The Scottish Fiscal Commission Bill introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 28 September 2015 provides for an independent commission to assess the reasonableness of devolved fiscal forecasts and estimates prepared by the Scottish Government. The Bill reflects the responses received to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the Scottish Fiscal Commission and international best practice, including the OECD Principles for Independent Fiscal Institutions. The Bill does not provide for any advisory role for the Scottish Fiscal Commission.

The Policy Memorandum published alongside the Scottish Fiscal Commission Bill summarises the policy changes which the Scottish Government has made to the Bill prior to introduction to address issues raised by respondents to our consultation on the Scottish Fiscal Commission.

In particular, the Bill provides for an additional function which allows the Scottish Fiscal Commission to prepare such other reports as it considers appropriate. This change in policy is intended to further strengthen the legislative safeguards for the structural and operational independence of the commission by allowing the commission the freedom to determine its own programme of work.

The International Monetary Fund report The Functions and Impacts of Fiscal Councils (July 2013) highlights a number of features of effective sovereign fiscal councils and recognises that the design of a fiscal council should “reflect country-specific characteristics”.

The Scottish Government has fully considered international best practice in formulating legislative proposals for the Scottish Fiscal Commission, including the work of the International Monetary Fund and the OECD. The Policy Memorandum published alongside the Scottish Fiscal Commission Bill demonstrates how the Scottish Government has applied the OECD’s Principles for Independent Fiscal Institutions in developing legislative proposals for the Scottish Fiscal Commission.

Before 22 September 2015, those raising a personal injury action for any amount could do so in a local sheriff court or, if the claim was for more than £5,000, in the Court of Session.

From 22 September 2015, there will be greater choice for those with personal injury claims. A personal injury claim for any amount can be raised in a local sheriff court. Claims below £100,000 cannot be raised in the Court of Session. A personal injury claim for more than £5,000 or more than £1,000 for workplace-related personal injury actions can be raised in the Sheriff Personal Injury Court. Workplace-related personal injury claims under £1,000 can be remitted to the Sheriff Personal Injury Court by a sheriff if the sheriff has certified that the importance or difficulty of the proceedings makes it appropriate to transfer them to that court.

Before 22 September 2015, court fees were provided for in the Sheriff Court Fees Amendment Order 2012 and the Court of Session etc. Fees Amendment Order 2012. After that date, they are those in the Sheriff Court Fees Order 2015 and the Court of Session etc. Fees Order 2015.

The court fees in the sheriff court and the Court of Session were raised on
22 September 2015 by a small initial increase of 2% as the Scottish Government’s policy is to move toward fees which reflect the full cost of the processes involved, with a well-targeted system of fee exemptions to protect access to justice. There is a further 2% increase for inflation (plus further increases for inflation on 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2017). The fees in the Sheriff Personal Injury Court have been set, in the main, at the same level as those in the Court of Session. This is because the Sheriff Personal Injury Court is a dedicated personal injury all-Scotland court with cases heard by sheriffs who are specialists in the personal injury field. In addition, this court makes available e-motions and jury trials.

Court fees represent only a small proportion of the cost of going to court and those claimants using the Sheriff Personal Injury Court rather than the Court of Session will have the potential for reducing their legal fees by using solicitors rather than counsel (advocates or solicitor advocates), in addition to solicitors, as is obligatory in the higher court. Sanction for counsel in the sheriff court is available according to the test set out in section 108 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to ensure ‘equality of arms’ in the event the other party employs counsel.

The progress and implementation of the measures in the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 are regularly monitored through the Making Justice Work Programme 1 Board – Effective Courts and Tribunals Programme, including the Scottish Government, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

The Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 places responsibility for preparing an annual report on the SCTS. Section 67 of that Act requires that:

“As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service must—

(a) prepare and publish a report on the carrying out of its functions during that year.”

That report is sent to the Scottish ministers, and a copy is laid before the Scottish Parliament.

The SCTS annual report for the latest financial year (2014-15) was laid in Parliament on 29 September 2015, and published on the SCTS website on the same day. The annual reports for all future years are expected to be published within a similar timeframe of six to seven months of each financial year end.

It is vital that people with mesothelioma can access their records within a reasonable time given the seriousness of their condition and the possible effects on associated compensation claims. Mesothelioma sufferers have the right (as do all NHS patients) to ask for a copy of their records in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. This would also apply to third parties such as legal representatives when it is clear that patients have given consent for this to happen.

I refer the member to the answer to question S4W-27525 on 28 September 2015. 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.

I refer the member to the answer to question S4W-27525 on 28 September 2015. 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.

I refer the member to the answer to question S4W-27525 on 28 September 2015. 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.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde confirmed changes to the blood pressure clinic at the Vale of Leven Hospital in September 2015. The changes reflect the diminishing level of demand for the clinic which moved from weekly to fortnightly in 2014. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has confirmed that, since the start of 2015, demand has dropped further again (to, on average, two patients per week) and the clinic has been run monthly. However, the health board has been clear that the vast majority of local people will continue to be seen in either the general medical clinics at the hospital or via their local GP surgery. Only those requiring specialist treatment, estimated by the health board to be around one person from the local area per month, will be seen at the hypertension clinic provided jointly with the University of Glasgow at the new Queen Elizabeth University Hospital. This reflects the position for all patients in Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

When this government ended a decade of damaging uncertainty by approving the Vision for the Vale in 2009, we were clear that as much planned care activity as possible should be provided locally. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde remains committed to this and continues to review opportunities to repatriate services, where it is safe and appropriate to do so. By 2014-15, 65% of all local patients’ day case procedures, 63% of all local patients’ outpatient appointments, and 30% of all local patients’ elective procedures took place at the Vale. In terms of overall patient activity: inpatient activity has increased by 37% when compared with the 2009-10 position and day case activity has increased by 29% (an increase of over 1,000 cases) when compared with 2009-10.