Chamber and committees

Section 74(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 ensures that council tax payers obtain value for their assets, affords a measure of protection to the authority against charges of discrimination between purchasers and precludes the award of hidden subsidies. Our usual policy has been to grant applications for dispensation under section 74(2) if the intending buyer or lessee is performing some kind of charitable or public service function and where it could reasonably be argued that the buyer could not afford the full market price.

Under this section 2 requests have been turned down. These are:

• North Lanarkshire council requested consent to dispose of a former play area at Roman Road, Motherwell to the Roman Road Gospel Hall (RRGH) at less than market value. The council stated that RRGH had informed them that the public benefit gained from the proposal would be that the cars currently parked on Roman Road would be removed to the car park. We felt that this did not justify selling a public asset at less than full market value. The council also stated in their original application that the reason the council were selling the land to the Gospel Hall was to allow them to expand their facilities. In later correspondence it was confirmed that the Gospel Hall had since indicated to the council by letter that they have no intention to expand, thus rendering the councils original reason for selling the land to RRGH redundant. Consent was refused on 16 May 2000.

• Orkney Islands council requested consent to dispose of land to the executors of a Mr Cecil Copland at less than market value. This was due to the original sale to Mr Copland, in 1977, not going ahead because of an oversight by the council. Since 1977 Mr Copland had been using the land. When he died his executors stated that although the payment had not gone through the land belonged to Mr Copland and only the originally agreed price would need to be paid. Because of the period of time the price of the land had risen so selling at the original price would need section 74 consent. We asked the council what public benefit would be gained from this sale and they replied by stating that they could not see any public benefit in selling the land to the above parties. Although the case was an unusual one we could not grant consent to dispose of a public asset if there was no clear benefit to the public. The fault lay with both parties in that each failed to pursue the sale to its proper conclusion. Consent was refused on 22 May 2000.

These are the only applications refused consent under section 74 since 1 July 1999.

Requests for consent to dispose of land at less than best price are considered under section 74(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. In addition, if the land is held on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), consent in terms of section 12(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 will also be required.

Requests for consent to dispose of housing held on the Housing Revenue Account at less than best price are considered under section 12(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (section 12(10) disapplies section 74(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973).

No requests have been turned down under section 12(7) since 1 July 1999.

It is our intention to consult on proposals for secondary legislation and associated guidance later in the summer. A number of new installations, whether for second or third generation technology, will be dealt with under current planning arrangements.

The returns received from operators are still being analysed to establish whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

None. It was made clear at the meeting that the Executive did not consider it necessary to reconvene an Aggregates Working Party in Scotland.

This is a matter for planning authorities. Joint working may include the establishment of consortia, as has happened in the east of Scotland, or in the context of preparing Joint Structure Plans. The Joint Structure Plan areas are Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire; Ayrshire; Dundee and Angus; Glasgow and Clyde Valley; Lothians; and Stirling and Clackmannanshire.

The Scottish Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been working closely with the spirits industry on the implications of potential reductions of export refunds with the aim of achieving the best outcome possible. The Scottish Executive has not undertaken its own research.

The Scottish Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have made their concern, and those of the spirits industry, about this proposal very clear to the European Commission.

The Scottish Executive is in regular contact with the UK Government and the European Commission on this and other issues. The UK Government can oppose reductions in export refunds but has no power of veto.

Following the trunking of the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass on 1 April 1996, the Secretary of State, in accordance with section 112 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, became liable for payment of principal, interest and management fees on a portion of a £49 million covenant taken out with the Royal Bank of Canada by Lothian Regional Council. An 82.9% proportion of the covenant was used to construct the bypass. The responsibility passed to the Scottish Executive on 1 July 1999 and it is therefore liable for the proportion of the outstanding repayments until 28 February 2003.

Payments in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were £3,438,708 and £3,272,078 respectively. Estimated payments for 2000-01 and 2001-02 are £3,081,536 and £2,896,714 respectively.

The Scottish Executive is aware of this research project and will study its detailed findings with interest in the context of raising awareness of alternative modes of travel. However, the Integrated Transport Bill and the Executive's wider transport policies include a flexible range of measures for achieving their objectives and so are not dependent on any one single approach.