- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jack McConnell on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive how many examination appeals were submitted by 10 January 2001 from each local authority area for review under the procedure announced by the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs on 13 December 2000 and whether any cases put forward after this date have been excluded from the appeals review process solely because of their late submission.
Answer
Following my announcement on 13 December, the Executive wrote to all Education Authorities, Further Education colleges and heads of other centres on 18 December inviting them to submit requests for review by 10 January. By 19 January, the Appeals Review team had received 3,974 returns.In order to ensure that no appeals were excluded solely because of their late submission, the Appeals Review team accepted requests for review as late as 29 January when subject teams began their work. In a few very exceptional cases, requests have been accepted beyond this date. However, at this stage in the process it is no longer possible for the team to accept more new cases.As at 21 February, 4,216 cases were included in the appeals review process, and a breakdown of these cases by Education Authority is shown in the table.
Appeals Review 2000Numbers of cases by education authority
ABERDEEN CITY | 86 |
ABERDEENSHIRE | 210 |
ANGUS | 100 |
ARGYLL & BUTE | 81 |
CLACKMANNAN | 14 |
DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY | 238 |
DUNDEE CITY | 94 |
EAST AYRSHIRE | 136 |
EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE | 117 |
EAST LOTHIAN | 67 |
EAST RENFREWSHIRE | 100 |
CITY OF EDINBURGH | 276 |
EILEAN SIAR | 47 |
FALKIRK | 77 |
FIFE | 271 |
GLASGOW CITY | 253 |
HIGHLAND | 139 |
INVERCLYDE | 69 |
MIDLOTHIAN | 68 |
MORAY | 67 |
NORTH AYRSHIRE | 96 |
NORTH LANARKSHIRE | 184 |
ORKNEY ISLANDS | 19 |
PERTH & KINROSS | 66 |
RENFREWSHIRE | 137 |
SCOTTISH BORDERS | 163 |
SHETLAND ISLANDS | 3 |
SOUTH AYRSHIRE | 106 |
SOUTH LANARKSHIRE | 147 |
STIRLING | 72 |
WEST DUNBARTON | 43 |
WEST LOTHIAN | 92 |
TOTAL | 3,638 |
FE COLLEGES | 71 |
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS | 507 |
TOTAL CASES | 4,216 |
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in implementing recommendation 13 of the report of the Red Tape Review Panel regarding changes to EU regulations; whether it has raised these issues with the European Union and, if so, who they have been raised with and when.
Answer
Recommendation 13 of the Red Tape Review is currently in progress, with two of the specific aspects of this recommendation already completed. Those which remain, specifically regarding oilseeds Regulations and proportionality of penalties, require longer-term action and European Union co-ordination. My department has been pressing the EU on these issues since the publication of the Red Tape Report, and I am pleased to inform that a Commission Working Group has now been established to look at simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy. The UK, along with other member states, are now providing ideas to this group for consideration, and these suggestions will include the complexity of oilseed Regulations and the proportionality of penalties.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Allan Wilson on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive how "local community" is defined in relation to rejection by sportscotland of applications for assistance from the Lottery Fund Sports Facilities Programme on grounds that the project does not demonstrate benefit to the sports life of the local community and, in particular, whether this phrase is interpreted with reference to geography alone or also takes account of community of interest.
Answer
The "local community", as applied to the Local Facilities Strand of the Sports Facilities Programme, is determined through sportscotland's supply/demand model and is the appropriate catchment for a particular facility type. This varies from facility to facility and is affected by location, geography and transportation.Other strands of the programme take account of "communities of interest". For example, the National and Regional strands focus on discrete sporting groups, including disabled persons.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive why the meeting of the Project Assessment Committee to consider, subject to parliamentary approval of the relevant statutory instrument, applications for assistance under the Agricultural Business Development Scheme scheduled for 2 February was cancelled and whether it will place in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre a copy of any written explanation of this decision issued to applicants or others.
Answer
The decision to postpone the Project Assessment Committee (PAC) meeting scheduled for 2 February was taken following the tabling of a motion to annul these regulations further to concerns being expressed by the Scottish Parliament's Rural Development Committee about the scheme's governing regulations.A news release announcing this decision was issued on 31 January and an explanatory letter was sent to PAC members on the same day. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Parliament's Reference Centre (Bib. no. 11550).
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the existing oilseeds regulations require simplification and, if so, what progress is being made in this respect.
Answer
Under the Agenda 2000 proposals, my officials participated in a number of discussions on the eligibility of oilseeds to receive aid under the Arable Area Payments Scheme. This was because we recognised that the quality control criteria was an area where a simplification of the rules would benefit producers. The European Commission rejected this, as they were anxious to foster their policy of quality improvement in order to reduce the need to import oilseeds from outwith the Community. Currently, however, my officials are taking part in a general exercise on ways of improving the administration of the CAP. We will thus again be asking the Commission to look carefully at this matter.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the current penalty provisions in relation to the integrated administration and control system are disproportionately harsh; in particular, whether producers should be penalised for mistakes from which they do not benefit and what progress is being made in addressing any such concerns.
Answer
The Regulations governing the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) are extremely tight and leave little room for discretion when applying penalties. There are, however, certain circumstances under which "obvious" errors can be accepted, and Area Aid Applications can be amended after the submission date of 15 May. Officials have been pressing the EU on the extension of the obvious error concept, and also on the proportionality of sanctions. My department, along with other UK Departments and other member states, are now providing ideas for consideration by a Commission Working Group established to look at simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Sarah Boyack on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to questions S1W-12075 and S1W-12842 by Sarah Boyack on 18 December 2000 and 8 February 2001 respectively, why there is a difference of #46 million between the value of the surplus of the Scottish Transport Group pension schemes and the amount which is expected to be distributed to members; what these remaining funds will be used for; who will hold these funds and whether any part of these funds will accrue to the Scottish Executive, Her Majesty's Government or any other public body.
Answer
The treatment of the surplus represents unfinished pre-devolution business. The UK Government's long established position has been that the surplus should go to the UK Exchequer, and the Scottish Assigned Budget Settlement has been progressed on that basis.There is no legal entitlement on the part of Scottish Transport Group pension scheme members to share in the surplus. Scottish Ministers have, however, agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that ex-gratia payments should be made to STG pension scheme members which would be broadly equivalent to the final settlement for National Bus Company pension scheme members south of the border. An appropriate amount has accordingly been earmarked for distribution.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive what role (a) the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; (b) the Institute of Arable Crops Research and (c) the Scottish Crop Research Institute will play in relation to proposed GM crop trials.
Answer
A consortium of independent scientists from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the Institute of Arable Crops Research and the Scottish Crop Research Institute form the Government-approved research consortium which carries out the ecological research to inform the farm-scale evaluation programme. Their approach is to compare key indicators of biodiversity between the GM and non GM cropping systems.The scientific validity of the research programme is being overseen by a Scientific Steering Committee of independent experts in agriculture and ecology.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive why the public are only required to be notified of proposed GM crop trial sites rather than having a statutory right to be consulted.
Answer
Neither the governing European Directive 90/220/EEC nor the Environmental Protection Act 1990 require or provide a basis for consultation on any aspect of a proposed release.The recently adopted package of revisions to EU 90/220/EEC makes increased provision for public consultation. In the coming months the Scottish Executive will be seeking the views of stakeholders as to how the implementation of the revised Directive should be taken forward.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 14 February 2001
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 28 February 2001
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will consider extending the formal notification period required in relation to proposed GM crop trial sites from 15 days to a longer period of 30 or 45 days, and, if so, how long it will make the notification period.
Answer
The current statutory notification period is determined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Scottish Executive is aware however of the limited opportunity which this allows for public consideration and comment. Accordingly, assurances have been sought and gained from the biotechnology companies which will provide a longer notification period for this spring's farm evaluations. The exact period of notification has not yet been determined.