The Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF) was formally established as a charitable company limited by guarantee on 28 April 2004. It has made good progress since establishment, member organisations have committed resources, both in cash and in kind, to SARF for research and have identified research priorities. An administrator responsible for managing SARF affairs on a day-to-day basis has recently been appointed. The administrator will shortly publish a call for research proposals based on member’s research priorities. It is anticipated that the call will be issued in August 2004 and will be availableon the SARF website (www.sarf.org.uk) together with other recognised sources of research funding opportunities. The forum should provide an effective mechanism for funding targeted research, both independently and in collaboration with other funding bodies.

The report noted that there had been delays of up to 15 minutes in respect of two of the deer culled and concluded that such delays, whilst unfortunate, were not uncommon during traditional culling operations. There are a number of relevant research findings. In particular, the Survey of permanent wound tracts in the carcases of culled wild deer in Scotland published by K Urquhart and I McKendrick (The Veterinary Record, 19 April 2003) identified that 14% of carcases had two or more bullet wounds and that in some cases the level was as high as 27%. Based on research carried out, the Burns Hunting Inquiry (into hunting with dogs, June 2000) records that of deer shot by stalking about 2% of wounded deer then escaped.  The report also records (paragraph 6.36) that about 10% of deer required two or more shots and that a conservative estimate was that about half of the wounded deer escaped detection (copies of this document are available in the Parliament’s Reference Centre, Bib. number 28910).

When I wrote to the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) on 9 June providing an advance copy of the official report into the operations at Glenfeshie and Strathglass I asked that as a first step they reflect on the conclusions drawn by the report, my response and the steps which the Deer Commission for Scotland propose to take to follow up the concerns identified. Andrew Raven’s response, dated 16 July and copied to all key industry bodies including SGA, has now been received and I am considering its contents. I would look to SGA and the wider deer industry to do likewise.

No. The owners' application for scheduled monument consent for the restoration of Castle Tioram has completed all the necessary statutory procedures, including being the subject of a public local inquiry held in the area over 29 days at which local residents were given an opportunity to express their views. The independent Inquiry Reporter recommended that consent be refused and that recommendation was accepted by Scottish ministers.

I had a meeting in March this year with a group of Highland MSPs, who expressed views that the Castle could play an active role in supporting the local economy.  Following that meeting, my officials in Historic Scotland met the Castle's owner. Since then, I have requested an update on the condition of the Castle and the commissioning of a proper Statement of Cultural Significance, which would address the gaps identified by the Inquiry Reporter. Any future decisions that require to be made by Scottish ministers will be informedby these reports.

Section 20 (1) (a) of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 provides that any person who discharges any firearm or discharges or projects any missile from any moving vehicle at any deer shall be guilty of an offence. In addition to specific exceptions, Section 20 is subject to section 14 of the Act which provides exemption for Deer Commission for Scotland staff (and those with DCS authorisation) in relation to action in respect of a control agreement, control scheme or section 10 action. DCS has never made use of that exemption.

In terms of the collectionand pay over of Members’ staff pension contributions, the SPCB acts as agentsfor members. The SPCB is fully committed to ensuring that the correct amount ofpension contributions is collected and paid over on time. The sums arecalculated and collected via payroll system and procedures are in place toensure that accurate records are kept and monies are paid over on time and withan accompanying schedule of payment, in line with OPRA rules. Under currentarrangements compliance with OPRA rules can be guaranteed which was not thecase under the former arrangements whereby providers could collect monies usingthe direct debit facility.

In total to date there havebeen 10 members’ staff (9 with plans with one provider and 1 with a plan withanother provider) affected by the decision to cease making pensioncontributions from the Parliament’s bank account by direct debit. The SPCB hasbeen kept informed of this issue, including the efforts made to resolve it. TheSPCB has not yet been informed of the most recent case but will be so informedwhen it meets again in September.

Only the Halifax inrespect of one plan has enforced such a requirement.

Previously,contributions were paid by a combination of BACS, cheques and direct debits. Inthe case of the direct debit facility, it gave pension providers authority tocollect contributions direct from an SPCB bank account. However, experienceshowed that:

if anindividual’s pension contribution increased by a small amount certain pensionproviders continued to collect the amount previously agreed and refused toaccept any increases of less than £10.00 per month;

pensionproviders were able to take money out of the bank account in situations wherethe Personnel Office had not been notified that a pension wasin place;

pensionproviders were collecting contributions in lump sums making it very difficultto identify for whom the contributions were being collected;

pensionproviders continued to collect contributions for several months after anindividual had ceased employment despite being advised that their employmenthad been terminated;

once a pensioncontribution rate had been set some pension providers would not accept anyrevised amounts, for example, increases due to pay awards, changes to contractedhours or backdated payments.

More importantly, however, new pension legislation changescame into effect from 6 April 2001 which required the SPCB to review itsprocedures. Under the Occupational PensionsRegulatory Authority (OPRA) the new rules for employers’ state that they havean obligation to:

calculate the employers’ and employees’ contributions foreach individual member of staff;

pay the correct amount of contributions over by the 19th of the month following the pay run in which the contributions are collected;

maintain a record of payments made;

provide each pension provider with a schedule as a recordof payments made.

Because of the problemsbeing experienced the SPCB believed that it could not comply with the new OPRArules whilst the then existing direct debit arrangements remained and deemed itnecessary to review and change its procedures. The decision was taken to closedown the direct debit facility and pay all contributions either by cheque, BACSor by standing order. This change gave the SPCB control over this matter toensure that it met its obligations under the new OPRA rules. All pension providers were informed in writing of thedecision.

The SPCB does not believe itcould comply, on behalf of members with all of the obligations placed on themas employers under OPRA rules were it to reinstate the direct debit facilityand therefore has no intention of doing so. This full answer ensures that membershave a full explanation of the matter.

The primary contractualobligations in both trade packages were completed and Certificates of PracticalCompletion were issued. Hewcon attended to all proven defects notified to themduring their defects liability period and have had all retention moniesreleased. Ballast went into Administration during the defects liability periodof their trade package contract, and were unable to complete outstanding worksor make good defects. This has now been attended to by other contractors, andthe costs will be off-set against Ballast’s retention monies.