Chamber and committees

The number of historic monuments or sites included in (scheduled or rescheduled) and removed from the schedule of ancient monuments (descheduled) in each of the last five years was as follows:

Year Rescheduled	Monuments/Sites	Monuments/Sites Scheduled or Descheduled
1997-98	366	15
1998-99	346	39
1999-2000	364	22
2000-01	308	17
2001-02	185	15

The lower number of monuments scheduled, rescheduled or descheduled in 2001-02 was due to the negative impact of foot-and-mouth disease on access to the countryside for fieldwork.

Under section 1(3) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, Scottish ministers may compile a schedule of ancient monuments and include in it any monument that appears to them to be of national importance.A monument is considered by Scottish ministers to be of national importance if, in the view of informed opinion, it contributes or appears likely to contribute significantly to the understanding of the past. Such significance may be assessed from individual or group qualities, and may include structural or decorative features, or value as an archaeological resource.

Scottish ministers set a number of key performance targets for Historic Scotland to meet annually, including a target on the number of monuments to be scheduled. Historic Scotland's targets for scheduling (which includes reschedulings and deschedulings as well as new schedulings) in each of the last five years were as follows.

Year	Target
1997-98	380
1998-99	385
1999-2000	385
2000-01	325
2001-02	200

These targets were either met or exceeded in each year.As an agency of the Scottish Executive, Historic Scotland discharges Scottish ministers' statutory responsibilities for scheduling. No targets for scheduling historical monuments and sites are set for the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland, which is an advisory non-departmental public body, or the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.

No specific guidance is issued to local authorities by the Scottish Executive on obtaining disclosure checks on members of school boards. School board members do not, in that capacity, normally have opportunities for unsupervised access to pupils. The Scottish Executive does, however, recommend that basic disclosure checks should be sought on all volunteer helpers in schools and at school events, with enhanced checks for those who have regular opportunities for unsupervised access to pupils.

Varieties of GM maize with a marketing consent for import into the EU have satisfied member states, including the UK, that neither the crop itself nor the marketed product poses a risk in terms of human health and environmental safety and are not required to be subjected to testing before entering the country. None of the varieties listed have yet received this marketing consent. Maize products intended for food or animal feed use are required to satisfy relevant food safety authorities in member states. Maize products intended for cultivation in Scotland or the rest of the UK must also be listed on the European Common Catalogue. There are currently no GM maize varieties grown commercially in the UK.GM varieties without European marketing consent cannot be sold on a commercial basis and require a Part B consent to be released for research and development purposes. Scottish ministers would only be prepared to issue the necessary consent on the basis of advice from the Executive's scientific advisors that it was safe to do so. There are no GM maize varieties currently grown for research purposes in Scotland.

There is currently no end-year flexibility and consequently no funding decisions have been made.

No directions have been given to Scottish Water in relation to this incident.I wrote to Scottish Water on 26 September to advise them that ministers had considered whether a general scheme of compensation should be introduced for customers in the areas affected by the Boil Water notice in the Glasgow area.Our view was that it would not be appropriate to introduce such a scheme. This view was based on a number of factors as follows: an outbreak of illness appeared to have been prevented;bottled water was supplied to vulnerable customers;water could be rendered safe by boiling;there was no significant interruption to supply, andthere was no obvious breach of Scottish Water's customer code of practice.Ministers acknowledged, however, that Scottish Water would have to consider claims for compensation made to it, and handle them on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

The promotion of the Rosyth to Zeebrugge link is a matter for Superfast Ferries. However, I am aware that VisitScotland have been working with Superfast Ferries in order to promote the route and details of it are carried in VisitScotland's promotional literature.

I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:There has been no such research commissioned.

Scottish Water has prepared, in consultation with the Water Industry Commissioner, its customer standards code as required by section 26(1) and (2) of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002. It will submit its customer standards code to the commissioner along with its scheme of charges for the year 2003-04 later this year. The Water Industry Commissioner will then follow the procedures for approving the code as detailed in section 27 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002.