- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 17 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Sarah Boyack on 2 March 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive whether details of alternatives to the proposed upgrading of the A701 and details of the cost benefit analysis of the project were made available during public consultation.
Answer
The Scottish Executive does not have this information. These are matters for Midlothian Council.
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 17 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Sarah Boyack on 2 March 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive whether all details of the outline business case for the A701 improvements were made available to the public during consultation at the planning stage.
Answer
The Scottish Executive does not have details on the availability of documents to the public at stages prior to their submission to the Scottish Ministers.
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 17 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Sarah Boyack on 2 March 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive whether there is any statutory obligation for Midlothian Council to put in place each of the public transport elements, including extra bus services, real time information and bus priority measures that formed a part of Midlothian Council's original Private Finance Initiative based proposals to upgrade the A701.
Answer
There are no statutory obligations on the Council to implement the original Private Finance Initiative based proposals. However, the Notice of Intention to Develop in respect of improvements to the A701, which was submitted to the Scottish Ministers, was accompanied by a statement by the Council which detailed measures to improve public transport and enhance bus services.
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 15 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Wallace on 29 February 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive how many of the 12 new permanent Sheriffs appointed in December 1999 were previously (a) advocates depute or (b) procurators fiscal.
Answer
(a) two and (b) four, including two who had served in both capacities at different times.
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 15 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Wallace on 29 February 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive how many of the 12 new permanent Sheriffs appointed in December 1999 had been recommended for appointment by Sheriffs Principal; whether candidates more experienced for these posts than those appointed were considered and rejected and, if so, why.
Answer
Nine of those appointed were included in the list of those recommended by the Sheriffs Principal. Two of the others were serving members of the procurator fiscal service and one was Senior Counsel with considerable High Court experience who had also served as a temporary Sheriff. There were 187 applications from qualified individuals so many experienced candidates were unsuccessful. The Lord President was consulted, as required by Statute, and was content with the nominations made.
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 15 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Wallace on 29 February 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to appoint temporary Sheriffs and temporary Judges to fill the current judicial deficit; if so, what method of appointment will be used and what terms and conditions will apply to these appointments.
Answer
This is under active consideration. No final decision will be taken before a current case in the Court of Session has been concluded.
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 15 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Wallace on 29 February 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive what the average time period was between plea and trial in each of Linlithgow, Stirling, Falkirk, Dundee, Hamilton, Lanark, Dunfermline and Haddington Sheriff Courts (a) before the judgement and (b) since the judgement in the Starrs and Chalmers case.
Answer
The following table shows the average waiting periods between plea and trial in October 1999 (preceding the judgement in the Starrs and Chalmers case) and December 1999 for the Sheriff Courts at Linlithgow, Stirling, Falkirk, Dundee, Hamilton, Lanark, Dunfermline and Haddington.
Waiting Periods
Court | Oct-99 | Dec-99 |
Linlithgow | 19 | 20 |
Stirling | 11 | 26 |
Falkirk | 15 | 17 |
Dundee | 18 | 17 |
Hamilton | 10 | 11 |
Lanark | 8 | 10 |
Dunfermline | 15 | 16 |
Haddington | 11 | 11 |
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 15 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Wallace on 29 February 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-2537 by Mr Jim Wallace on 29 November 1999, whether its current policy, pending the issue of a consultation paper on the arrangements for recommending appointment of Judges and Sheriffs, is that the Lord Advocate, as head of the prosecutions service and a member of the Scottish Executive, will continue to play a key role in the appointment of Judges and Sheriffs.
Answer
The First Minister will continue to receive advice on the appointment of Judges and Sheriffs from the Lord Advocate reflecting appropriate soundings taken by him.
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 15 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Wallace on 29 February 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive how many hearings in civil litigation in the Court of Session have been postponed due to the unavailability of Judges following the suspension of temporary Judges.
Answer
Adjustments to the programme in the Court of Session after 11 November 1999 have resulted in six cases set down for proof being reallocated to later dates.
- Asked by: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, MSP for Lothians, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 15 February 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Wallace on 29 February 2000
To ask the Scottish Executive how many hearings in civil litigation have been postponed due to the unavailability of Sheriffs in each of Linlithgow, Stirling, Falkirk, Dundee, Hamilton, Lanark, Dunfermline, Haddington and Edinburgh Sheriff Courts.
Answer
The following table shows the number of civil hearings adjourned due to lack of temporary shrieval resources in the Sheriff Courts at Linlithgow, Stirling, Falkirk, Dundee, Hamilton, Lanark, Dunfermline, Haddington and Edinburgh for the period 1 November 1999 to 31 January 2000.
CIVIL CASES ADJOURNED DUE TO LACK OF TEMPORARY SHRIEVAL RESOURCES
1 Nov 1999 to 31 Jan 2000
| | Ordinary | Summary Cause | Small Claim | Other |
| | Proof | Debate | Proofs | Full Hearings | |
Dundee | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Dunfermline | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Edinburgh | 10 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0 |
Falkirk | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Haddington | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Hamilton | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Lanark | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Linlithgow | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Stirling | 8 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 0 |
Total | 37 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 1 |
