- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive why the Minister for Justice considered that the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was within the legislative competence of the Parliament, and therefore compatible with European convention on human rights (ECHR), given that part 3 of the bill includes provisions to expropriate compulsorily salmon fishings.
Answer
The Scottish Executive has been aware from the outset that many of the provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill would require to be carefully formulated to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Ministers consider that the provisions in the bill, including those relating to the acquisition of salmon fishings, achieve that outcome, and there are no grounds on which it could successfully be argued that there is incompatibility with the convention.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure investor confidence in salmon fishings in the light of any concerns expressed in response to the proposals for the compulsory purchase of salmon fishings contained in Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Answer
If there has been any damage done to the confidence of prospective investors in salmon fishings it has been done by those people who have, in contesting our proposals, sought to suggest that there will be massive adverse effects on the quality of the fishing that will be available in the future as a result of this legislation. Any problems which exist will be resolved when opponents stop talking up the problems and start making realistic and sober assessments of the effects of these proposals. From that perspective the most useful way in which the Executive can ensure investor confidence would be to make sure that this bill is enacted as quickly as possible.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive how the word "contiguous" in section 65(2)(d) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is to be construed where part of the length of a salmon river abuts croft land at one of its banks.
Answer
The meaning of "contiguous" is clear and unambiguous. It means "touching" or "sharing a border with". In the context of the bill contiguous salmon fishings must abut the croft land and they will only be eligible croft land insofar as they do so.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive why it has defined the expression "public interest" in section 71(2) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to include any sector of the public, however small.
Answer
This provision is to protect the interests of small groups of people whose activities and property would be affected by an application but who are not necessarily a party to the application. For example, it would protect the interests of an individual crofting township where an application is made in respect of a wider area of croft land which includes their land. Conversely it could also protect interests outwith the area of land covered by the application where a change in the ownership of the land covered by the application would have an adverse impact on them.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive which salmon fishings in Scotland are "eligible croft land" within the meaning of the expression in section 67(4)(b) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Answer
Salmon fishings which are "eligible croft land" for the purposes of section 67(4)(b) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are those defined as such by section 65(2)(d) of that bill.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it plans to prevent owners of salmon fishings from avoiding compulsory purchase of their salmon fishings under Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill by the creation of tenancies, time shares or syndication arrangements.
Answer
None. Such arrangements may enable those who currently control and manage the fishings to continue to do so. The crofting community may still be able to purchase the salmon fishings and if they do so may benefit as owners from any revenues to be derived in the form of rent etc. from such arrangements.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has undertaken or commissioned any research into which salmon fishings in inland waters within or contiguous to croft land are being managed in a manner which is incompatible with sustainable rural development.
Answer
There has been no such research undertaken or commissioned by the Scottish Executive.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive approximately how often it anticipates the provisions of compulsory purchase contained in Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will be exercised in relation to salmon fishings within the first ten years of enactment of the bill.
Answer
This is not a right which we would expect crofting communities to attempt to exercise frequently, but it will be there if they want it. It will also help to ensure that in future all landowners in the Highlands and Islands have a proper regard for the interests, needs and sustainable development of the fragile crofting communities in which their properties are located.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the expression "inland waters" is to have the same meaning in Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill as it does in part 1 of the bill.
Answer
The definition of "inland waters" in part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill does not apply to part 3.
- Asked by: Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 May 2002
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 5 June 2002
To ask the Scottish Executive why communities should be given the opportunity under Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to purchase part of a salmon fishing compulsorily so that it may be utilised in a holistic fashion with croft land if this were to cause severance of the ownership and management of the salmon fishing and deny the present owners the ability to manage the salmon fishing in a holistic fashion.
Answer
The crofting community right to buy is intended to support the sustainable development of fragile crofting communities and has been created because we believe this is the only way to ensure the future of some communities. It is a means of removing a land based barrier to rural development.An application by a crofting community body to exercise the right to buy salmon fishings will not succeed unless the proposed acquisition will deliver sustainable development and be in the public interest. Each application will be considered on its merits and with reference to the criteria which ministers must take into account in reaching a decision. An application would not be considered to be in the public interest if granting that application would result in severe detriment to the sustainable development of other land. However, if a successful application results in severance and depreciation of other property section 85(6)(a)(ii) of the bill provides that the price paid should take account of this. It is, of course, also open to any owner of salmon fishings to seek to avoid problems of severance by negotiating a sale of all of his/her property to the crofting community.