- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 16 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Iain Gray on 6 January 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is the policy of Scottish Enterprise (SE) not to consider giving any assistance to, or hold any discussions about assistance with, any party with which SE is in litigation about matters unrelated to such assistance and what the reasons are for the position on this matter.
Answer
This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 03 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Lewis Macdonald on 16 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-31634 by Lewis Macdonald on 28 November 2002, whether it has any figures for traffic levels on the A9 trunk road between Perth and Inverness on a monthly basis.
Answer
Yes, the undernoted traffic figures have been extracted from the Scottish Roads Traffic Database (SRTDb). The figures are two-way flows (i.e. northbound and southbound combined) and are shown as average daily flows for each month over the 12-month period between November 2001 and October 2002.There are three locations where data is not available (n/a) for all months, due to mechanical/technical faults with the recording equipment.
| Location | Nov 01 | Dec 01 | Jan 02 | Feb 02 | Mar 02 | Apr 02 | May 02 | Jun 02 | Jul 02 | Aug 02 | Sep 02 | Oct 02 |
| A9 Inshes (B9006) to Raigmore Interchange (A96) | 19,030 | n/a | 18,331 | 19,281 | n/a | 21,721 | 23,008 | 23,613 | 24,735 | 26,138 | 23,031 | 21,025 |
| A9 Tomatin | 6,711 | 6,320 | 5,822 | 6,361 | 7,234 | 7,758 | 8,374 | 8,913 | 9,605 | 10,519 | 8,867 | 8,186 |
| A9 Kerrow (A86) to Lynwilg (B9152) | 6,737 | 6,240 | 4,986 | 6,687 | 7,537 | 7,726 | 8,419 | 8,987 | 9,631 | 10,577 | 8,726 | 8,197 |
| A9 Calvine to Dalwhinnie(A889) | 6,370 | 5,814 | 5,250 | 6,206 | 7,230 | 7,675 | 8,501 | 9,156 | 9,945 | 10,909 | 8,842 | 8,136 |
| A9 S of B847 - at Shierglas | 6,650 | 5,983 | 3,991 | 6,309 | 7,269 | 7,720 | 8,374 | 8,965 | 9,668 | 10,525 | 8,752 | 8,171 |
| A9 Pitlochry Bypass - S of A924 | 6,777 | 6,052 | 5,534 | 6,457 | 7,472 | 8,067 | 8,697 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| A9 Birnam | 10,052 | 6,979 | 8,178 | 9,839 | 11,523 | 12,407 | 13,379 | 13,930 | 15,173 | 16,479 | 13,973 | 12,770 |
| A9 N of B8063 - at Luncarty | n/a | 11,775 | 10,950 | 12,466 | 14,146 | 15,103 | 15,996 | 17,283 | 17,530 | 19,002 | 16,192 | 14,929 |
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 03 December 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Lewis Macdonald on 16 December 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-31634 by Lewis Macdonald on 28 November 2002, whether it has any figures for the percentage of commercial vehicles and HGVs using the A9 trunk road between Perth and Inverness and, if so, how these figures compare with the national average for non-dual carriageway trunk roads.
Answer
Yes, the Scottish Roads Traffic Database (SRTDb) has two Automatic Traffic Classifier Sites (ATCS) located on the A9 between Perth and Inverness at Birnam and Tomatin. The percentage of HGVs at these locations is 9.5% and 14.26% respectively.These figures are based on data collected for the 12-month period between December 2001 and November 2002.Information on national average HGV percentages for non-dual carriageway trunk roads is not currently published. However, a broad analysis of the information contained in the Scottish Roads Traffic Database suggests that the average figure is around 11% for Scottish Trunk Single Carriageway Roads.
- 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-30830 by Ross Finnie on 18 November 2002, whether it will lodge an amendment to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill that would enable crofting communities to buy salmon fishings on croft land and not those exercisable from croft land and what the reasons are for its position on this matter.
Answer
I see no need to change the bill in the manner proposed since the existing provisions fully meet 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: 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, 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.
