- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Friday, 20 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Linda Fabiani on 7 August 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has received any representations from the City of Edinburgh Council or the Festival Theatre Trust in respect of the future of the Kings Theatre, Edinburgh, and, if so, how it responded.
Answer
The Scottish Government hasreceived no representations from either the City of Edinburgh Council or the Festival Theatre Trust concerning the future of the King’sTheatre, Edinburgh.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by John Swinney on 30 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will build in consideration of the implications of carbon emissions in the strategic spending review announced on 28 June 2007.
Answer
Along with my CabinetSecretary and Ministerial colleagues, I will be in dialogue with a range ofstakeholders over the summer to gather evidence and views on how we can use thestrategic spending review to set plans that will enable us to fulfil ourpurpose and achieve our strategic objectives. Reducing carbon emissions will bepart of that consideration.
Parliament will play itsrole in scrutinising the Government’s spending plans after we have announcedthem later in the autumn.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Stewart Stevenson on 24 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it has given to the implications of carbon emissions in the review of strategic transport projects.
Answer
The Strategic TransportProjects Review is being undertaken in accordance with the Scottish TransportAppraisal Guidance. Carbon emission is one of the performance indicators beingconsidered in the appraisal process.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Stewart Stevenson on 24 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the carbon emissions implications of all options for the new Forth crossing will be a factor in selecting the preferred option.
Answer
The environmental impact ofany crossing will be one of the factors which will be considered when selectingthe preferred option.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Stewart Stevenson on 24 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive what weight it will give to carbon emissions when selecting the preferred option for the Forth crossing.
Answer
Carbon emissions will be oneof the factors considered when selecting the preferred option in accordancewith the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 03 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Michael Russell on 24 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish all ministerial directions given in relation to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 when the directions are issued.
Answer
The Scottish Executive willpublish any ministerial directions given in relation to the Conservation(Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 asand when any such directions are issued.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 26 June 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Michael Russell on 24 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made since 7 March 2005 in (a) classifying 11 proposed additions to the network of special protection areas and (b) identifying additional areas for the protection of golden eagle habitat and when it expects this programme of work to be completed.
Answer
Substantial progress hasbeen made since March 2005. Two new Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and theaddition of a qualifying species on an existing SPA have been classified, andMinisters are considering Scottish Natural Heritage’s (SNH) recommendation forthe classification of one further SPA. Consultation has been completed on threenew proposed sites and one extension to an existing site and SNH are currentlyconsidering the responses. Consideration of the scientific case for theremaining non golden eagle site is almost complete.
SNH are progressing a scientific case for extending theCairngorm and Caenlochan SPAs for golden eagle and is continuing work toidentify additional areas which merit further consideration as SPA for thisspecies.
Progress is subject to the completion of SNH statutoryprocesses and whilst a final decision rests with Ministers, my currentunderstanding is that the programme of additions as announced in March 2005will be substantially complete by 2008.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 03 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Richard Lochhead on 23 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to announce its position on the previous administration’s (a) commitment to set up a working group of stakeholders and officials to consider marine national parks and (b) request to local enterprise companies to consider the economic impact of setting up marine parks, in accordance with their remits.
Answer
I recognise that the initialconsultation by the previous administration highlighted the need for furtherwork in addressing significant concerns raised about proposals to establish a coastaland marine national park.
I am currently consideringhow and when we will make progress in relation to this work and in the widercontext of the management of our marine environment.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 03 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Richard Lochhead on 23 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive what the implications are for Scottish Power and Scottish Coal of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 and whether there are any other similar organisations that might be affected.
Answer
The Conservation (NaturalHabitats, &c.) Amendment (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 clarify and strengthen thetransposition of the Habitats Directive as regards the process of considerationof all plans and projects. The amendments apply throughout Scotland.The amendments are not expected to impose any significant new burdens on industryor public bodies.
- Asked by: Sarah Boyack, MSP for Edinburgh Central, Scottish Labour
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 03 July 2007
-
Current Status:
Answered by Richard Lochhead on 23 July 2007
To ask the Scottish Executive how many farm animal welfare inspections undertaken by Animal Health (formerly the State Veterinary Service) in 2006 and the first six months of 2007 on pig, sheep, dairy cattle, beef cattle, poultry (broiler chickens, ducks and turkeys), laying hen and other farmed animal units in Scotland were for (a) monitoring compliance with EU animal welfare regulations, (b) assessing cross-compliance for single farm payments, (c) investigating complaints about animal welfare and (d) any other purpose.
Answer
I have asked Glenys Stacey,Chief Executive of the Animal Health Agency to respond. Her response is asfollows:
The number of farm animalwelfare inspections carried out in 2006 and 2007 up to the end of June forvarious purposes are shown in the following tables. The figures for 2007 havestill to be finalised.
Table 1
Number of Inspections CarriedOut During 2006
| Visit Type | Complaint | Elective | Programmed | Targeted | Other | Total |
| Enterprise | | | | | | |
| Beef – Breeding | 65 | 5 | 11 | 117 | 1 | 199 |
| Cattle – Growing | 21 | 5 | 2 | 42 | Null | 70 |
| Calves | 2 | 2 | 18 | 13 | Null | 35 |
| Dairy Cattle | 6 | 1 | 4 | 12 | Null | 23 |
| Pigs – Breeding | 2 | 8 | 13 | 13 | Null | 36 |
| Pigs – Growing | 5 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 1 | 27 |
| Sheep | 110 | Null | 14 | 137 | Null | 261 |
| Goats | Null | Null | 4 | Null | Null | 4 |
| Battery Hens | Null | Null | 3 | 8 | Null | 11 |
| Other Layers | 4 | 1 | 7 | 2 | Null | 14 |
| Broilers/Breeders | 9 | 22 | 1 | 2 | Null | 34 |
| Turkeys | Null | Null | 2 | Null | Null | 2 |
| Ducks | Null | Null | 3 | Null | Null | 3 |
| Geese | Null | 2 | 2 | Null | Null | 4 |
| Rabbits | Null | Null | 3 | Null | Null | 3 |
| Horses | Null | Null | 3 | Null | Null | 3 |
| Other | Null | 2 | 3 | 1 | Null | 6 |
| Null | 0 | 0 | 0 | Null | Null | 0 |
| Total Inspections | 224 | 52 | 99 | 358 | 2 | 735 |
Table 2
Number of Inspections CarriedOut During 2007
(figures available to end ofJune only and subject to minor variation)
| Visit Type | Complaint | Elective | Programmed | Targeted | XC | Total |
| Enterprise | | | | | | |
| Beef - Breeding | 39 | 4 | 1 | 101 | 42 | 187 |
| Cattle - Growing | 13 | Null | 1 | 47 | 25 | 86 |
| Calves | 3 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 27 | 53 |
| Dairy Cattle | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 16 |
| Pigs - Breeding | 3 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 20 |
| Pigs - Growing | 3 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 16 |
| Sheep | 52 | 4 | Null | 81 | 33 | 170 |
| Goats | 1 | 2 | Null | 3 | Null | 6 |
| Battery Hens | 4 | Null | 1 | 3 | Null | 8 |
| Other Layers | 1 | 3 | Null | 7 | 1 | 12 |
| Broilers/Breeders | Null | 17 | Null | 1 | Null | 18 |
| Turkeys | Null | 1 | Null | Null | Null | 1 |
| Ducks | Null | 1 | Null | Null | 1 | 2 |
| Geese | Null | 1 | Null | Null | 1 | 2 |
| Rabbits | Null | 1 | Null | Null | Null | 1 |
| Horses | Null | 1 | Null | Null | Null | 1 |
| Other | Null | 3 | Null | Null | Null | 3 |
| Null | 0 | Null | Null | 0 | Null | 0 |
| Total Inspections | 123 | 45 | 9 | 288 | 137 | 602 |
