Chamber and committees

The discretionary funds for both higher and further education are a form of financial assistance paid under the Education (Access Funds) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1534). These funds are currently administered in accordance with the Regulations by ministerial determination.

The legislative consequences of replacing discretionary childcare funds with a centralised, demand-led childcare fund would depend on the nature of the proposed changes. If the proposed changes were significant then this may require an amendment to the Regulations. However, if the changes were not significant then an amendment to the Regulations might not be necessary.

We have taken account of the interest also shown in this issue by Jamie McGrigor, Bob Doris and Iain Smith. At the last tenancy deposit working group on 1 September the stakeholder members, representing the full range of interests, agreed that a single, national mandatory scheme for safeguarding tenancy deposits was the best way forward. Earlier in the summer the group had defined the criteria for any solution to the issue of unfairly withheld deposits.

The group will meet again in the next couple of months to consider the details of the scheme, the lessons to learn from schemes running in England and Wales and how best to provide for adjudicating disputes. This will allow the scheme to be defined so that the enabling secondary legislation can be prepared and come to Parliament in the spring.

Every year the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) writes to all schools with copies of their CD-ROM and DVD-ROM/Video. The letter informs them that SAAS are available to visit the school and speak to the students and parents. The CD-ROM and DVD-ROM/Video contains information about the financial support available for higher education and how and when to apply. There is also a copy of SAAS video and a financial presentation with audio, which the schools can show their students. Last year the SAAS participated at 212 events, including college and university open days, career conventions, school talks and parents'' evening at schools.

A stakeholder working group which was established to examine the various approaches to improving tenancy deposit practice, met again on 1 September to consider the options and costs for using some form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve tenancy deposit disputes, and how this might relate to a scheme for safeguarding deposits.

I am now considering the outcome of the meeting. I will write to the member once I have made a decision on the most appropriate way forward on this issue and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) (Bib. number 49091).

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-26866 on 9 September 2009. 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/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

As of 3 September 2009, 8,816 stakeholders have subscribed to the Directorate for the Built Environment''s e-alert system. Of this, 311 are identified as representatives of community councils. The breakdown by each local authority is:

Aberdeen City Council	8
Aberdeenshire Council	15
Angus Council	1
Argyll and Bute Council	17
Clackmannanshire Council	2
Dumfries and Galloway	20
Dundee City Council	1
East Ayrshire Council	5
East Dunbartonshire Council	4
East Lothian Council	5
East Renfrewshire Council	3
Edinburgh City Council	16
Eilean Siar Comhairle	1
Falkirk Council	4
Fife Council	26
Glasgow City Council	9
Highland Council	45
Inverclyde Council	3
Midlothian Council	8
Moray Council	7
North Ayrshire Council	9
North Lanarkshire Council	8
Orkney Islands Council	0
Perth and Kinross Council	19
Renfrewshire Council	3
Scottish Borders Council	19
Shetland Islands Council	3
South Ayrshire Council	10
South Lanarkshire Council	12
Stirling Council	13
West Dunbartonshire Council	6
West Lothian Council	9
Total	311

 

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-24668 on 18 June 2009. 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/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

It is for Forth Ports, as port authority, to assess any extended access to export shipping at Grangemouth port, recognising its proposed designation as a national development, as set out in the answer to question S3W-24666 on 18 June 2009. 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/Apps2/Business/PQA/Default.aspx.

We recognise the importance of shipping container capacity at Grangemouth and Rosyth for export businesses across Scotland, and its contribution to the Scottish Government''s purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth. Port development projects at these locations have been designated as national developments in the proposed National Planning Framework for Scotland 2, which was recently considered by Parliament and which will be published in the summer.

The Local Government and Communities Committee 5th Report, 2009 (Session 3) Report on the National Planning Framework 2: Proposed Framework recommended that the Government should continue dialogue with Forth Ports plc to reach an agreed resolution to their concerns and, in so doing, take into account the views of all interested parties. My officials met again with the group chief executive of Forth Ports plc on 27 April 2009 and subsequently liaised with representatives of Babcock Marine and Forth Ports. The outcome of that dialogue will be reflected in the second National Planning Framework and set out in the accompanying statement to Parliament on the changes made in the light of the views expressed by Parliament, when they are published this summer.