As stated in the answer given to question S1W-30836, the purpose of section 71(2) of the bill is to elucidate the meaning of the phrase "public interest" as used in the bill. Whether or not ministers consider a proposed acquisition by a crofting community body is in the public interest will depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

No estimate has been or can be made. There are too many uncertainties. If experience of existing community purchases is anything to go by, a significant proportion of crofting community bodies may not be interested in acquiring salmon fishings. However, we consider it important that the opportunity to do so should be available.

The annual average daily flows at various locations along the A9 between Perth and Inverness are assessed as follows:

Location	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
A9 Tomatin	7,077	7,494	7,224	7,147	6,837	8,082
A9 Kerrow (A86) to Lynwilg (B9152)					7,488	8,147
A9 Calvine to Dalwhinnie(A889)			8,180		7,986	8,136
A9 S of B847 - at Shierglas					7,437	7,947
A9 Pitlochry Bypass - S of A924	7,168				8,453	8,697
A9 Birnam	10,509	11,592	11,352	10,853	11,034	12,609
A9 N of B8063 - at Luncarty				13,821	13,991	15,359

Figures are shown in each case where data is available for the relevant area.

Decisions on choice of carriageway standard are based on the combined results of economic, operational and environmental assessments. A modern single carriageway such as sections of the A9 between Perth and Inverness can carry an average annual daily flow of 22,000 vehicles. Where additional overtaking opportunities are considered necessary, widening by providing climbing lanes or wide-single carriageway is assessed. A wide-single carriageway can carry an average annual daily flow of 32,000 vehicles. Dual carriageway is considered where the additional benefits that further upgrading would create exceed the additional costs that would be incurred.

Summary findings and a full research report on Business Finance and Security over Moveable Property were published on Monday 23 September 2002. The research can be accessed on the Scottish Executive's website and copies have been lodged with the Parliament's Reference Centre.

The first occasion when responses to a consultation proposed that crofters should have a right to buy salmon fishings was in responses to the paper on the crofting community right to buy circulated to members of the Crofting Consultative Panel. Four of those responses suggested this. The bill does not provide for the purchase of adjacent salmon fishings but only for the purchase of salmon fishings that are exercisable from and on croft land.

The handling of the crofting community right to buy salmon fishings in the draft bill text would not have delivered the intended policy outcome. The policy intention is that crofting community bodies should be able to apply for the right to buy salmon fishings located on or directly exercisable from the croft land which they were acquiring or had acquired through the exercise of the crofting community right to buy. It was not intended that crofting communities should be able to acquire, through the right to buy, salmon fishings on or exercisable from additional land that they might acquire or that their acquisition of salmon fishings should be subject to the additional tests found in section 74 of the bill.

Salmon fishings are not the only non-croft land to be included in the crofting community right to buy. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill provides for the acquisition by the crofting community body of additional land that is not croft land. Salmon fishings and minerals are separate tenements of land and as a consequence may be held on a separate title from the land itself. Both of these can be acquired by the crofting community body through the crofting community right to buy along with or separately from the croft land.

No. What I said to the committee has to be considered in the context in which it was said. The discussion was about compensation and adequacy of compensation is the essential requirement in that context. I did not say that provision of adequate compensation is the only requirement that has to be met in order to achieve compliance with the Convention. It is clear from the committee report that the committee understood that the exercise of the crofting community right to buy must also be in the public interest in order to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill contains no provisions that specify circumstances in which a crofting community body may or may not dispose of land acquired through the exercise of the right to buy. Any restrictions on disposal of land will be governed, where required, by the terms and conditions of the grant or loan documentation of the crofting community body's funders, and by the crofting community body's own Memorandum and Articles of Association.