- 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-30833 by Ross Finnie on 18 November 2002, why, if it is its policy to give crofting communities the opportunity to buy their croft land, it also plans to allow such communities to buy salmon fishings on contiguous land that is not theirs, with no further tests.
Answer
The bill does not permit crofting communities to buy salmon fishings located on contiguous land. It is the salmon fishings themselves which have to be contiguous.There are tests that apply to the acquisition of salmon fishings. These are the same as apply to the acquisition of the croft land. However, there is also a further requirement that the salmon fishings may only be acquired in conjunction with the croft land or within a year of acquisition of the croft land in accordance with the provisions of the bill.
- 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: 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-30835 by Ross Finnie on 18 November 2002, whether it is satisfied, bearing in mind the opinion of the Court of Session in the case of County Properties v the Scottish Ministers and, in particular, paragraph 19 of that opinion, that the approval of applications made under Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will be fair, given that none of the safeguards mentioned in paragraph 19 of the opinion will be present.
Answer
The approval of applications by Scottish ministers under Part 3 of the bill will be fair in that the provisions of that part are in accordance with the general principles laid down by the courts in both the County Properties and Alconbury cases. There is provision in section 78 for any interested party to refer any question arising from an application for consent to buy to the Land Court and section 88 provides a right of appeal against ministers' decision on questions of law.
- 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: Monday, 21 October 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 14 November 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive why salmon fishings are the only non-croft land to be included in the crofting community right to buy contained in Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Answer
Salmon fishings are not the only non-croft land to be included in the crofting community right to buy. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill provides for the acquisition by the crofting community body of additional land that is not croft land. Salmon fishings and minerals are separate tenements of land and as a consequence may be held on a separate title from the land itself. Both of these can be acquired by the crofting community body through the crofting community right to buy along with or separately from the croft land.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 21 October 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 14 November 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive when salmon fishing owners were consulted about the proposed inclusion of salmon fishings in the crofting community right to buy contained in Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Answer
The proposals in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill were the outcome of extensive public consultation, dating back to 1997, to which salmon fishing owners were free to respond. The Scottish Landowners Federation (SLF) has responded at every stage of consultation and made representations to ministers on several occasions about the land reform proposals. It is our understanding that the SLF represents the interests of many people who own salmon fishings. The Scottish Executive undertook a full public consultation on the draft bill which contained these proposals. Salmon fishing interests including owners responded to that consultation and commented on the proposals. In addition, parliamentary committees took evidence from a group representing the interests of owners of salmon fishings and from the SLF during stage 1 consideration of the bill.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 21 October 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 14 November 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive under what circumstances a crofting community body will be able to dispose of land that it has acquired under Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Answer
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.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 21 October 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 14 November 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive when, in the consultation process for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill prior to the bill's publication, the acquisition of adjacent salmon fishings was proposed to be subject to the crofting community right to buy.
Answer
The first occasion when responses to a consultation proposed that crofters should have a right to buy salmon fishings was in responses to the paper on the crofting community right to buy circulated to members of the Crofting Consultative Panel. Four of those responses suggested this. The bill does not provide for the purchase of adjacent salmon fishings but only for the purchase of salmon fishings that are exercisable from and on croft land.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 21 October 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 14 November 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S1W-28090 by Ross Finnie on 26 August 2002, whether, in the light of that answer, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development will withdraw his statement that the essential requirement of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights is compensation (Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 30 January 2002; c 995-6).
Answer
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.