- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 23 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Tavish Scott on 14 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied that local authorities ensure a political balance of parties’ representatives on each council in allocating councillors to committees; whether it will publish evidence it has received in respect of the track record of local authorities in this regard; whether it will make it a statutory duty to ensure such political balance by implementing sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989; whether it is satisfied that the current voluntary approach to political balance is working, and whether it will make the evidence that it has considered in this regard available in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre.
Answer
Sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 would place a duty on local authorities to ensure that the political balance on council committees reflects the political balance on the council itself. We have received a small number of representations on this issue, but we are not aware of any widespread view that the current voluntary approach is failing. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have confirmed that the issue has not been raised with them and that they see no reason to impose a statutory duty on councils. We will, however, keep the position under review, particularly in the context of the introduction of the single transferable vote for local government elections.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 06 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Allan Wilson on 13 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the statement issued by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) on 28 July 2004 which states that the financial package for SNH staff has been approved by the Executive, how many posts will be relocated to Inverness and how many will remain in Edinburgh; what the estimates are of the total cost of the package, broken down into redundancy payments and payments to staff who choose to relocate; what the estimate is of the total cost of the package assuming (a) all and (b) no staff move; what the maximum redundancy payment is that would be paid to any SNH employee and whether that sum is more or less than the sum of #250,000 reported in the press; whether any “signing on” or “staying on” offer has been made, or paid, to staff of other public sector bodies and, if not, whether the Executive considers that payments for SNH staff have set a precedent that may lead to claims by those who are relocated in the future.
Answer
Decisions on future organisation and staffing levels will be for SNH Management in the first instance. However, we announced in October 2003 that the Executive had agreed with SNH proposals to retain up to 50 posts in the Edinburgh area beyond the date of the main move, reducing to 25 in the longer term and the SNH Relocation Plan assumes 278 staff in the new Inverness HQ in 2006, rising to 303 in 2010.
The Executive supports SNH management in its objective of encouraging staff to relocate and on 30 March ministers approved its Human Resources package of measures which seeks to maximise the number of staff who will choose to relocate, while providing value for money and securing business continuity. Tavish Scott made clear to the Finance Committee that the terms offered to staff of public sector bodies will, as in this instance, depend on the specific circumstances of each relocation.
The cost of the package and of the different elements cannot be assessed accurately at this stage. The variable factors include the number of staff opting to relocate and the length of service and salary level of those who do not. Any severance payments will be paid in accordance with the standard Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme rules. I understand that SNH expect to undertake a staff survey once staff have had an opportunity to consider the options the results of which will enable SNH to update the cost assumptions in the project plan. A revised version of the project plan is likely to be available in the autumn following completion of the tender process for the building procurement at which stage a copy of the plan will be placed in SPICe.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 13 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 10 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) when the report by Lord Fraser on the Holyrood parliament building project will be published; whether Lord Fraser is still adhering to his target of publishing the report “in late August or early September” and, if not, whether the SPCB will inquire as to the reasons for a delay in publication.
Answer
In a press release issued on 24 August, Lord Fraser advised that he “plans to report in the week beginning Monday 13 September”.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 13 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 10 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what information it has on whether Lord Fraser has issued any “Salmon letters” and, if no such letters have been issued, what information it has on when he expects to issue
Answer
Lord Fraser announced, in a press release on 24 August, that letters containing the provisional text of criticism had been delivered to those concerned.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 13 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 10 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what information it has on whether the report by Lord Fraser on the Holyrood parliament building project will be published on the inquiry’s website.
Answer
The report is intended to be laid before, and published by the Parliament.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 13 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 10 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what information it has on whether Lord Fraser will be making public the terms of any “Salmon letters” that he may issue to those whom he is identifying as being mentioned by name in his report into the Holyrood parliament building project or at fault in relation to the project and whether any ensuing correspondence or other communication between the inquiry and the recipients of such letters will be published.
Answer
Lord Fraser on 2 April 2004 stated that anyone who might be the subject of criticism in his report would be privately notified and afforded the opportunity to “get me to revise my thinking of that criticism, and they can do this either privately or, if they wish, they can do so in a public forum”. Accordingly, it is a matter for those who receive a letter containing the provisional text of thecriticism from Lord Fraser to elect how to respond. It is my understanding thatsuch correspondence will not be published by Lord Fraser.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 02 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Patricia Ferguson on 10 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, with reference to the email regarding Holyrood landscaping of 2 July 1999 (Holyrood Inquiry reference SE/9/011 under “Landscaping”), what the agreement made by the First Minister was; whether the agreement was that the landscaping would have a budget of #10 million; on what date the agreement was made, and who was notified of the agreement in the civil service and the Parliament.
Answer
The other papers submitted by the Scottish Executive to the Inquiry on this issue (for example SE/9/013 and SE/9/051) make it clear that the agreement referred to was that the Scottish Executive would meet the costs of roadworks and landscaping associated with the Holyrood building project. There is no indication from the papers the Scottish Executive has on this matter that a budget for the works formed part of that agreement.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Allan Wilson on 9 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive what response it will make to the submission of July 2004 by NFU Scotland (NFUS) regarding the EU Water Framework Directive; in particular, whether it will endorse the position that water abstraction controls in agriculture should only exist where a threat to ecological quality arises from a significant affect on water quantity; whether it will exclude very small water users from registration and, if so, how it will define this category; whether it will adopt the NFUS suggestion that all producers farming 50 hectares or less of enclosed land should be excluded from registration unless requiring water for irrigation or unless situated in a sensitive area; whether it will endorse the proposal that the lower boundary of registration under general binding rules be raised, subject to these provisos regarding irrigation and location, with a minimum threshold of 30 cubic metres per day consumption, and whether it will endorse the NFUS proposal that the upper boundary of registration under general binding rules be raised, subject to the proviso that those affected should not be irrigating in a sensitive area and, if so, whether it will endorse the upper threshold of 200 cubic metres per day.
Answer
The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003-Controlled Activities Regulations consultation document was issued to a wide range of stakeholders and comments were invited on the issues raised. The Executive is currently in the process of analysing all responses, including that of the NFU Scotland (NFUS). In developing the final regulations, the Executive willensure that all responses to the consultation are properly considered. Itwould not be appropriate to comment on any specific proposals at this stage.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 23 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Frank McAveety on 9 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-9569 by Mr Frank McAveety on 3 August 2004, what publicity was given to the fact that the decision regarding the restoration of Castle Tioram was taken by Historic Scotland (a) at the time the decision was made and (b) subsequently.
Answer
Scottish ministers' decisions on Scheduled Monument Consent applications are routinely delegated to Historic Scotland, an agency directly accountable to Scottish ministers. Historic Scotland receives around 200 such applications each year. It has not been the agency’s normal policy to publicise the outcome of consent applications either at the time of the decision or subsequently. However, copies of the decision letter are routinely sent at the time of issue to the local authority and those with a specific interest in the land affected e.g. as owner or tenant. In the case of Castle Tioram, no additional publicity was given to the decision at the time nor, for legal reasons, during the period when the applicant’s appeal was before the Court of Session. Since then information on the decision has been provided in answers to parliamentary questions and in discussions, for example at a meeting of Highland MSPs.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 11 August 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Malcolm Chisholm on 8 September 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Ambulance Service should continue to provide three full accident and emergency ambulances 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in Badenoch and Strathspey; whether a decision to provide such a service is a matter for the Scottish Ambulance Service; whether the Executive's targets in respect of response times would require the maintenance of three full accident and emergency ambulances; whether such targets would require the continuance of the service by means of a full accident and emergency ambulance rather than a car or small van acting as a rapid response unit and incapable of carrying patients, and whether such a rapid response unit is defined as an ambulance.
Answer
It is for the Scottish Ambulance Service to determine how best to deploy the ambulance resources to achieve the response time standards agreed with the Scottish Executive. The eight minute response time target for Category A(life-threatening) calls that is the key benchmark for priority based dispatch canbe met in two ways. An accident and emergency (A&E) unit arriving at the incidentwithin eight minutes of the call is an achievement of the target. Alternatively,where a rapid response unit is dispatched, arrives within eight minutes and is inturn supported by an A&E unit arriving within 14, 18 or 21 minutes (dependingon population density) then the target is also considered to have been achieved.
