- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 18 May 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Stewart Stevenson on 31 May 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive what actions it will take to improve independent scrutiny of its record on sustainable development in the absence of the Sustainable Development Commission.
Answer
The arrangements for independent scrutiny of sustainable development performance were set out in the answer to question S3W-37829 on 25 November 2010.
I will reiterate the main points here. The Scottish Parliament and its Committees scrutinise Scottish Government policy across the board, including sustainable development. The UK Committee on Climate Change has been established as an independent body to provide advice and guidance. Audit Scotland has updated its capacity to scrutinise Sustainable Development. The public sector duties on climate change and sustainability will add further impetus to action on sustainability. Environmental NGOs have increased their own focus on sustainability and climate change policy.
We have previously announced our commitment to community-led action on climate change and sustainable development including by increasing the Climate Challenge Fund to £10.3 million for this financial year and making the same commitment for the five-year period of this Parliament. We have further made clear our commitment through the publication of the Report on Proposals and Policies and the Public Engagement Strategy. The Scottish Government attaches a high priority to ensuring a sustainable future for Scotland.
All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at .
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 08 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Fergus Ewing on 21 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive on how many occasions authorisations for dispersal powers under section 19 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 have been made where the grounds cited include antisocial behaviour by children or young people in each year since 2005, broken down by (a) police force and (b) local authority area.
Answer
I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-40598 on 21 March 2011. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website, the search facility for which can be found at .
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 08 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Fergus Ewing on 21 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive how many antisocial behaviour orders have been granted in relation to people (a) under 16, (b) 16-17 and (c) over 18 in each year since 2005, broken down by local authority area.
Answer
The use of antisocial behaviour measures covering the period October 2004 to March 2008, including dispersal orders, can be found on the Scottish Government website at . Information beyond that date is not held centrally.
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 08 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 21 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it monitors the use by local authorities and police forces of acceptable behaviour contracts in respect of children and young people, particularly in relation to the frequency and circumstances of their use.
Answer
The information requested is not held centrally.
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 08 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Fergus Ewing on 21 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive on how many occasions authorisations for dispersal powers under section 19 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 have been made in each year since 2005, broken down by (a) police force and (b) local authority area.
Answer
The use of antisocial behaviour measures covering the period October 2004 to March 2008, including dispersal orders, can be found on the Scottish Government website at . Information beyond that date is not held centrally.
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 08 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Keith Brown on 21 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive, with regard to the invitation to submit notes of interest setting out funding requirements under the 2011-12 Freight Facilities Grant scheme, what the total capital cost of all projects advised by rail and by water is; what the total minimum value of Freight Facilities Grant support indicated as required is; what the total annual value of Mode Shift Revenue Support and Waterborne Freight Grant sought is, and how many projects have submitted notes of interest, broken down by regional transport partnership area.
Answer
Of those notes of interest which identified costs the capital cost of the rail projects was between £19.1 million and £22.6 million and that of the water projects was £17.2 million. The total minimum level of Freight Facilities Grant support identified was between £20.8 million and £22.5 million. The note of interest form did not request information on the amount of Waterborne Freight Grant and Mode Shift Revenue Support that would be sought.
The breakdown of the 19 eligible notes of interest by Regional Transport Partnership area is as follows: HITRANS - 10, SEStran - four, SPT - two Tactran - two and Nestrans “ one.
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 03 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Keith Brown on 16 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive whether there are insurance policies or contingency liabilities in place for local residents and businesses for any damage incurred to them during construction of the Forth Replacement Crossing.
Answer
Insurance will be taken out to cover damage to third parties as a result of the construction of the Forth Replacement Crossing. There are no contingent liabilities in respect of those third parties.
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 03 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Keith Brown on 16 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive what contingency liability there is for third parties affected by possible damage to the BP Forties pipeline system during construction of the Forth Replacement Crossing, for example as a result of evacuation and clean-up costs.
Answer
A contingent liability exists in connection with the proposed construction of the Forth Crossing where it impacts on the existing BP Fortes oil pipeline. The contingent liability is required to cover the remote possibility that the pipeline could be damaged as a result of the construction of the new bridge. This is a potential liability to the contract not a cost, and as such does not increase the estimated cost of the project.
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 03 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Keith Brown on 16 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive whether provision has been made for any damage to the BP Forties pipeline system after the Forth Replacement Crossing is completed and, if so, how this has been calculated and costed.
Answer
The issue has been discussed in confidence by the finance committee.
- Asked by: Patrick Harvie, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 08 March 2011
-
Current Status:
Answered by Jim Mather on 14 March 2011
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will reconsider the consultation process on Forth Energy’s proposals for a biomass power station at Dundee given that many objections have not been acknowledged due to an invalid email address.
Answer
A decision was taken within the Energy Consents and Deployment Unit (ECDU) at the beginning of October 2010 to cease acknowledging representations in writing, due to the excessive costs involved. This meant that members of the public who submitted representations between the middle and end of September 2010, to the address
[email protected], or in writing, did not receive an acknowledgment.
The address [email protected] is not invalid, members of the public were asked to direct representations to the dedicated email address [email protected] to allow easier collation of these responses and to ensure they received the automatic acknowledgement. All representations received to either address have now been collated and logged.
There is no requirement under legislation to acknowledge, either in writing or electronically, representations received.
