but received RPPTG of £0.158 million in 1999-2000, £0.167 million in 2000-2001, £0.193 million in 2001-02 and £0.212 million in 2002-03. Councils are free to spend these funds as they see fit. The following tables show Scottish Borders Council’s distribution of these funds in 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. The Council has yet to provide data for 2002-03. We shall continue to pursue the Council and provide the missing information separately as soon as it is received.
Rural Public Passenger Transport Grant 1999-2000 Scottish Borders Council Expenditure
| Route | Amount |
| Service 67: Kelso - Galashiels/Galashiels - St Boswells | £47,290 |
| Service 30: St Boswells & Lauderdale to Edinburgh | £0 |
| Service 73: Selkirk - Galashiels | £2,548 |
| Service 102: Peebles - West Linton-Edinburgh | £25,052 |
| Service 223: Yetholm - Kelso-Coldstream-Berwick | £4,383 |
| Service 67: Kelso - Galashiels (evening service) | £6,566 |
| Service 7:3 Selkirk-Galashiels (evening service) | £3,388 |
| Service 92: Peebles - West Lothian | £2,804 |
| Service 60: Berwick - Duns | £479 |
| Services 23/67: Berwick - Kelso/Kelso - Galashiels | £12,676 |
| Service 64: Kelso - Roxburgh - St Boswells | £2,816 |
| Service 37: Chirnside - Ayton - Eyemouth | £12,865 |
| Service 31: Selkirk - Edinburgh/Edinburgh - Newcastle | £24,850 |
| Service 195: Galashiels - Carlisle | £12,000 |
| Service 114: Jedburgh - Bonchester Bridge - Hawick | £2,901 |
| Service 174: Ettrick-Selkirk | £2,109 |
| Ettrick-Ettrickbridge (community bus route) | £1,202 |
| Service 130: Moffat - Yarrow-Galashiels | £6,365 |
| Kelso - Coldstream - Wooler - Newcastle | £2,881 |
| Total | £173,175 |
Rural Public Passenger Transport Grant 2000-2001 Scottish Borders Council Expenditure
| Route | Amount |
| Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels/Galashiels - St Boswells | £41,779 |
| Service 30 St Boswells & Lauderdale to Edinburgh | £16,311 |
| Service 73 Selkirk - Galashiels | £3,060 |
| Service 102 Peebles - West Linton - Edinburgh | £33,378 |
| Service 223 Yetholm - Kelso - Coldstream - Berwick | £4,548 |
| Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels | £6,697 |
| Service 73 Selkirk - Galashiels | £3,456 |
| Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels | £4,841 |
| Service 20 Kelso - Jedburgh - Hawick | £4,189 |
| Service 37 Chirnside - Ayton - Eyemouth | £15,907 |
| Service 31 Selkirk - Edinburgh/Edinburgh - Newcastle | £14,535 |
| Service 195 Galashiels - Carlisle | £12,240 |
| Service 61 Earlston - Galashiels | £2,555 |
| Service 174 Ettrick - Selkirk | £5,565 |
| Ettrick-Ettrickbridge (community bus route) | £1,065 |
| Service 130 Moffat - Yarrow - Galashiels | £6,365 |
| Kelso - Coldstream - Wooler - Newcastle | £2,938 |
| Defecit brought forward from previous year | £15,175 |
| Total | £194,604 |
Rural Public Passenger Transport Grant 2001-2002 Scottish Borders Council Expenditure
| Route | Amount |
| Service 61 Earlston - Galashiels | £2,800 |
| Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels | £6,878 |
| Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels | £4,972 |
| Service 73 Selkirk Galashiels (Sunday service) | £2,669 |
| Service 73 Selkirk - Galashiels | £3,549 |
| Service 195 Galashiels - Carlisle | £35,573 |
| Service 102 Peebles - West Linton - Edinburgh | £64,797 |
| Service 102 Peebles - West Linton | £13,200 |
| Service 223 Yetholm - Kelso - Coldstream - Berwick (to 30/7/01) | £1,732 |
| Service 20 Kelso - Jedburgh - Hawick | £1,588 |
| Service 223 Yetholm - Kelso - Coldstream - Berwick (from 30/7/01) | £3,465 |
| Service 37 Chirnside - Ayton - Eyemouth | £18,537 |
| Service 31 Selkirk - Edinburgh/Edinburgh - Newcastle | £16,425 |
| Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels/Galashiels - St Boswells | £11,375 |
| Service 31 Selkirk - Edinburgh/Edinburgh - Newcastle | £6,532 |
| Service 195 Galashiels - Carlisle | £7,911 |
| Service 174 Ettrick - Selkirk | £12,979 |
| Ettrick-Ettrickbridge (community bus service) | £1,003 |
| Service 130 Moffat - Yarrow - Galashiels | £5,243 |
| Kelso-Coldstream - Wooler - Newcastle | £2,938 |
| Capital expenditure (Footway between Fountainhall and bus stops on A7) | £12,500 |
| Defecit brought forward from previous year | £27,604 |
| Total | £266,270 |
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 05 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Tom McCabe on 3 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-4301 by Mr Tom McCabe on 5 December 2003 indicating that the first review of the Care Commission will take place in 2007, whether it will now review the commission on an annual basis.
Answer
No. It would not be possibleto deliver good regulation aimed at improving the quality of care forvulnerable people if the organisation responsible for that regulation wassubject to a root-and-branch review every year.
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 04 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Margaret Curran on 3 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, with reference to the Pathfinder Inspection Report on East Lothian Council by Communities Scotland, what concerns it has in respect of the council achieving its own quota for homelessness allocations.
Answer
I have asked Angiolina Foster, Chief Executive of Communities Scotland, to respond. Her response is asfollows:
As set out in section 7 of the Pathfinder Inspection Report, the Executive’s concern in relation to thisissue is primarily about the weaknesses in management information availablefrom the local authority. This meant that the local authority was not able toprovide reliable information to Communities Scotland Inspectors showing whatoutcomes were being achieved for homeless people applying to the council forhousing. These weaknesses also meant the local authority could not clearly demonstratewhether it was achieving its own quota for allocations to homeless people.
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 04 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Margaret Curran on 1 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take in the light of the findings and recommendations of the Pathfinder Inspection Report on East Lothian Council by Communities Scotland that “The Council delivers a poor homelessness service with major areas where improvement is needed” and “the prospects for improvement in the homelessness function are uncertain.”
Answer
I have asked Angiolina Foster, Chief Executive of Communities Scotland, to respond. Her response is asfollows:
Scottish ministers, actingthrough Communities Scotland, have requested that East Lothian Council producean improvement plan, setting out how it will respond to the findings of the pathfinderinspection report. The plan is due to be submitted on 17 March 2004, eight weeksafter the publication of the inspection report.
Communities Scotlandwill then agree arrangements with the local authority for monitoring theimplementation of the plan to ensure that the necessary improvements in theservices for homeless people and those threatened with homelessness areachieved. Performance in this area will be reassessed within two years and afull re-inspection of the local authority will be carried out within fiveyears.
- Asked by: Christine Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 04 February 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Tom McCabe on 1 March 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive what further procedures are available to a complainer if a complainant is not upheld by the Care Commission in whole or in part.
Answer
The Care Commission’s complaintsprocedure allows complainants to confirm whether they accept the CareCommission’s provisional conclusions and if not, to express any concerns to theCommission. The Commission will address these concerns before issuing a finaldecision. If they remain dissatisfied complainants can then seek a review ofthat decision. The Care Commission’s head of policy and development or the directorof operations will either review the decision or ask the Care Commission ReviewCommittee to do so.
If the complaint isultimately not upheld either wholly or partly by the Care Commission thecomplainant has recourse to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, who caninvestigate any action taken by or on behalf of the Commission in the exerciseof its administrative functions.
