Chamber and committees

In their decision letter following the Public Inquiry, Scottish ministers accepted the reporter's recommendation to give early consideration to funding the option of extending the link road through to Inchture Interchange. Due to higher priorities on the A90 and elsewhere on the trunk road network it has, to date, not proved possible to accommodate the link road in the current programme.

All the non-confidential responses to the consultation on the draft Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are available in the Parliament's Reference Centre. The consultation was not a referendum on any particular bill provision but rather sought views on the bill as a whole. Most considered responses were qualitative in nature and did not express outright support or opposition to any particular proposals.

The objective of land reform is to remove land-based barriers to the sustainable development of rural communities. It is not expected that crofting communities will wish to exercise the crofting community right to buy unless the current ownership has proved to be just such a land based barrier. An application by a crofting community body to exercise the right to buy land will not succeed unless the proposed acquisition will deliver sustainable development and be in the public interest. Each application will be considered on its merits and with reference to the criteria which ministers must take into account in reaching a decision. An application would not be considered to be in the public interest if granting that application would result in severe detriment to the sustainable development of other land. It is, of course, open to any landowner to seek to avoid problems of severance by either utilising the provisions of section 76 of the bill or negotiating a sale of his/her property to the crofting community. In addition, if a successful application results in severance and depreciation of other property, section 85(6)(a)(ii) of the bill provides that the price paid should take account of this.

As with any other crofting community right to buy application, an application for a right to buy salmon fishings would be required to include the information specified in section 70(5)(e), (f) and (g) of the bill and to succeed such an application must also meet criteria specified in section 71(1)(j), (k), (l) and (o). I am sure these requirements could not be successfully met without demonstrating how the on-going management of the salmon fishings is to be funded.

The meaning of "contiguous" is clear and unambiguous. It means "touching" or "sharing a border with". In the context of the bill contiguous salmon fishings must abut the croft land and they will only be eligible croft land insofar as they do so.

Salmon fishings which are "eligible croft land" for the purposes of section 67(4)(b) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are those defined as such by section 65(2)(d) of that bill.

We believe that there are advantages to be derived from being able to manage all land-based activities on a property in a holistic fashion. We consider that crofting communities should have that opportunity if they want it. The very existence of this right to buy is also a significant factor in altering the balance of power between the crofting community and landowners, including proprietors of salmon fishings.

None. Such arrangements may enable those who currently control and manage the fishings to continue to do so. The crofting community may still be able to purchase the salmon fishings and if they do so may benefit as owners from any revenues to be derived in the form of rent etc. from such arrangements.

There has been no such research undertaken or commissioned by the Scottish Executive.

The Scottish Executive has been aware from the outset that many of the provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill would require to be carefully formulated to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Ministers consider that the provisions in the bill, including those relating to the acquisition of salmon fishings, achieve that outcome, and there are no grounds on which it could successfully be argued that there is incompatibility with the convention.