- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 02 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 13 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-30836 by Ross Finnie on 18 November 2002, whether there will be two public interest tests when an application is made under Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, namely that the application is in the public interest using the qualified definition in the bill and that it is in the public interest in the normal sense of the phrase as applied to Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Answer
As stated in the answer given to question S1W-30836, the purpose of section 71(2) of the bill is to elucidate the meaning of the phrase "public interest" as used in the bill. Whether or not ministers consider a proposed acquisition by a crofting community body is in the public interest will depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 02 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 13 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S1W-30836 and S1W-30837 by Ross Finnie on 18 November 2002, why, if the exercise of the crofting community right to buy under the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill must be in the public interest in order to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), there is no test of the public interest, in the sense of the phrase as applied to Article 1 of Protocol 1 of ECHR, in the bill.
Answer
Article 1 of Protocol 1 of ECHR provides that no one shall be deprived of their possessions except inter alia in the public interest. This is why an acquisition under the crofting community right to buy must be in the public interest in order to be compatible with the Convention. What constitutes the "public interest" in each particular case can only be decided on the facts of that case.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 02 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 13 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-30831 by Ross Finnie on 18 November 2002, why it was not intended that salmon fishings on land contiguous to croft land should be subject to the additional tests found in section 74 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Answer
If the acquisition of salmon fishings in accordance with the provisions of the bill was made subject to the highly restrictive tests in section 74, the outcome would be to ensure that a crofting community body could rarely, if ever, purchase salmon fishings. That outcome would not be consistent with our policy intentions.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 02 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 13 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, with regard to the estimate of one application per year to exercise the crofting community right to buy contained in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, as referred to in paragraph 324 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, how many such applications it estimates will contain a salmon fishing as one of the subjects of the application.
Answer
No estimate has been or can be made. There are too many uncertainties. If experience of existing community purchases is anything to go by, a significant proportion of crofting community bodies may not be interested in acquiring salmon fishings. However, we consider it important that the opportunity to do so should be available.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 02 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 13 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-30827 by Ross Finnie on 18 November 2002, why section 65(2)(d) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill provides for the purchase of "salmon fishings contiguous to" croft land when the intention of the bill is to provide for the purchase of salmon fishings that are exercisable from croft land and whether it plans to lodge any amendment to bring the bill into line with this intention
Answer
It is my understanding that the terminology used in section 65(2)(d) is precisely what is required in order to achieve our policy intention.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 02 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 13 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-30827 by Ross Finnie on 18 November 2002, what the difference is between "adjacent salmon fishings" which it states is not provided for in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and "salmon fishings contiguous to" croft land as stated in section 65(2)(d) of the bill.
Answer
"Contiguous to" has a more precise and more strictly limited meaning than "adjacent" which can be interpreted as "close to" without necessarily conveying the concept of physical contact with the croft land.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 04 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 13 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the purpose of the word "furthering" in the amended section 71(1)(j) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is to introduce a comparative test of sustainable development whereby the proposed operation by the crofting community body is compared with the existing operation and, if not, what the purpose of the word is.
Answer
The amendment to section 71(1)(j) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was not intended to introduce a comparative test of sustainable development. The Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development explained the purpose of the amendments to the Land Reform Bill, which altered references to sustainable development, to the Justice 2 Committee on 29 October. The relevant comments are recorded at columns 1960 to 1964 of the
Official Report of the 37th meeting of the Justice 2 Committee. This is available on the Parliament's website at
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/cttee/just2-02/j202-3702.htm.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 15 November 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Lewis Macdonald on 28 November 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive what level of traffic it considers is required before a trunk road, such as the A9, should be upgraded to dual carriageway status.
Answer
Decisions on choice of carriageway standard are based on the combined results of economic, operational and environmental assessments. A modern single carriageway such as sections of the A9 between Perth and Inverness can carry an average annual daily flow of 22,000 vehicles. Where additional overtaking opportunities are considered necessary, widening by providing climbing lanes or wide-single carriageway is assessed. A wide-single carriageway can carry an average annual daily flow of 32,000 vehicles. Dual carriageway is considered where the additional benefits that further upgrading would create exceed the additional costs that would be incurred.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 15 November 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Lewis Macdonald on 28 November 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish its assessment of traffic levels on the A9 trunk road between Perth and Inverness in each of the last five years.
Answer
The annual average daily flows at various locations along the A9 between Perth and Inverness are assessed as follows:
| Location | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| A9 Tomatin | 7,077 | 7,494 | 7,224 | 7,147 | 6,837 | 8,082 |
| A9 Kerrow (A86) to Lynwilg (B9152) | | | | | 7,488 | 8,147 |
| A9 Calvine to Dalwhinnie(A889) | | | 8,180 | | 7,986 | 8,136 |
| A9 S of B847 - at Shierglas | | | | | 7,437 | 7,947 |
| A9 Pitlochry Bypass - S of A924 | 7,168 | | | | 8,453 | 8,697 |
| A9 Birnam | 10,509 | 11,592 | 11,352 | 10,853 | 11,034 | 12,609 |
| A9 N of B8063 - at Luncarty | | | | 13,821 | 13,991 | 15,359 |
Figures are shown in each case where data is available for the relevant area.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 28 August 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Wallace on 14 November 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-1719 by Mr Jim Wallace on 29 September 1999, when the research commissioned into business finance and securities over moveable property will be published.
Answer
Summary findings and a full research report on Business Finance and Security over Moveable Property were published on Monday 23 September 2002. The research can be accessed on the Scottish Executive's website and copies have been lodged with the Parliament's Reference Centre.
