Chamber and committees

The Executive believes that the creation of an absolute right to buy could result in landowners incurring loss in the value of their assets. We also believe that a court of law might view provisions introducing an absolute right to buy as amounting to an interference of the enjoyment of the landlord's possessions. As such, the provisions would be unlikely to comply with the provisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights if the Executive did not also ensure that landlords were reasonably compensated for their losses. Blight on the property would arise from the creation of the absolute right to buy because it would materially affect the private right of a landowner to determine how long they owned, used and obtained income from that holding. We believe the price a potential purchaser would be prepared to pay for such a holding would decrease in such a situation. This would reduce its value to the existing landlord. A cost of the order of £100 million was estimated initially by the Land Policy Review Group in 1998. It was used to illustrate the likely scale of compensation involved. While we cannot exactly quantify the extent to which an absolute right to buy could depress land values (as the group could not), we estimate that each reduction of 1% in the "marriage value" of holdings with traditional secure tenancies could attract a potential compensation bill of around £20 million. This is based upon estimates of the area of land under traditional secure tenancy arrangement and appropriate average land valuations. The actual figure may be higher, depending upon the fall in value experienced and the type of tenant eligible to exercise the absolute right to buy (e.g. if general partners in a limited partnership holding a secure tenancy were included).We believe that the costs of compensating a landowner would fall to the Executive following the creation of an absolute right to buy. While it might theoretically only fall to be paid when the landowner chose to realise the value of his or her asset or when a tenant chose to exercise the right, the blight would cover all affected land, even if a tenant did not seek to exercise this right. When the landowner's loss fell to be paid, it could not be transferred to tenants who did not wish to exercise their absolute right to buy. We believe it could also be very difficult if not impossible to devise a mechanism which transferred the landlord's loss to a tenant exercising this right in a way that guaranteed, over a long period of time, that landowners would be adequately compensated for the loss in their asset value without this being reflected in the price a purchasing tenant might have to pay. It is also worth noting that the tenant could have to pay for any transaction costs incurred by a landlord selling against his or her will as well as for any injurious affection.

Information for each local authority on the levels of income raised from parking charges and fines (not shown separately), total income and population levels, is available for each year from 1996-97 in the the Parliament's Reference Centre: Rating Review: Actuals of Income and Expenditure 1996-97 (Bib. number 7544)Rating Review: Actuals of Income and Expenditure 1997-98 (Bib. number 7545)Rating Review: Actuals of Income and Expenditure 1998-99 (Bib. number 7548)Rating Review: Actuals of Income and Expenditure 1999-2000 (Bib. number 14654)Rating Review: Actuals of Income and Expenditure 2000-01 (Bib. number 19781).

I refer the member to the answer given to question S1W-29068 on 20 September 2002. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/search_wa.

The average number of general dental practitioners in NHS board areas and the average number of NHS patients registered to general dental practitioners in each NHS board area are shown in the table. Information on private patients is not available.General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) and NHS Patients Registered; by Health Board Area

NHS Board Area	Number of GDPs1,5	Average Number of GDPs in NHS Board Areas1,2,5	Average Number of NHS Patients Registered3,4,5
Scotland	2,016	134	1,321
Argyll and Clyde	175	-	1,259
Ayrshire and Arran	129	-	1,603
Borders	41	-	1,541
Dumfries and Galloway	37	-	1,858
Fife	134	-	1,392
Forth Valley	101	-	1,461
Grampian	156	-	1,647
Greater Glasgow	414	-	1,173
Highland	92	-	919
Lanarkshire	195	-	1,376
Lothian	354	-	1,183
Orkney	7	-	1,104
Shetland	13	-	528
Tayside	161	-	1,423
Western Isles	7	-	1,650

Notes:1. Number of principal GDPs at 30 June 2002.2. It is possible to calculate the average number of GDPs only for Scotland (i.e. 2,016 GDPs divided by 15 health boards).3. Registration figures at 30 June 2002 recorded on 31 July 2002.4. The average number of NHS patients registered is calculated by dividing the total number of NHS patients registered by the number of GDPs.5. These data include salaried principals and their patients.

The average number of patients that were registered, as at 30 June 2002, with salaried general dental practitioners in each NHS board area is show in the following table.Average Number of Patients that are Currently Registered with Salaried General Dental Practitioners in each NHS Board Area

NHS Board Area	Number of Dentists	Number of Patients Registered	Average Number of Patients Registered Per Dentist
Argyll and Clyde	6	5,493	916
Ayrshire and Arran	5	3,949	790
Borders	4	182	46
Dumfries and Galloway	-	-	-
Fife	-	-	-
Forth Valley	1	893	893
Grampian	4	3,431	858
Greater Glasgow	-	-	-
Highland	22	10,328	469
Lanarkshire	-	-	-
Lothian	10	7,300	730
Orkney	3	780	260
Shetland	5	1,718	344
Tayside	-	-	-
Western Isles	-	-	-

Note:Some salaried general dental practitioners provide services on a part-time basis.

The ratio of general dental practitioners to population in (a) each NHS board area and (b) each local authority area is shown in the following tables. Whole-time-equivalent information is not available.(a) Ratio of General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) to Population in each NHS Board Area

NHS Board Area	Number of GDPs 1	Ratio of GDPs to Population 2
Argyll and Clyde	175	1:2,420
Ayrshire and Arran	129	1:2,895
Borders	41	1:2,607
Dumfries and Galloway	37	1:3,941
Fife	134	1:2,615
Forth Valley	101	1:2,752
Grampian	156	1:3,355
Greater Glasgow	414	1:2,185
Highland	92	1:2,267
Lanarkshire	195	1:2,882
Lothian	354	1:2,214
Orkney	7	1:2,783
Shetland	13	1:1,726
Tayside	161	1:2,394
Western Isles	7	1:3,883
Scotland	2,016	1:2,537

(b) Ratio of General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) to Population in each Local Authority Area

Local Authority Area	Number of GDPs 1	Ratio of GDPs to Population 2
Aberdeen City	77	1:2,744
Aberdeenshire	58	1:3,917
Angus	37	1:2,951
Argyll and Bute	33	1:2,691
City of Edinburgh	234	1:1,938
Clackmannanshire	16	1:3,029
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar	7	1:3,883
Dumfries and Galloway	37	1:3,941
Dundee City	68	1:2,099
East Ayrshire	33	1:3,655
East Dunbartonshire	47	1:2,357
East Lothian	38	1:2,402
East Renfrewshire	41	1:2,190
Falkirk	48	1:3,007
Fife	134	1:2,615
Glasgow City	285	1:2,138
Highland	92	1:2,267
Inverclyde	30	1:2,820
Midlothian	19	1:4,326
Moray	21	1:4,045
North Ayrshire	49	1:2,834
North Lanarkshire	110	1:2,978
Orkney Islands	7	1:2,783
Perth and Kinross	56	1:2,386
Renfrewshire	85	1:2,082
Scottish Borders	41	1:2,607
Shetland Islands	13	1:1,726
South Ayrshire	47	1:2,424
South Lanarkshire	117	1:2,627
Stirling	37	1:2,303
West Dunbartonshire	36	1:2,628
West Lothian	63	1:2,487
Scotland	2,016	1:2,537

Notes:1. Number of principal GDPs at 30 June 2002.2. Population figures at mid-year 2000.

This is a matter for the relevant Island NHS Boards and Primary Care NHS Trusts. The information requested is not held centrally.

Funding to tackle alcohol problems is provided within NHS boards' and local authorities' general allocations and cannot be separately identified. The Executive is providing £1 million in 2002-03 to Alcohol Action Teams to assess local needs and draw up local strategies to address these. A breakdown of this funding by NHS Board area is given in the following table:Executive Funding to Alcohol Action Teams in 2002-03 by NHS Board Area

Argyll and Clyde	£66,500
Ayrshire and Arran	£63,500
Borders	£48,500
Dumfries and Galloway	£51,500
Fife	£60,500
Forth Valley	£56,500
Grampian	£91,500
Greater Glasgow	£96,500
Highland	£55,500
Lanarkshire	£71,500
Lothian	£117,000
Orkney	£43,500
Shetland	£43,500
Tayside	£89,500
Western Isles	£44,500
Total	£1,000,000

The Scottish Executive provides support to the UK-wide Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). WRAP has established a Business Development Service which aims to assist businesses which sell, buy, process or collect recycled glass, paper, wood or plastic to attract finance and investment. This service is free and the advice is tailored to the individual business. WRAP also periodically offers funding for capital investment and research and development purposes. To date £369,500 has been awarded to three companies in Scotland. Further information is available on their website (www.wrap.org.uk).In addition, where recycling companies have projects that meet the eligibility criteria, they can apply for Regional Selective Assistance (RSA).Details of RSA applications over the last three years from recycling companies is contained in the table:

	RSA Applications	Grant Applied For	Grant Offered
1999-2000	0	0	0
2000-01	3	£368,600	£369,000
2001-02	2	£44,200	£45,000

These figures were obtained from SAMIS using the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 37.10, recycling of metal waste and scrap and 37.20, recycling of non-metal waste and scrap.There are a number of other sources of grant available including the local enterprise networks, packaging compliance schemes, local authorities and European funds. Details of applications and grants under these schemes are not held centrally.

Support for local authority expenditure on general and winter road maintenance is provided within the general grant allocations to each council, and is not separately identified.