Questions and answers

Question reference: S2W-09569

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.

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.

Question reference: S2W-09447

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.

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.

Question reference: S2W-09639

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.

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.

Question reference: S2W-09553

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.

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).

Question reference: S2W-09567

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.

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.

Question reference: S2W-09554

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.

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.

Question reference: S2W-09551

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.

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.

Question reference: S2W-09601

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 06 July 2004
Current Status: Answered by George Reid on 28 July 2004

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether the contractual obligations incumbent upon Ballast Construction Scotland and Hewcon Ltd, in terms of the trade works packages awarded to them, were completed satisfactorily and whether each company has been paid in full.

The primary contractualobligations in both trade packages were completed and Certificates of PracticalCompletion were issued. Hewcon attended to all proven defects notified to themduring their defects liability period and have had all retention moniesreleased. Ballast went into Administration during the defects liability periodof their trade package contract, and were unable to complete outstanding worksor make good defects. This has now been attended to by other contractors, andthe costs will be off-set against Ballast’s retention monies.

Question reference: S2W-09602

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 06 July 2004
Current Status: Answered by George Reid on 28 July 2004

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether, with regard to the Holyrood project, the sum due in respect of trade package 1510 of #2.2 million for tower cranes included payment to the operators of the cranes.

Question reference: S2W-09691

Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Monday, 12 July 2004
Current Status: Answered by Duncan McNeil on 28 July 2004

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, further to the answer to question S2W-1861 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 28 August 2003, why “experience has shown” that the SPCB could not guarantee to make payments by the 19th of the month following the pay run in which the contributions are collected and what that experience has been; why the SPCB is unable to make an arrangement which complies with this time deadline using direct debit, and when the SPCB will provide a full explanation of this matter to MSPs.

Previously,contributions were paid by a combination of BACS, cheques and direct debits. Inthe case of the direct debit facility, it gave pension providers authority tocollect contributions direct from an SPCB bank account. However, experienceshowed that:

if anindividual’s pension contribution increased by a small amount certain pensionproviders continued to collect the amount previously agreed and refused toaccept any increases of less than £10.00 per month;

pensionproviders were able to take money out of the bank account in situations wherethe Personnel Office had not been notified that a pension wasin place;

pensionproviders were collecting contributions in lump sums making it very difficultto identify for whom the contributions were being collected;

pensionproviders continued to collect contributions for several months after anindividual had ceased employment despite being advised that their employmenthad been terminated;

once a pensioncontribution rate had been set some pension providers would not accept anyrevised amounts, for example, increases due to pay awards, changes to contractedhours or backdated payments.

More importantly, however, new pension legislation changescame into effect from 6 April 2001 which required the SPCB to review itsprocedures. Under the Occupational PensionsRegulatory Authority (OPRA) the new rules for employers’ state that they havean obligation to:

calculate the employers’ and employees’ contributions foreach individual member of staff;

pay the correct amount of contributions over by the 19th of the month following the pay run in which the contributions are collected;

maintain a record of payments made;

provide each pension provider with a schedule as a recordof payments made.

Because of the problemsbeing experienced the SPCB believed that it could not comply with the new OPRArules whilst the then existing direct debit arrangements remained and deemed itnecessary to review and change its procedures. The decision was taken to closedown the direct debit facility and pay all contributions either by cheque, BACSor by standing order. This change gave the SPCB control over this matter toensure that it met its obligations under the new OPRA rules. All pension providers were informed in writing of thedecision.

The SPCB does not believe itcould comply, on behalf of members with all of the obligations placed on themas employers under OPRA rules were it to reinstate the direct debit facilityand therefore has no intention of doing so. This full answer ensures that membershave a full explanation of the matter.

Chamber and committees