Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Since the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill would not enable crofting communities to buy salmon fishings that cannot be exploited from croft land there is no need to amend the bill in the manner suggested.