Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

This legislation does not seek to emulate compulsory purchase legislation in every respect. Section 70 provides that ministers must publicise applications and seek views from those identified as interested parties in order to consider all relevant factors before coming to a decision. However, where there are matters relating to an application that are disputed, section 78 provides that these issues will be resolved by the land court. The proceedings of the land court are normally conducted in public.

The powers of compulsory acquisition in the bill do not seek to emulate compulsory purchase legislation in every respect. It is the policy of the Scottish Executive that crofting communities should have the opportunity to buy their croft land if the acquisition of the land would be compatible with sustainable development and in the public interest. A test of necessity would not be compatible with the achievement of that objective.

The handling of the crofting community right to buy salmon fishings in the draft bill text would not have delivered the intended policy outcome. The policy intention is that crofting community bodies should be able to apply for the right to buy salmon fishings located on or directly exercisable from the croft land which they were acquiring or had acquired through the exercise of the crofting community right to buy. It was not intended that crofting communities should be able to acquire, through the right to buy, salmon fishings on or exercisable from additional land that they might acquire or that their acquisition of salmon fishings should be subject to the additional tests found in section 74 of the bill.

No. What I said to the committee has to be considered in the context in which it was said. The discussion was about compensation and adequacy of compensation is the essential requirement in that context. I did not say that provision of adequate compensation is the only requirement that has to be met in order to achieve compliance with the Convention. It is clear from the committee report that the committee understood that the exercise of the crofting community right to buy must also be in the public interest in order to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The provisions of the bill do not provide for the acquisition of salmon fishings located on land that is not eligible croft land nor do they allow areas of land in different ownerships to be covered by a single application. If, as we expect, crofting community bodies are properly informed as to what they will have a right to buy there will be no such applications.

No. However, decisions by ministers to consent to or to reject a crofting community right to buy application can be appealed in terms of section 88 of the bill to the sheriff court which is an independent and impartial tribunal for the purposes of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An aggrieved party would also have a right to resort to the courts using the remedy of judicial review.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill contains no provisions that specify circumstances in which a crofting community body may or may not dispose of land acquired through the exercise of the right to buy. Any restrictions on disposal of land will be governed, where required, by the terms and conditions of the grant or loan documentation of the crofting community body's funders, and by the crofting community body's own Memorandum and Articles of Association.