- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 29 June 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 12 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has confidence in the Water Industry Commissioner.
Answer
The Water Industry Commissioner has shown himself to be an effective economic regulator by providing detailed comparative analysis of the performance of Scottish Water and its predecessor bodies in, for example, such key areas as capital procurement, capital maintenance and operational efficiency and by setting efficiency targets for 2002-06 which are already delivering £1 million per week in operational savings.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 15 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 12 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-9478 by Mr Andy Kerr on 30 June 2004, whether the local government finance review will be requested to complete its work within a particular timescale and, if so, what that timescale will be.
Answer
We have set no specific target date for the completion of the review but I currently expect it to take between one and two years to complete.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 02 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 10 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive what the factual basis is for the conclusion in the report, Operations involving the Deer Commission for Scotland in Glenfeshie and Strathglass, that it is “not uncommon during traditional culling operations” for there to be delays of 15 minutes from hinds being wounded until they are despatched and what examples it can provide of where this has occurred.
Answer
The report noted that there had been delays of up to 15 minutes in respect of two of the deer culled and concluded that such delays, whilst unfortunate, were not uncommon during traditional culling operations. There are a number of relevant research findings. In particular, the Survey of permanent wound tracts in the carcases of culled wild deer in Scotland published by K Urquhart and I McKendrick (The Veterinary Record, 19 April 2003) identified that 14% of carcases had two or more bullet wounds and that in some cases the level was as high as 27%. Based on research carried out, the Burns Hunting Inquiry (into hunting with dogs, June 2000) records that of deer shot by stalking about 2% of wounded deer then escaped. The report also records (paragraph 6.36) that about 10% of deer required two or more shots and that a conservative estimate was that about half of the wounded deer escaped detection (copies of this document are available in the Parliament’s Reference Centre, Bib. number 28910).
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 02 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 10 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive when it will meet representatives of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to discuss the report, Operations involving the Deer Commission for Scotland in Glenfeshie and Strathglass.
Answer
When I wrote to the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) on 9 June providing an advance copy of the official report into the operations at Glenfeshie and Strathglass I asked that as a first step they reflect on the conclusions drawn by the report, my response and the steps which the Deer Commission for Scotland propose to take to follow up the concerns identified. Andrew Raven’s response, dated 16 July and copied to all key industry bodies including SGA, has now been received and I am considering its contents. I would look to SGA and the wider deer industry to do likewise.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 29 June 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 10 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether, with reference to the report in the Sunday Mail on 27 June 2004 that a claim made to an industrial tribunal, based on allegations of religious and racial bias, against the Water Industry Commissioner, Alan Sutherland, brought by former employee, William Hetherington, has been settled by a payment to Mr Hetherington of “nearly #30,000”, (a) the Executive will make a full statement on the matter, (b) the Executive's policy of 'ero tolerance towards racial or religious discrimination, such as remarks and abuse, applies to those who hold senior public sector posts, such as that of the Water Industry Commissioner and, if so, whether it has sought any explanation from the commissioner regarding this matter and, if so, on what date or dates, (c) whether such explanation was (i) sought and (ii) obtained before the commissioner was reappointed, (d) what sum has been agreed to be paid to the employee, (e) who will be responsible for paying the agreed sum, (f) whether Mr Sutherland will be responsible for paying the agreed sum and, if not, what the reasons are for the taxpayer meeting the cost and whether it is Executive policy that the taxpayer should pay the consequences of any racial or religious bias by public sector management and (g) whether there is any legal means by which an individual can be held personally responsible for the consequences and, in particular, the financial consequences of racial or religious bias and what steps the Executive will take to address this position, including whether a clause to this effect can be inserted into the contract of employment of such employees.
Answer
The Executive expects the Water Industry Commissioner to act in accordance with his responsibilities under the law and the code of conduct under the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. Ministers may terminate this appointment on a range of grounds including gross misconduct in the discharge of the appointee’s duties or conviction for a criminal offence. However, the allegations referred to above were neither the subject of a formal complaint made to the Executive nor were they substantiated through the appropriate due legal process. I understand the claim to the tribunal was withdrawn and a final settlement was agreed by both parties.
Any costs involved in reaching such a settlement must be met within the commissioner’s budget. The Race Relations Act 1976 provides for penalties (including financial penalties) where an individual is discriminated against by another person.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 07 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Allan Wilson on 10 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive when the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum came into existence; how much funding for research it has (a) considered and (b) approved to date and, if no funding has been considered or approved to date, whether the Executive is satisfied with the forum's performance and when the forum will commence fulfilling its intended function.
Answer
The Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF) was formally established as a charitable company limited by guarantee on 28 April 2004. It has made good progress since establishment, member organisations have committed resources, both in cash and in kind, to SARF for research and have identified research priorities. An administrator responsible for managing SARF affairs on a day-to-day basis has recently been appointed. The administrator will shortly publish a call for research proposals based on member’s research priorities. It is anticipated that the call will be issued in August 2004 and will be availableon the SARF website (
www.sarf.org.uk) together with other recognised sources of research funding opportunities. The forum should provide an effective mechanism for funding targeted research, both independently and in collaboration with other funding bodies.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 06 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Frank McAveety on 10 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-9319 by Mr Frank McAveety on 5 July 2004, whether the decision regarding the application for the restoration of Castle Tioram was taken by the minister or by Historic Scotland under delegated authority and, if the decision was taken by Historic Scotland, what publicity was given to this fact at the time the decision was made and subsequently.
Answer
Historic Scotland is an Agency of the Scottish Executive and all functions it performs are carried out on behalf of the Scottish ministers.
The decision to accept the independent Inquiry Reporter's recommendation that the application for scheduled monument consent in respect of Castle Tioram should be refused was taken under delegated powers.
Since 2002, all recommendations made by Inquiry Reporters in respect of listed building, conservation area or scheduled monument consent applications have been decided by ministers.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 06 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Frank McAveety on 10 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will agree to hold a local referendum inviting local residents to express their views on whether they support the plans for restoration, consolidation or taking no action in respect of Castle Tioram and, if so, whether it will invite the Electoral Reform Society to carry out such a referendum and what its reasons are for its position on the matter, and what regard it has for the views of the elected Scottish parliamentary representatives of the area on the issue.
Answer
No. The owners' application for scheduled monument consent for the restoration of Castle Tioram has completed all the necessary statutory procedures, including being the subject of a public local inquiry held in the area over 29 days at which local residents were given an opportunity to express their views. The independent Inquiry Reporter recommended that consent be refused and that recommendation was accepted by Scottish ministers.
I had a meeting in March this year with a group of Highland MSPs, who expressed views that the Castle could play an active role in supporting the local economy. Following that meeting, my officials in Historic Scotland met the Castle's owner. Since then, I have requested an update on the condition of the Castle and the commissioning of a proper Statement of Cultural Significance, which would address the gaps identified by the Inquiry Reporter. Any future decisions that require to be made by Scottish ministers will be informedby these reports.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 06 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Frank McAveety on 10 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is concerned that the time taken by it and Historic Scotland to consider the issues relating to Castle Tioram may be causing, or contributing to, a risk of further deterioration to the condition of the castle.
Answer
The responsibility for maintaining Castle Tioram rests with the owners. There are no applications relating to the Castle currently before the Scottish Executive.
As I stated in my letter to you of 24 May 2004, following a meeting between my officials and the Castle's owner, and a meeting between me and my officials and the Clanranald Castle Tioram Trust and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, I have asked Historic Scotland to prepare a report on the Castle’s current structural condition and to commission a proper Statement of Cultural Significance that addresses the gaps that were identified by the independent Inquiry Reporter in his Report. These are in hand.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 02 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 29 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive what advice it has received about the legality of shooting deer from helicopters.
Answer
Section 20 (1) (a) of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 provides that any person who discharges any firearm or discharges or projects any missile from any moving vehicle at any deer shall be guilty of an offence. In addition to specific exceptions, Section 20 is subject to section 14 of the Act which provides exemption for Deer Commission for Scotland staff (and those with DCS authorisation) in relation to action in respect of a control agreement, control scheme or section 10 action. DCS has never made use of that exemption.
