Seòmar agus comataidhean

The annual average daily flows at various locations along the A9 between Perth and Inverness are assessed as follows:

Location	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
A9 Tomatin	7,077	7,494	7,224	7,147	6,837	8,082
A9 Kerrow (A86) to Lynwilg (B9152)					7,488	8,147
A9 Calvine to Dalwhinnie(A889)			8,180		7,986	8,136
A9 S of B847 - at Shierglas					7,437	7,947
A9 Pitlochry Bypass - S of A924	7,168				8,453	8,697
A9 Birnam	10,509	11,592	11,352	10,853	11,034	12,609
A9 N of B8063 - at Luncarty				13,821	13,991	15,359

Figures are shown in each case where data is available for the relevant area.

Summary findings and a full research report on Business Finance and Security over Moveable Property were published on Monday 23 September 2002. The research can be accessed on the Scottish Executive's website and copies have been lodged with the Parliament's Reference Centre.

Salmon fishings are not the only non-croft land to be included in the crofting community right to buy. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill provides for the acquisition by the crofting community body of additional land that is not croft land. Salmon fishings and minerals are separate tenements of land and as a consequence may be held on a separate title from the land itself. Both of these can be acquired by the crofting community body through the crofting community right to buy along with or separately from the croft land.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill contains no provisions that specify circumstances in which a crofting community body may or may not dispose of land acquired through the exercise of the right to buy. Any restrictions on disposal of land will be governed, where required, by the terms and conditions of the grant or loan documentation of the crofting community body's funders, and by the crofting community body's own Memorandum and Articles of Association.

The powers of compulsory acquisition in the bill do not seek to emulate compulsory purchase legislation in every respect. It is the policy of the Scottish Executive that crofting communities should have the opportunity to buy their croft land if the acquisition of the land would be compatible with sustainable development and in the public interest. A test of necessity would not be compatible with the achievement of that objective.

No. What I said to the committee has to be considered in the context in which it was said. The discussion was about compensation and adequacy of compensation is the essential requirement in that context. I did not say that provision of adequate compensation is the only requirement that has to be met in order to achieve compliance with the Convention. It is clear from the committee report that the committee understood that the exercise of the crofting community right to buy must also be in the public interest in order to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

This legislation does not seek to emulate compulsory purchase legislation in every respect. Section 70 provides that ministers must publicise applications and seek views from those identified as interested parties in order to consider all relevant factors before coming to a decision. However, where there are matters relating to an application that are disputed, section 78 provides that these issues will be resolved by the land court. The proceedings of the land court are normally conducted in public.

The proposals in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill were the outcome of extensive public consultation, dating back to 1997, to which salmon fishing owners were free to respond. The Scottish Landowners Federation (SLF) has responded at every stage of consultation and made representations to ministers on several occasions about the land reform proposals. It is our understanding that the SLF represents the interests of many people who own salmon fishings. The Scottish Executive undertook a full public consultation on the draft bill which contained these proposals. Salmon fishing interests including owners responded to that consultation and commented on the proposals. In addition, parliamentary committees took evidence from a group representing the interests of owners of salmon fishings and from the SLF during stage 1 consideration of the bill.

The purpose of section 71(2) of the bill is not to qualify the meaning of "the public interest" as used in article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, but to elucidate its meaning as used in the bill.

The provisions of the bill do not provide for the acquisition of salmon fishings located on land that is not eligible croft land nor do they allow areas of land in different ownerships to be covered by a single application. If, as we expect, crofting community bodies are properly informed as to what they will have a right to buy there will be no such applications.