���˿���

The Ardoch Fort complex is currentlybeing rescheduled to extend the protected area to the north and west in order toprotect all Roman remains visible as crop marks on aerial photographs.

Whilst on-going management of the site is the responsibility of the owner, the 1979 act does not impose any obligationon the owner of a monument to maintain it. Historic Scotland can and does offergrants to owners for works that benefit a monument. Recently, several grants havebeen given to support the better management of the site, and to allow it to be appreciatedas a single entity.

The current greatest single problemis a recurrence of rabbit infestation. Between August 2005 and March 2006, rabbitproof fencing was erected around the site, jointly funded by a Rural StewardshipScheme application and a Historic Scotland grant. It is hoped that this barrier,combined with a program of night shooting, will reduce the number of rabbits inthe fort in coming years. Historic Scotland officials continue to be closely involvedin this case and visit the site regularly.

An erosion survey of the fortis currently being undertaken. This will complement the erosion survey which tookplace in 1997, and provide information on the stability of the monument over a 10year period.

Environmentand Rural Development

 Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive whatfunding it is providing to protect Scotland’s trees and woodlands such as the FortingallYew and Meikleour beech hedge.

(S2W-31798)

Sarah Boyack: One of Forestry Commission Scotland’s(FCS) key responsibilities is to protect Scotland’s trees, woods and forests. This is mainly administeredthrough felling permissions, long-term forest plans and direct grant-aid for forestestablishment and management through grant incentives such as the Scottish ForestryGrants Scheme.

Heritage trees within woodlandscan be supported and protected as part of an FCS grant scheme or through regulatorypermissions. Individual trees of particularly high amenity value can also be protectedby Tree Preservation Orders which are issued by local planning authorities. Thereare also local initiatives supported by FCS, which promote the importance of highvalue heritage trees. For example, the FCS inventory of Scotland’s heritagetrees led to the publication Heritage Trees of Scotland, which featuresboth the Fortingall Yew and the Meikleour Beech Hedge. The “Perthshire Big TreeCountry” initiative - a £1.8 million project delivered via Perth and KinrossCountryside Trust to which FCS has contributed around £600,000 through the ScottishForestry Grant Scheme – is helping to safeguard the future of heritage trees inPerthshire.

This is a matter for Perth and KinrossCouncil. The information requested is not held centrally.

This is a matter for Angus Council.The information requested is not held centrally.

The Executive issued a comprehensivedocument entitled Guidance on the Circumstances in Which Parents may Choose toEducate their Children at Home (Bib. number 31676) in March 2004. That guidancewas issued under Section 14 of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000.Education authorities are required, under the terms of section 14, to have regardto it.

There are no plans at this stageto relocate staff from the FRS facility at Faskally. Fisheries Research Servicesare however conducting an option appraisal exercise to ascertain whether or notfurther investment in the Faskally site represents good value for money, comparedto a range of other options. Any decision will be consistent with the Scottish Executive’srelocation policy.

Historic Scotland issued hardcopies of an abstract of the Official Report of the parliamentary debateon the Stone of Destiny on 13 December 2006 to the Commissioners of the Regaliaon Friday 9 February 2007 in order to ensure that the commissioners were fully informedof the debate if they had not previously read the Official Report publishedon the Scottish Parliament website.

At the request of the First Minister,I wrote to the Lord Advocate, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Lord Clerk Registerprior to the debate to inform them that it was taking place. All responded priorto the debate and were unanimous in their view that the stone should remain at EdinburghCastle. I have received no further correspondence from the Commissioners of theRegalia on this matter following the parliamentary debate on 13 December 2006.

Decisions regarding theStone of Destiny rest solely with Her Majesty The Queen as advised by Her Commissionersfor the Safekeeping of the Regalia, whose duties are set out under the Royal warrantissued on 12 November 1996 immediately prior to the Stone’s departure from WestminsterAbbey and return to Scotland. Historic Scotland officials have advised the Commissionerson technical matters relating to the care of the stone (and the Honours of Scotland)but they have no locus in any decision-making regarding the location of the stone.This is solely a matter for the commissioners.

I refer the member to the answer to question S2W-31711 on 19 February 2007. All answers to writtenparliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website the search facilityfor which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

The evaluation of the act’s implementation is on-goingand it is therefore to early to draw any firm conclusions on its overall impact.