Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is open to parties in a case to appeal against a decision of a sheriff to a higher court. If litigants wish to register a complaint about the actings of a sheriff they may write to the Sheriff Principal of the relevant sheriffdom or to the Judicial Appointments Division of the Scottish Executive Justice Department, Hayweight House, 23 Lauriston Street, Edinburgh EH3 9DQ.

No such research has been undertaken or commissioned by the Scottish Executive nor do we believe such research is needed. We are satisfied that any temporary uncertainties created by those who oppose the legislation will be resolved once the legislation is enacted. Once the minimal risks to owners are properly understood, the market will ensure that there is no long-term impact.

The Scottish Executive does not accept that the implementation of legislative provisions for a crofting community right to buy as proposed in Part 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will have an adverse impact on the market value of salmon fishings, sporting rights and mineral rights. Consequently we have no plans to pay compensation to owners of such holdings.

Six expressions of support for the link road have been received.

This situation did not arise as the additional statutory road and compulsory purchase orders required for a link road to Inchture are not in place.

In their decision letter following the Public Inquiry, Scottish ministers accepted the reporter's recommendation to give early consideration to funding the option of extending the link road through to Inchture Interchange. Due to higher priorities on the A90 and elsewhere on the trunk road network it has, to date, not proved possible to accommodate the link road in the current programme.

All the non-confidential responses to the consultation on the draft Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are available in the Parliament's Reference Centre. The consultation was not a referendum on any particular bill provision but rather sought views on the bill as a whole. Most considered responses were qualitative in nature and did not express outright support or opposition to any particular proposals.

The objective of land reform is to remove land-based barriers to the sustainable development of rural communities. It is not expected that crofting communities will wish to exercise the crofting community right to buy unless the current ownership has proved to be just such a land based barrier. An application by a crofting community body to exercise the right to buy land will not succeed unless the proposed acquisition will deliver sustainable development and be in the public interest. Each application will be considered on its merits and with reference to the criteria which ministers must take into account in reaching a decision. An application would not be considered to be in the public interest if granting that application would result in severe detriment to the sustainable development of other land. It is, of course, open to any landowner to seek to avoid problems of severance by either utilising the provisions of section 76 of the bill or negotiating a sale of his/her property to the crofting community. In addition, if a successful application results in severance and depreciation of other property, section 85(6)(a)(ii) of the bill provides that the price paid should take account of this.

We believe that there are advantages to be derived from being able to manage all land-based activities on a property in a holistic fashion. We consider that crofting communities should have that opportunity if they want it. The very existence of this right to buy is also a significant factor in altering the balance of power between the crofting community and landowners, including proprietors of salmon fishings.

The Scottish Executive has been aware from the outset that many of the provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill would require to be carefully formulated to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Ministers consider that the provisions in the bill, including those relating to the acquisition of salmon fishings, achieve that outcome, and there are no grounds on which it could successfully be argued that there is incompatibility with the convention.