- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 05 November 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 13 November 2003
To ask the Presiding Officer whether the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) has made all documentary and other evidence that it has available to the Holyrood inquiry; whether the SPCB requested that any particular items be kept confidential, and, if so, whether the nature of such items can be identified and the reasons for them being kept confidential.
Answer
Documentary evidence hasbeen, and continues to be, made available to the Holyrood Inquiry. The SPCB, aslegal owner of the Holyrood project in succession to the then Secretary ofState, is bound by contractual and other obligations created in addition to anyentered into by the SPCB since the transfer date. Where obligations ofconfidence subsist, documentary evidence is marked accordingly. Where the inquiryconsiders that any part of such material ought to be made public, the consentof the parties involved will require to be obtained.Relevant legal advice, forexample, supplied to the SPCB has been and is being made available to the inquiryand is marked confidential. It is expected that such advice would not be madepublic.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 14 October 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 11 November 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the comments made by the Permanent Secretary and reported in the media on 9 October 2003 were supported by a written briefing and, if so, whether a copy of that briefing will be placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre.
Answer
The Permanent Secretary hasintroduced management changes to strengthen and sharpen the capacity of themachinery of government to support ministers when they work collectively. Theorganisational changes, which are not the subject of any written pressbriefing, bring together mainly existing parts of the administration alongsideexisting elements of the Office of the Permanent Secretary.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 14 October 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Tavish Scott on 11 November 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will place in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre copies of all submissions received to its consultation paper Business Improvement Districts as soon as possible so that members may consider them prior to the parliamentary debate on building better cities scheduled to be held on 30 October 2003.
Answer
Copies of submissions to theBusiness Improvement Districts consultation paper have been placed in the Parliament’s Reference Centre (Bib. number 29738).
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 14 October 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Andy Kerr on 11 November 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the comments made by the Permanent Secretary reported in The Herald on 9 October 2003, (a) whether it will clarify the remit, membership and estimated annual cost of the (i) group for hori'on scanning and (ii) performance and innovation unit, (b) what the role, remit and renumeration will be of the “proven performer” to be appointed from the private sector and (c) what the annual cost of the new delivery unit will be.
Answer
The group charged withhorizon scanning is a sub-group of the existing management group, chaired bythe Permanent Secretary and including some members of the management group. Itwill be supported by the strategy unit, which has been drawn from the previouslyexisting policy unit. No additional costs are incurred for this group. The performanceand innovation unit will consist of ad hoc teams established on a project byproject basis charged with taking forward specific studies to deliver optionsfor policy or delivery improvement. The additional cost of establishing andservicing this unit is expected, given its ad hoc working arrangements, to besmall, but cannot be estimated precisely at this stage. A senior figure withappropriate experience, probably gained at least partly in the private sectorwill head and oversee the work of the performance and innovation unit on apart-time basis. Remuneration, if any, will be settled when someone isidentified for the role. The delivery unit has been drawn from the previously existingpolicy unit and there are no additional costs associated with it.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 27 October 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Frank McAveety on 10 November 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will make any representations to Scottish Screen that no more funding should be provided for the documentary about the Holyrood project.
Answer
Funding decisions are amatter for the board and management of Scottish Screen, but decisions by theLottery Committee on the allocation of lottery funds, as in this case, must betaken in accordance with Department for Culture Media and Sport rules.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 30 September 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 10 November 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has received any representations from NFU Scotland requesting it to publish its plans for implementing the proposed budget reduction in the Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme and whether it will introduce measures to provide a safety net.
Answer
National Farmers UnionScotland issued a news release on 26 September urging the Executive to publishits plans for implementing the reduction in expenditure from £63 million in2003 to the budgeted figure of £61 million. Changes to the 2004 Less FavouredArea Support Scheme (LFASS) are still under discussion with the EuropeanCommission.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 30 September 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Malcolm Chisholm on 10 November 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S2W-2515 and S2W-2516 by Malcolm Chisholm on 24 September 2003, whether it expects the annual administration costs of the new UK General Medical Services contract to be greater or less than the annual central administration costs of the current General Medical Services contract.
Answer
As already stated in myprevious answer S2W-2516 on 24 September 2003, work is currently under way onimplementing the new General Medical Services (GMS) contract. Until this workis complete it is not possible to say whether the annual administration costsof the new UK GMS contract will be more or less than the annual centraladministration costs for the current GMS contract.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 08 October 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 3 November 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive why, with regard to the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme, it has not adopted the suggestion from NFU Scotland for a uniform pro rata reduction of payments by the percentage equivalent to the total reduction in funding available for the scheme; what the rationale is behind its new proposals, and what consultation it had prior to introducing these proposals, with whom and when.
Answer
The arrangements for theLess Favoured Area Support Scheme (LFASS) for 2004 are still under discussionwith the European Commission. An announcement on these will be made as soon aspossible.
The arrangements for the2004 scheme have been discussed within the LFASS industry working group, whichincludes representatives of NFU Scotland, the Scottish Crofting Foundation andthe Scottish Landowners’ Federation.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 03 October 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Tom McCabe on 30 October 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the European Commission to oppose measures which would adopt the proposal from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) that a bacteriophage should be run over 20 degrees over five days; whether such a regulation, if introduced, would have an adverse impact on the shellfish industry in Scotland, and whether it will provide the Parliament with details of its policy on this proposal and publish copies of any representations that it has made or will make.
Answer
I am advised by the FoodStandards Agency (FSA) that no such representations have been made to theEuropean Commission as the work on bacteriophages has yet to be completed.CEFAS has been commissioned by the EU Commission to carry out research tocontribute to the development of EU proposals on viruses in shellfish. TheCommission is working with all member states to develop this work with a viewto possible issue of formal proposals by the end of this year. The FSA willconsult all stakeholders and an impact assessment will be carried out when theproposals become available. The current information, proposals and subsequentwork will be made available to the Parliament.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 18 September 2003
-
Current Status:
Answered by Allan Wilson on 23 October 2003
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it measures the impact on the forestry and forest products sectors of the economy of all proposed measures that will potentially add costs to those sectors, including additional measures regarding certification, the designation of forest areas as sites of special scientific interest and measures in other areas that may restrict economic activity, and what consultation there is with bodies representing such sectors about such measures in advance of their implementation.
Answer
We take seriously the needto take account of the interests of all stakeholders who have an involvement inforestry and forest products whether they are economic, environmental or socialwhen we develop and implement legislation and other policy instruments. In someinstances there is a need to strike balances and make choices, for example inthe case of nature conservation where there may be UK andEuropean considerations. In the case of independent certification this is notjust a matter for the Scottish Executive. The UK Woodland Assurance Scheme has been developedby a much wider grouping of forestry stakeholders and is independent ofgovernment. Within this broad group, economic interests have their opportunityto contribute to the process and make the case for economic viability based onsustainable principles.
