Friday 23 November 2012

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT

Enterprise and Environment (Cowdenbeath) (): To ask the Scottish Government what impact assessment there has been of any increased costs to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) arising from proposed changes to the legislation on aquaculture and fisheries and whether SEPA will be awarded increased financial support.

Holding answer issued: 16 November 2012 (S4W-10668) Paul Wheelhouse: The Financial Memorandum accompanying the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill sets out the anticipated costs associated with the measures in the Bill, including any anticipated costs to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_Bills/Aquaculture%20and%20Fisheries/b17s4-introd-en.pdf In certain circumstances, it is possible that SEPA‟s costs might increase by a de minimis amount.

Helen Eadie (Cowdenbeath) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government which agricultural estates in Scotland received the 10 largest amounts of funding from the EU common agricultural policy in the last year for which information is available. (S4W-11118) Richard Lochhead: The Common Agricultural Policy classifies all types of business as “holdings”. Consequently, the following table shows the information available for the 10 largest amounts paid in respect of the Single Farm Payment Scheme, the largest single support measure, to agricultural holdings. The amounts are for the 2011 period, the most recent period for which information is available. Frank A Smart & Son Ltd £2,525,540.94 Strathdee Properties Ltd £1,302,237.02 William Hamilton And Son (No 2) £1,070,291.26 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) £1,045,516.65 Ross Bros £961,808.88 G Barbour & Co £820,194.23 Moray Estates Development Co. £681,149.00 J & T F Macfarlane Ltd £663,927.04 Kevan Forsyth £598,714.39 J R Graham Ltd £596,052.30 Total £10,265,431.71

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party): To ask the Scottish Government what the cost was of bringing the Land Register in line with the terms of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. (S4W-11122) Paul Wheelhouse: The Land Register is maintained by the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland. The Keeper does not have a figure for the specific costs of implementing the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. This is because the 2000 Act was commenced at the same time as the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 and both impacted on existing Land Register title sheets. The strong inter-relationship between both Acts meant that they were implemented in tandem. The costs of implementing both Acts was as follows: Staff costs 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Total £22,560 £267,663 £599,008 £722,199 £343,742 £148,707 £2,103,879 Notes: ICT costs - £183,141. Total overall cost - £2,287,020.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Scottish Green Party): To ask the Scottish Government when Scotland will be compliant with the European air quality targets for nitrogen dioxide for 2010. (S4W-11155) Paul Wheelhouse: The whole of Scotland is expected to be compliant with the targets by 2015 with the exception of the A8 between Newhouse and Baillieston. As set out in S4W-11154, on 22 November 2012, this road is to be upgraded to motorway standard and as a consequence modelling predicts this section of the network will become compliant following completion of the project in 2017. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament‟s website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Scottish Green Party): To ask the Scottish Government when it expects to be told whether the application to the European Commission to extend the deadline for meeting nitrogen dioxide pollution levels in Glasgow has been successful. (S4W-11156) Paul Wheelhouse: An extension application has not been submitted for the Glasgow Urban Area zone. However, an action plan outlining how compliance will be secured by 2017 was submitted to the Commission for information and a response to this is expected shortly.

Health and Social Care Jim Eadie ( Southern) (Scottish National Party): To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the British Thoracic Society's Quality Standards for Clinically Significant Bronchiectasis in Adults. (S4W-11172) Michael Matheson: The British Thoracic Society (BTS) develops guidelines as a professional body, which are widely disseminated throughout the medical community. Although these guidelines have no formal standing in NHSScotland the Scottish Government expect clinicians to be aware of them through their ongoing professional development. Our National Advisory Group for Respiratory Managed Clinical Networks is aware of the BTS standards for clinically significant bronchiectasis in adults and has circulated them to the members of the group. Healthcare Improvement Scotland published Clinical Standards in March 2010 for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Services, which includes services for people living with bronchiectasis. The standards were launched with supporting materials to help NHS boards to review and evaluate their COPD services in relation to each of the criteria within the clinical standards.

Learning and Justice James Kelly (Rutherglen) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government how many teachers with physical education as their primary subject are employed in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools and how many there were in (i) 2011, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2009, (iv) 2008 and (v) 2007. (S4W-11177) Alasdair Allan: Information on the number of teachers (full time equivalent) whose main subject is physical education is published on the Scottish Government website as supplementary data to the Summary Statistics for Schools in Scotland publication. Primary school teacher information is available in table 2.8 and secondary school teacher information in table 3.9 of the following links: 2008-2011: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/teachcensus2011 and 2007: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/teachersupplementarydata Transport Scotland Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government how much of the £35 million allocated to support for sustainable and active travel in the 2013-14 draft budget will be allocated to investing in infrastructure that will allow the use of electric and low-carbon vehicles. (S4W-11130) Keith Brown: At this level of budget detail, final spending decisions will not always have been taken and individual allocations may therefore change. In 2013-14, we currently envisage spending around £2.5 million on procurement of low carbon buses through the Scottish Green Bus Fund; and around £1.75 million on other low carbon vehicles and/ or associated infrastructure, such as electric charging posts. Additional funding of £2.75 million for low carbon buses has been brought forward from 2013-14 to 2012-13, as part of the acceleration of expenditure to support economic growth announced on 27 June 2012.

Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government how much of the £35 million allocated to support for sustainable and active travel in the 2013-14 draft budget will be allocated to funding for the next phase of the Low Carbon Vehicle Procurement Scheme. (S4W-11132) Keith Brown: At this level of budget detail, final spending decisions will not always have been taken and individual allocations may therefore change. In 2013-14, we currently envisage spending around £2.5 million on procurement of low carbon buses through the Scottish Green Bus Fund; and around £1.75 million on other low carbon vehicles and/ or associated infrastructure, such as electric charging posts. Additional funding of £2.75 million for low carbon buses has been brought forward from 2013-14 to 2012-13, as part of the acceleration of expenditure to support economic growth announced on 27 June 2012.

Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (Scottish Liberal Democrats): To ask the Scottish Government how many meetings have taken place between its officials and (a) Transport Scotland, (b) the Department for Transport, (c) industry bodies and (d) local authorities regarding the plans for a high speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow announced on 12 November 2012, and on what date. (S4W-11185) Keith Brown: Since I announced the formation the Scottish Partnership Group for High Speed Rail on 21 June 2011 officials have worked in partnership with those organisations referred to in your question. In the context of this question it is officials from Transport Scotland (an agency of the Scottish Government) who have led discussion with external partners. We have attempted to capture the full scope of officials‟ engagement on this issue in the period between 21 June 2011, and the announcement referred to on 12 November 2012. However, there may be additional meetings which have not been captured by this analysis or meetings where high speed rail has been discussed as an agenda item, but where it was not the main issue of business. We have had not less than 13 meetings with the Department for Transport, including direct meetings between Scottish and UK Ministers. These were held on: 21 June 2011, 27 July 2011, 6 September 2011, 28 October 2011, 26 January 2012, 01 March 2012, 26 April 2012, 30 April 2012, 28 June 2012, 5 July 2012, 06 September 2012, 21 September 2012, and 8 November 2012. Officials have had not less than 28 meetings with rail industry bodies. These were held on: 21 June 2011 (two meetings on this date), 15 August 2011, 18 August 2011, 6 October 2011, 28 October 2011, 26 January 2012, 14 February 2012, 7 March 2012, 22 March 2012, 26 March 2012, 2 April 2012, 26 April 2012, 9 May 2012, 29 May 2012, 13 June 2012, 20 June 2012, 21 June 2012, 5 July 2012, 20 July 2012, 14 August 2012, 23 August 2012, 21 September 2012, 21 September 2012, 10 October 2012, 15 October 2012, 18 October 2012, and 31 October 2012. Officials have had not less than 37 meetings with Local Authorities. In this we include direct meetings with Regional Transport Partnerships, as accountable to elected Local Authority boards. These were held on: 21 June 2011 (two meetings on this date), 28 June 2011, 7 July 2011, 7 August 2011, 18 August 2011, 19 August 2011, 23 August 2011, 26 August 2011, 8 September 2011, 13 September 2011, 16 September 2011, 29 September 2011, 04 October 2011, 14 October 2011, 20 October 2011, 25 October 2011, 28 October 2011, 28 October 2011, 31 October 2011, 29 November 2011, 14 December 2011, 15 December 2011, 18 January 2012, 26 January 2012, 1 March 2012, 6 March 2012, 29 March 2012, 18 April 2012, 26 April 2012, 20 June 2012, 5 July 2012, 27 July 2012, 20 August 2012, 14 September 2012, 17 September 2012, and 15 October 2012. Officials have had not less than 26 meetings with Network Rail. These were held on: 21 June 2011, 7 August 2011, 19 August 2011, 23 August 2011, 26 August 2011, 8 September 2011, 13 September 2011, 16 September 2011, 29 September 2011, 4 October 2011, 14 October 2011, 20 October 2011, 25 October 2011, 28 October 2011 (two meetings on this date), 31 October 2011, 14 December 2011, 15 December 2011, 18 January 2012, 26 January 2012, 21 February 2012, 26 April 2012, 05 July 2012, 29 August 2012, 17 September 2012, and 15 October 2012. In addition, we have had not less than 30 meetings with business representative groups. These were held on: 21 June 2011, 12 August 2011, 17 August 2011, 19 August 2011, 23 August 2011, 26 August 2011, 8 September 2011, 13 September 2011, 16 September 2011, 27 September 2011, 29 September 2011, 04 October 2011, 14 October 2011, 20 October 2011, 25 October 2011, 28 October 2011 (two meetings on this date), 31 October 2011, 05 December 2011, 14 December 2011, 15 December 2011, 18 January 2012, 26 January 2012, 09 February 2012, 26 April 2012, 22 June 2012, 05 July 2012, 17 September 2012, 12 October 2012, and 15 October 2012. Also, Transport Scotland officials have presented to a number of wider meetings, such as those of the West Coast Rail 250 group, where the issue of high speed rail has been discussed with officials and elected members of Local Authorities from Scotland, and Wales. Officials attended West Coast Rail 250 group meetings on 29 November 2011, 1 March 2012, and 29 March 2012. Further direct meetings have been held with other groups such as Scottish Natural Heritage (10 July 2012) and Historic Scotland (27 July 2012). A number of the meetings recorded above were meetings of the Scottish Partnership Group for High Speed Rail drawing representation from Local Authority groups and Network Rail. These have included representation from business groups referred to above and including CBI Scotland, Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, along with others including Architecture and Design Scotland, the Scottish Trades Unions Congress, Scottish Futures Trust, Transform Scotland and latterly the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee.

Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (Scottish Liberal Democrats): To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4T-00120 by Keith Brown on 13 November 2012 (Official Report, c. 13318), what plans the minister has seen in relation to the high-speed rail project and the planned technology and whether these will be placed in the Information Centre. (S4W-11199) Keith Brown: The Scottish Partnership Group for High Speed Rail delivered a pre-appraisal planning report to me in January 2012. I will ensure that this is placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre. I am keen that the Parliament is kept appraised of the detail of this project and we will publish further plans once they are developed through Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance processes. You will understand that the detail of some of the plans where this relates to potential impacts on individual interests cannot be shared. The Partnership Group‟s pre-appraisal report also presented a number of planning criteria for the development of new high speed lines in Scotland. Amongst these were the technical criteria that any new line and infrastructure should be built with capacity for European Loading Gauge, offer enhanced line resilience, and be designed with the capability of accommodating 400 metre trains, and for speeds up to 400 kilometres per hour. This is necessary to ensure full technical interoperability with the HS2 line being developed in England.

Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands) (Scottish Liberal Democrats): To ask the Scottish Government for what reasons the proposed high-speed rail link from Edinburgh to Glasgow will use trains with a maximum speed of 140 mph instead of 225 mph. (S4W-11201) Keith Brown: It is intended that we plan lines with the capability for 400 kilometre per hour (kph) operation. This is to future proof the new line and ensure technical interoperability with the HS2 line being developed in England. Transport Scotland has modelled the probable journey times across the route using a variety of available train types, including a modelled type for 400 kph operation. That analysis suggests that over the route distance between Edinburgh and Glasgow a 225kph/140mph capable train type similar to those delivering current high speed commuting services between Kent and London would be most suitable for delivering a consistent sub 30 minute service. Our proposed design for the line means that it could accommodate faster trains such as those eventually travelling between Scotland and London. However, the analysis suggests that over the shorter Edinburgh to Glasgow distance, the marginal journey time benefits would be outweighed by higher procurement cost and energy consumption considerations.

Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government what its estimate is of the cost of constructing the proposed high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow. (S4W-11206) Keith Brown: The estimate of the cost of construction will be determined by route appraisal and final design decisions. However, I have made clear that we must challenge the per kilometre cost assumptions of delivery of high speed rail elsewhere in the UK. A first stage development of high speed rail in Scotland will only be required to accommodate standard UK gauge trains and this will avoid the need for expensive station redevelopment and build planned for elsewhere in Britain.

Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government what funding mechanism it will use to construct the proposed high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow. (S4W-11207) Keith Brown: That will be determined as part of the project development process. We will continue to draw on the advice of the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT). SFT is one of our development partners in the Scottish Partnership Group for High Speed Rail which delivered “Fast Track Scotland - Making the Case for High Speed Rail Connections with Scotland” in December 2011.

Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government what effect the proposed high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow will have on the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme. (S4W-11208) Keith Brown: The proposed high speed rail line between Edinburgh and Glasgow is intended to complement the interim completion of the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme, and address future passenger demand.

Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government whether a route has been identified for the proposed high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow and, if so, when it will be published. (S4W-11209) Keith Brown: The Scottish Partnership Group for High Speed Rail delivered a pre-appraisal planning report to me in January 2012. I will ensure that this is placed in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre. I am keen that the Parliament is kept appraised of the detail of this project and we will publish further plans once they are developed through Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance processes. You will understand that the detail of some of the plans where this relates to potential impacts on individual interests cannot be shared. The Partnership Group‟s pre-appraisal report also presented a number of planning criteria for the development of new high speed lines in Scotland. Amongst these were the technical criteria that any new line and infrastructure should be built with capacity for European Loading Gauge, offer enhanced line resilience, and be designed with the capability of accommodating 400 metre trains, and for speeds up to 400 kilometres per hour. This is necessary to ensure full technical interoperability with the HS2 line being developed in England.

Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Government whether the proposed high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow will necessitate the modification of stations in Edinburgh and Glasgow. (S4W-11211) Keith Brown: As noted in my answer to S4W-11209, on 23 November 2012, the Scottish Partnership Group for High Speed Rail delivered a pre-appraisal planning report to me in January 2012. That report presented a number of planning criteria for the development of new high speed lines in Scotland. Amongst these were the technical criteria that any new line and infrastructure should be built with capacity for European Loading Gauge, offer enhanced line resilience, and be designed with the capability of accommodating 400 metre trains, and for speeds up to 400 kilometres per hour. This is necessary to ensure full technical interoperability with the HS2 line being developed in England, and to future-proof new lines. However, it proposed that initial HS2 services to Scotland will be operated using UK gauge „classic compatible‟ rolling stock, capable of operation on both newly built high speed lines, and onwards using the existing network. We consider that existing UK gauge rolling stock, similar to that used for commuter services between Kent and London, would be appropriate for use on a new Edinburgh to Glasgow line. The consequence of this is that there will be no requirement to consider the extensive modification of existing stations to accommodate high speed services as part of the proposed initial planning process. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament‟s website, the search facility for which can be found at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx. The following questions were given holding answers: S4W-11097 S4W-11111 S4W-11133 S4W-11134 S4W-11135 S4W-11136 S4W-11138 S4W-11139 S4W-11149 S4W-11150