- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 June 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Sarah Boyack on 4 July 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it retains an assessor on the board of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd; if so, what responsibilities the assessor has and to whom the assessor is accountable.
Answer
Yes, the Scottish Executive retains an assessor on the board of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd (HIAL). The role of the assessor is to represent the Scottish ministers' interests, as shareholder, at board meetings and to advise the board on aspects of the Executive's policy which are relevant to the board's discussions. The Assessor, who is not a member of the board and does not vote at board meetings, is appointed under HIAL's Articles of Association and is accountable to the Scottish ministers.
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 June 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Sarah Boyack on 4 July 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive who the board members of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd are, specifying in each case the length of their term of office and their date of appointment.
Answer
The information is as follows:
HIAL Board Members | Length of term of office | Date of Appointment |
Mr A Matheson OBE, Chairman | 3 years | 1 March 2001 |
Mr R Macleod, Managing Director | 2 years | 9 June 2000 (reappointment) |
Mr F Hamilton * | 3 years | 1 August 1998 (reappointment) |
Mr W Brackenridge | 3 years | 1 December 1999 |
Mr S Edmond | 3 years | 1 April 2000 |
Mr G Johnston OBE | 3 years | 1 March 2001 |
Ms S MacLennan | 3 years | 1 March 2001 |
* Mr Hamilton's appointment expires on 31 July 2001.
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 June 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Rhona Brankin on 4 July 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for a ministerial statement on the outcome of the Fisheries Council on 18 June 2001.
Answer
I have no plans to make a statement about the outcome of the recent Fisheries Council. I have reported to Parliament by means of a parliamentary question. I have also written to the Convenors of the Rural Affairs Committee and the European Committee.
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 June 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 28 June 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive what proposals it has to develop the inshore fishing industry.
Answer
I hope we can improve management of our inshore fisheries through the review of the Common Fisheries Policy and dialogue in the Scottish Inshore Fisheries Advisory Group.
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 June 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Rhona Brankin on 28 June 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making in discussions with the European Commission over the sheep export trade.
Answer
The importance of exports to the Scottish livestock industry and especially to sheep producers in the remoter areas is recognised fully by the Executive. Mr Finnie will be discussing with other UK Agriculture Ministers how best to put a case to the European Union aimed at reopening the export market. Experience suggests that demanding conditions are likely to be set by the EU.
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Monday, 25 June 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 26 June 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive when it will publish the strategy for Scottish agriculture.
Answer
I will be launching this strategy later this morning in a document entitled A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture. This document is the result of a process I started in April last year with the publication of a discussion document designed to stimulate debate on the future direction of farming in Scotland. The strategy was drawn up by a steering group whose members were drawn from a wide range of backgrounds covering agriculture, food, consumer, environment and other rural interests.The strategy document sets out the steering group's vision for a prosperous farming industry based on producing what the consumer wants, playing a major role in sustainable rural development, protecting and enhancing the environment and embracing change and opportunity. It reaffirms the Executive's commitment to continue to support the agriculture industry in Scotland and sets out 54 action points to be taken forward in partnership by the Executive, the industry and various other bodies which have a role to play in shaping the future of farming. It also contains case studies giving examples of good practice which have helped individual businesses to prosper.A copy of this document is available in the Parliament's Reference Centre.
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 21 June 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 21 June 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has reached a decision on its proposal to create a single all-Scotland water authority.
Answer
The proposal to create a single water authority included in the consultation on the Water Services Bill was supported by a substantial majority of those commenting on the issue. The Transport and Environment Committee in its report on the water industry, which was published today, indicated that it also supports the proposal. I am pleased to announce therefore that we will introduce legislation later this year to create a single public water authority for Scotland that will work in the interests of its customers by improving standards and efficiency, modernising its infrastructure and competing effectively in a rapidly developing market.
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 31 May 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Lewis Macdonald on 14 June 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of planning applications made since 1993 were approved in each of the following sectors: large scale retail development, new housing development, industrial estate, landfill, coal extraction, urban development project, holiday village or hotel complex, waste water treatment plant and renewable energy development.
Answer
Consistent, comparative data are only available since local government reorganisation in 1996. The categories by which data are collected do not match those requested. The data that are available are shown in the table. The instructions given to planning authorities relating to the allocation of planning applications among the categories are provided below the table. The latest data shown are for the period from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001.
| 1996-1997 | 1997-1998 | 1998-1999 |
| Decisions | Approvals | % approved | Decisions | Approvals | % approved | Decisions | Approvals | % approved |
1. Householder | 16,654 | 16,243 | 97.5 | 16,629 | 16,223 | 97.6 | 16,833 | 16,387 | 97.4 |
2. Minerals | 97 | 90 | 92.8 | 110 | 91 | 82.7 | 105 | 98 | 93.3 |
3a. Dwellings (Major - 10 or more) | 826 | 724 | 87.7 | 803 | 693 | 86.3 | 817 | 714 | 87.4 |
3b. Dwellings (Minor - less than 10) | 5,560 | 4,728 | 85.0 | 5,393 | 4,693 | 87.0 | 6,242 | 5,435 | 87.1 |
4a. Business & Industry (Major) | 430 | 398 | 92.6 | 464 | 431 | 92.9 | 491 | 456 | 92.9 |
4b. Business & Industry (Minor) | 3,423 | 3,189 | 93.2 | 3,682 | 3,433 | 93.2 | 4,385 | 4,126 | 94.1 |
5a. Other (Major) | 473 | 418 | 88.4 | 518 | 472 | 91.1 | 463 | 425 | 91.8 |
5b. Other (Minor) | 6,622 | 6,031 | 91.1 | 6,762 | 6,119 | 90.5 | 6,442 | 5,911 | 91.8 |
6. Listed Buildings/CA Consents | 2,593 | 2,487 | 95.9 | 2,836 | 2,624 | 92.5 | 3,008 | 2,780 | 92.4 |
7. Advertisements | 2,628 | 2,279 | 86.7 | 2,671 | 2,317 | 86.7 | 3,288 | 2,759 | 83.9 |
Sub-total (Categories 1-7) | 39,337 | 36,587 | 93.0 | 39,868 | 37,096 | 93.0 | 42,074 | 39,091 | 92.9 |
8. Hazardous Substance Consents | 6 | 6 | 100.0 | 4 | 4 | 100.0 | 5 | 5 | 100.0 |
9. Other Consents | 447 | 408 | 91.3 | 486 | 438 | 90.1 | 531 | 495 | 93.2 |
TOTAL (Categories 1-9) | 39,789 | 37,001 | 93.0 | 42,289 | 39,387 | 93.1 | 42,610 | 39,591 | 92.9 |
| 1999-2000 | 2000-2001 | 5 year total |
| Decisions | Approvals | % approved | Decisions | Approvals | % approved | Decisions | Approvals | % approved |
1. Householder | 17,805 | 17,172 | 96.4 | 17,404 | 16,885 | 97.0 | 85,325 | 82,910 | 97.2 |
2. Minerals | 82 | 71 | 86.6 | 86 | 81 | 94.2 | 480 | 431 | 89.8 |
3a. Dwellings (Major - 10 or more) | 886 | 780 | 88.0 | 862 | 758 | 87.9 | 4,194 | 3,669 | 87.5 |
3b. Dwellings (Minor - less than 10) | 6,312 | 5,608 | 88.8 | 6,229 | 5,440 | 87.3 | 29736 | 25,904 | 87.1 |
4a. Business & Industry (Major) | 578 | 514 | 88.9 | 460 | 434 | 94.3 | 2,423 | 2,233 | 92.2 |
4b. Business & Industry (Minor) | 4,353 | 4,066 | 93.4 | 3,840 | 3,619 | 94.2 | 19,683 | 18,433 | 93.6 |
5a. Other (Major) | 518 | 467 | 90.2 | 427 | 380 | 89.0 | 2,399 | 2,162 | 90.1 |
5b. Other (Minor) | 5,668 | 5,305 | 93.6 | 5,439 | 5,048 | 92.8 | 30,933 | 28,414 | 91.9 |
6. Listed Buildings/CA Consents | 3,193 | 2,892 | 90.6 | 3,014 | 2,754 | 91.4 | 14,644 | 13,537 | 92.4 |
7. Advertisements | 3,256 | 2,688 | 82.6 | 3,164 | 2,668 | 84.3 | 15,007 | 12,711 | 84.7 |
Sub-total (Categories 1-7) | 42,651 | 39,563 | 92.8 | 40,925 | 38,067 | 93.0 | 204,855 | 190,404 | 92.9 |
8. Hazardous Substance Consents | 9 | 8 | 88.9 | 53 | 50 | 94.3 | 77 | 73 | 94.8 |
9. Other Consents | 940 | 794 | 84.5 | 648 | 593 | 91.5 | 3,052 | 2,728 | 89.4 |
TOTAL (Categories 1-9) | 43,600 | 40,522 | 92.9 | 41,626 | 38,710 | 93.0 | 209,914 | 195,211 | 93.0 |
Instructions To Planning Authorities Relating To Allocation Of Planning Applications Among Categories:1. Householder developmentInclude all applications for development in the curtilage of a residential property which are not a change of use, for example: extensions, alterations, garages, swimming pools, walls, fences, driveways and porches. Exclude applications to change the number of dwellings in a building.2. MineralsInclude surface mineral workings, surface installations for underground workings, mineral handling installations, brick and tile works, pipelines, conveyors, etc (NLUC classifications mi01a, mi01b, mi01d, ma06a, tr05b )3. DwellingsInclude only developments within class 9 of the T+CP (Use Classes)(Scotland) Order 1997. Omit householder development (included in 1), hotels, hostels, caravan sites etc.(included in 5). Distinguish between major and minor classed as major. Where no number is given, a site area (see below) of 0.5 hectare or more can be used to distinguish major from minor.4. Business and industryInclude developments in Use Classes 2 and 4 to 6 (including wholesale distribution). Distinguish between major and minor applications in rows a and b, classing as major if the floorspace to be built is 1000 sq metres or more, or if the site area is 1 hectare or more.Floorspacearea proposed in the application (ie: with basement car parks, rooftop plant rooms, caretaker's flats etc included).Site areashown in the submitted plan. Land owned by the applicant but not directly involved should be excluded; exclude also the area of any adjoining or intervening roads.5. All other developmentInclude all developments and uses not already covered, unless they fall into one of the special categories of application to be shown in rows 6 to 9. Distinguish between major and minor applications as above.Choosing between categories 1-5Changes of use should be allocated within rows 2 to 5 according to the end use, or principal end use, of the proposed change. Thus an application to convert a warehouse into 12 flats - where the work would be permitted development but for the fact that a change of use was involved- should be classed as "dwellings: major". Mixed use applications should be allocated by the principal use of the development. Normally, this will be the use which accounts for most floorspace. If there is any doubt, as for example in a multi-storey development where the split between one type of use and another is roughly equal, the ground floor use should be taken as the principal one. A proposed development should be classed by its own principal use and not by that of the complex of which it may form part. Also, a decision should be reckoned as major or minor according to the actual application being decided. Thus the grant of outline permission for housing on a site should be classed as "Dwellings, major", while the later approval of details for five houses on part of the site should be classed as "Dwellings, minor".6. Listed building and conservation area consentsDecisions on applications for listed building consent to extend, alter or demolish, and any other consents under listed buildings and conservation areas legislation.7. AdvertisementsApplications for consent to display advertisements under regulation 5 of the T&CP (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 19848. Hazardous substances consents Include applications for consent under regulation 5 of the T&CP (Hazardous Substances)(Scotland) Regulations 1993.9. Other consents and certificatesInclude applications for established use certificates, applications for certificates of lawfulness of existing use or development or of proposed use or development, applications for certificates of appropriate alternative development, notifications of proposed development by Government departments, and notifications on overhead electricity lines [for both these notifications, the date of decision is the date the planning authority sent its views and comments to the notifier]. Include also applications for prior approval by Coal Authority or licensed operator under Classes 60+62 of the GPDO. EXCLUDE any notifications and directions under GDPO Parts 6+7 relating to agricultural & forestry development; these should not form part of any totals here but should be entered in Table 7.
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Friday, 18 May 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Rhona Brankin on 11 June 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive when the remit and responsibilities of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency were enlarged to include the monitoring of the haddock fishery adjacent to Rockall in the north east Atlantic, as opposed to the enforcement of the Atlanto-Scandinavian herring fishery.
Answer
New enforcement obligations were introduced for EU Member States last year when the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) scheme of control and enforcement was implemented. The Scottish Executive gained new powers to appoint NEAFC inspectors to enforce regulations in the NEAFC zone. Last year the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency took part in patrols and inspections of vessels involved in the international Atlanto-Scandinavian herring fishery.Following the agreement achieved at a NEAFC meeting earlier this year, an area of the NEAFC zone around Rockall was closed to protect haddock. Haddock has thus become a regulated NEAFC resource. SFPA vessels have been carrying out patrols and inspections around Rockall this spring. This represents the Scottish contribution to meeting member states' enforcement obligations on the high seas. Other member states are enforcing regulations in the Atlanto-Scandinavian herring fishery
- Asked by: Tavish Scott, MSP for Shetland, Scottish Liberal Democrats
-
Date lodged: Friday, 18 May 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Rhona Brankin on 11 June 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive what budget has been made available to the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency for the policing of the haddock fishery adjacent to Rockall in the north east Atlantic.
Answer
The costs of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency's involvement in policing the haddock fishery adjacent to Rockall, in both international and EU waters, will be met from its existing budget of £12.8 million for the current financial year.