- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 08 May 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 18 May 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-25389 by Ross Finnie on 4 May 2006, whether any official in the minister’s department received the advice from Scottish Natural Heritage, or information about what that advice would be or would be likely to be, on an earlier date and, if so, which official or officials were involved and on which date or dates the advice or information was received.
Answer
Scottish Executive officialsfrom the Landscapes and Habitats Division in the Environment and Rural Affairs Departmentsat on the Coastal and Marine National Parks steering group which had oversight of Scottish NaturalHeritage’s work and the report. They were asked to provide comments on a draft paperwhich was presented to the SNH Board on 14 March. My officials in the Marine ManagementDivision of the Environment and Rural Affairs Department, who have policy responsibilityfor Coastal and Marine National Parks, also saw a copy of the draft advice that was consideredby the SNH Board.
My officials in the SNH SponsorshipTeam routinely see SNH Board papers which are submitted to them, prior to SNH Boardmeetings. These papers are, however, for the board to consider.
I understand that the board recommendedchanges to the Coastal and Marine National Parks paper and that a board sub-groupmet on 28 March to incorporate these in the final version of SNH’s paper. The paper was cleared by SNH on the afternoon of 30 Marchand sent to ministers that evening.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 27 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 4 May 2006
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, in light of the criticisms expressed by the Auditor General in each of his three reports into the Holyrood project, what action it will take, or has considered taking, in relation to the findings of fault and, in particular, whether it has sought to take, or considered taking, any action in relation to the criticisms of the Chief Executive of the Parliament.
Answer
The Corporate Body consideredthe reports of the Auditor General and in particular conclusions of the Audit Committeeresponded as appropriate at the time. It has no further comment to make.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 27 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 4 May 2006
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether, in any decision on whether to initiate court action against the construction managers arising from breaches of contract or delictual obligations in relation to the Holyrood Project, any individual who played a part in the selection of Bovis as construction manager will be involved in the making of such a decision or in the decision-making process and what the role of the Post-Completion Advisory Group is in relation to any legal claims, given that Dr John Gibbons is a member of the group.
Answer
Decisions as regards the initiationor otherwise of court action are for the Corporate Body. The Post-Completion AdvisoryGroup is not part of that decision-making process.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 27 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 4 May 2006
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether any possible court action or actions for recovery of sums due from contractors or others in respect of the Holyrood Project have become extinguished through the operation of prescription.
Answer
The Corporate Body continuesto take advice on relevant matters concerning closure of the Holyrood Project andis alive to consideration of such matters as prescription.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 24 April 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 4 May 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it received SNH Advice on Coastal and Marine National Parks on 30 March 2006 and, if not, on what date the advice was received.
Answer
SNH’s advice was sent to ministerson the evening of Thursday 30 March and posted on SNH’s website following the Scottish Executive news release on 31 March.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Tavish Scott on 21 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether, in relation to the proposed tendering of Clyde and Hebridean Ferry Services, it has now developed a scheme in respect of pension provision for Caledonian MacBrayne (CalMac) staff and, if so, whether the scheme has been approved by the CalMac pension fund trustees, the company and the pensions regulator.
Answer
The Scottish Executiveattaches great importance to the future of the CalMac workforce and iscommitted to protecting the pension position of transferring staff. the Executive is working closely with the CalMac pension fund trustees, CaledonianMacBrayne Limited and the Pension Regulator on the changes that are necessaryto the CalMac pension fund as a consequence of the restructuring of CaledonianMacBrayne. Discussions are progressing well and there is a clear willingness onall sides to address the complex issues involved. The Executive will make astatement on the outcome of these discussions at the appropriate time.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 27 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 20 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the former Minister for Justice, Mr Jim Wallace MSP, asked his department to investigate the issues described in a Sunday Times article on 26 February 2006 as having been reported to him by a “whistleblower” from within the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) who alleged that the complainant had become a victim of “bullying, intimidation, harassment and victimisation” by SCRO management; if so, on what date such a request was made by the former Minister for Justice and to which official or officials; what action was subsequently taken in respect of the complaint; whether the present Minister for Justice will make a statement to the Parliament about how the complaint was dealt with, whether it was dealt with by the Justice Department and, if so, who was in charge of handling the complaint; in particular, whether in the handling of the complaint, there was any attempt to seek further information from the “whistleblower”; whether any conclusion was reached about the complaint and, if so, what that conclusion was and by whom it was handled; whether all documents in relation to the complaint will be made public, and, in so doing, whether it will consider, for the protection of the complainant against any possible bullying, intimidation, harassment or victimisation, whether his or her name shall be redacted when such documents are provided.
Answer
I understand this letter wassent to the Lord Advocate. A reply was sent on his behalf requesting further informationin relation to the point raised which concerned Crown Office, in respect of a particularcase. This information was subsequently provided and it was clear at that stagethat fingerprint evidence had not been presented to the Procurator Fiscal in thecase in question and no further action was required by Crown Office at that time.
The original letter was alsoforwarded by the Crown Office to the Justice Department, in relation to the issuesinvolving SCRO. As these were management issues for SCRO to deal with, it wouldnot have been appropriate for the JusticeMinister to intervene. At that time SCRO management issues, particularly in relationto the Fingerprint Bureau, were already being addressed comprehensively on the basisof the HMIC Primary Inspection of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau, the report of whichhad been published in September 2000.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether advice has been provided to the Minister for Justice by any civil servant in the Justice Department in relation to the decision to settle the civil action raised by Shirley McKie in the Court of Session for damages to the sum of £750,000; whether the decision to pay this sum was considered to fall within the terms of paragraph 8.3 of the Memorandum of Accountable Officers from the Principal Accountable Officer under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, namely that the proposed decision to settle the action in this way raised an issue not of formal propriety or regularity but relating to wider responsibilities for economy, efficiency and effectiveness, such as value for money, and whether the minister's attention was drawn to the relevant facts in respect of value-for-money issues during the course of the action.
Answer
The Justice Department providedadvice to ministers having taken full account of the Memorandum to Accountable Officersfrom the Principal Accountable Officer and the Scottish Public Finance Manual
.At all times ministers have beenmindful of the need for any settlement to be defensible in terms of the public purseand advice to ministers took account of value for money issues including the costof proceeding to a five week proof and the prospects of recovering any award ofexpenses that might have been made against Ms McKie. At one point, Ms McKie wasseeking a settlement of £1.2 million with backdated interest on top. The £750,000settlement which includes interest is considerably less than that figure.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 06 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Nicol Stephen on 6 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what grant assistance Forscot has received from (a) Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and (b) other public bodies in respect of a proposed integrated pulp mill, paper mill, chemical plant, bio-energy scheme, rail heads and sawmill in Invergordon; whether the Executive will consult HIE and Forestry Commission Scotland before any further grant is paid to Forscot and, if not, whether it is satisfied that a proposed consumption by the project of nearly 4 million tonnes of timber per annum can be achieved without any significant displacement of jobs and businesses in the sawmill and timber processing sectors; whether the Executive will seek a detailed report from HIE and Forestry Commission Scotland about the proposed project, and whether it will consult existing businesses in the sawmill and processing sectors in respect of the impact of the project on their businesses.
Answer
Forestry Commission Scotlandhas granted Forscot £10,000 towards studies of the pulping properties of Scotspine and Sitka spruce. Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and Scottish Enterprise(SEn) have contributed towards Phase 1 of the project’s feasibility study.
Any future grant assistancefrom HIE and other public bodies to Forscot is a matter for the fundingorganisations concerned. It is for HIE to assess any application to them from thecompany for further support in accordance with the requirements of the managementstatement between them and the Scottish Executive. Consideration of the impacton existing businesses would form part of any such assessment.
The Executive has no plansto seek a report on the Forscot proposal from Highlands and Islands Enterpriseor The Forestry Commission Scotland, and no plans to consult with existingsawmill and processing businesses regarding the company’s project.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 20 February 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the statement contained in the article on pages 38 and 39 of the Sunday Herald of 19 February 2006 that the civil servant of the Executive’s Justice Department named in the article attended meetings of the Scottish Criminal Record Office executive committee and, in particular, that he attended meetings in the year 2000 is correct, and whether the civil servant concerned reported to, or otherwise advised, the then Minister for Justice, Mr Jim Wallace MSP, in relation to these meetings and, if so, whether the Executive will publish the terms of such advice.
Answer
John Rowell attendedmeetings of the Scottish Criminal Record Office Executive Committee during 2000as part of his role as head of Police Division 2. Advice to Ministers fromcivil servants is not normally published because this could have an adverseeffect on the free and frank provision of such advice in the future.
