Rural Affairs, Food and Environment
Sewage Sludge
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to reduce the spreading of sewage sludge. (S4O-04761)
As long as it is well managed, the use of sewage sludge allows us to recycle valuable materials in a way that is safe and environmentally beneficial. It should cause no nuisance or inconvenience to the general public.
However, I am aware that, in spite of the existing regulatory arrangements, problems with unacceptable odour relating to the storage and spreading of sewage sludge still occur. That is why the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead, commissioned a review of the storage and spreading of sewage sludge on land in Scotland.
Following the recent conclusion of the review, the cabinet secretary is considering a wide range of recommendations, which he intends to announce shortly. It is likely that some of the recommendations will require changes to legislation and we will of course undertake a public consultation on any draft legislative proposals.
These actions will address the issues raised by communities and members of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the spreading of sewage sludge and lessen the impact on communities, particularly in respect of offensive odours.
The minister will be aware from the recent members’ business debate that the vile practice of spreading human waste has caused a sickening smell to pervade not just the Garnock valley in my constituency but many other communities across Scotland. Is it not therefore time to end this revolting practice?
I am aware of the odour problems in the Garnock valley area and it is such issues that I expect the review’s outcome to tackle. Spreading on land as a fertiliser is a long-established route for dealing with sewage sludge and is recognised as the best practical environmental option due to the ability of sewage sludge to improve soil quality, organic content and water-holding capacity, as well as to provide nutrients for crops. The important thing, however, is to ensure that that is all done properly to avoid risks to public health and the wider environment. That is exactly what I expect the review to achieve.
I welcome the minister’s remarks and I am keen, as I am supporting communities in the Glen Taggart ex-mining area in my region, to hear the results of the review. There have been inconsistencies in the level of treatment of sewage sludge before spreading on land when there have been outages. Will the new risk categorisation facilitate more rigorous checks by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and is there enough treatment capacity to ensure that all sewage sludge is not just dried but heat treated to kill pathogens and protect human health, if indeed we continue with the practice?
As the member will be aware, this was a Scottish Government-led review, which involved SEPA and Scottish Water officials. Over the past few months, the group has held discussions with communities, the sewage sludge industry, local authorities and other stakeholders.
As the member may appreciate, it has been a complex task, particularly in relation to existing legislation, guidance and practice, so it took a little longer than expected. Also, the members of the sludge review group wanted to ensure that an effective package of measures would emerge from the process in order that some of the issues that led to the commissioning of the review could be fully addressed.
One of the key recommendations is that SEPA should have the power to have an exempt activity such as the storage of sewage sludge stopped immediately and the sludge removed.
Can the minister be more specific about when the review findings will be published, given that they were due in August, and does she agree that a holistic approach is required to address the issue and that there should be a lead organisation to properly monitor and co-ordinate activities relating to sewage sludge?
The review has been concluded and it is sitting with the cabinet secretary at the moment. Advice is being provided to the cabinet secretary around that. I cannot give any more details about when it will be formally announced but I am more than happy for the member to write to the cabinet secretary to get some clarity on the publication date.
I have already written.
Then I am more than happy to chase that response.
Fracking (Impact on the Environment)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the impact on the environment of fracking. (S4O-04762)
The impacts of unconventional oil and gas on our environment, communities and economy need to be fully understood. The Scottish Government’s moratorium will allow time for careful examination of the issues and proper engagement with the public in considering them.
The comprehensive programme of research that we announced on 8 October will include projects to investigate possible climate change impacts, as well as the effects of additional traffic movements, site decommissioning and aftercare.
A freedom of information response that I have received shows that Government ministers and officials met Ineos representatives 13 times prior to the moratorium on fracking, and that Nicola Sturgeon met them on the day that the moratorium was announced. Since then, John Swinney has met them twice. Given that, and given the current construction of a large holding tank, is it not clear that, as soon as the election is over, the moratorium will be over and fracking will begin in Scotland, or has Ineos just blown a big pile of cash on licences that it will never use?
As I said, ministers have held meetings with representatives of environmental non-governmental organisations, community groups, industry bodies and local government. Those meetings have helped us to prepare for the research and public consultation processes. As a result, we have planned a robust and thorough research programme and a wide-ranging and participative consultation process.
Rural Affairs, Food and Environment Portfolio (Underspend)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason there was a £13 million underspend by the Rural Affairs, Food and Environment portfolio in 2014-15. (S4O-04763)
The Scottish Government consolidated accounts for the year ended 31 March 2015 contain an explanation of major resource variances greater than £3 million for each programme within portfolios. For the rural affairs, food and the environment portfolio, the statement highlights that £7 million of the £13 million resource underspend was planned underspend on uncommitted budgets such as research, £3 million was a result of demand-led budgets, such as private water funding, and of the minor variances totalling £3 million, £2 million was a non-cash underspend representing differences in accounting estimates in areas such as depreciation of assets. In total, the underspend represented less than 3 per cent of the resource departmental expenditure limit budgets that are available to the portfolio and was used to help meet capital pressures.
The climate change budget sits within that portfolio. Why was there a £2 million, or 12.5 per cent, underspend on the climate change budget? Given the importance of climate change, why have we had an underspend on the climate change budget now for four years in a row?
The accounts demonstrate the firm grip that the Government has on Scotland’s public finances. Our approach means that we are managing our budgets across more than one year. We carry forward some spending into the next year when needed, so such underspend does not reflect a missed opportunity to spend more on our public services. As I have said, the £13 million underspend includes £2 million non-cash that simply cannot be spent on services, and it represents differences in accounting estimates in areas such as the depreciation of assets.
The Government’s approach represents sensible budgeting reflecting fluctuations in costs and demand across the spending review period and ensures that there is no loss of spending power in Scotland.
As part of the budget, can the minister tell the Parliament when the common agricultural policy payments that are due next month will be paid? Will she also clarify whether the reclassification of land affecting hundreds of crofters in Shetland will be affected by those budgetary changes?
I do not have that detail in front of me at the moment. Officials are working extremely hard to ensure that the CAP payments can be made as soon as possible. I am happy to respond if the member wishes to write to the cabinet secretary for further clarification around that.
When will we know whether all the CAP payments will be made in December? Is the Scottish Government committed to a time? Farmers are already going to banks just to make sure that they do not have problems.
As I have said, Scottish Government officials are working extremely hard to make sure that the payments can be made as soon as possible. We are more than happy for the member to raise that question with the cabinet secretary.
Scottish Dairy Brand (International Promotion)
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in promoting the Scottish dairy brand to international markets. (S4O-04764)
Richard Lochhead officially launched the Scottish dairy brand at the Anuga food and drink trade show in Cologne in Germany on 12 October.
The brand and its mark, which were unveiled by the First Minister at the Royal Highland Show earlier this year, have been developed by the industry to raise the profile of Scottish dairy produce, add value to milk and take advantage of the increasing international demand for products with a strong Scottish provenance. The cabinet secretary is currently engaged in an official visit to North America where he will be meeting key buyers to help to promote Scottish products, including First Milk’s award-winning Mull of Kintyre cheddar.
How many producers from across Scotland have now signed up to use the Scottish dairy brand and how many brands and products are included? How best can customers be informed about how to buy Scottish dairy produce and how might MSPs best help contribute to establishing the brand logo in the eye of the consumer?
I am pleased to confirm that, to date, 11 processors have signed up to the Scottish dairy brand, with 18 brands supplying 40 different products over three ranges—heritage, artisan and organic—all of which are made using 100 per cent Scottish milk.
Considerable interest was shown from buyers at Anuga, with about 20 positive leads, and it is expected that some of those leads will result in firm orders being placed.
At the moment, the industry focus is very much on the international market, seeking to tap in to Scotland’s enviable reputation for quality produce and building on our growing reputation as a land of food and drink. However, I am sure that, in the future, the industry will also wish to raise the profile of the brand mark in domestic markets and would welcome the support of those in the Scottish Parliament and elsewhere in promoting our wonderful cheeses and butters.
The Scottish dairy brand is indeed a laudable effort by the Scottish Government to try to help the dairy sector. On further help for that sector, I understand that the cabinet secretary has decided to spread the relatively small amount of European Union funding support that is available across all milk producers, rather than only those who do not have direct contracts, who are the ones who are in most need. Is the minister able to tell me why that decision was taken?
I am happy for the member to write to the cabinet secretary to ask for an explanation.
When and how will the Scottish Government report to Parliament on the effectiveness of the dairy action plan?
The dairy action plan was launched by Mr Lochhead in March. It aims to improve the resilience of the sector and to provide the right platform to ensure that the entire industry can thrive in the context of volatile market prices.
The action plan themes include market development and the promotion of best practice in dairy farming and cover short-term and long-term actions. A comprehensive update on all the recommendations that are contained in the plan was provided by Richard Lochhead to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 28 October and was published on the committee’s website.
Food Exports (Disruption at Calais)
To ask the Scottish Government what contact it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the impact of the disruption at Calais on Scottish food exports. (S4O-04765)
Scottish ministers have written to the United Kingdom Government four times about the issue, and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Mr Lochhead, has spoken directly to the UK Secretary of State for Transport. In addition, Scottish Government officials have been in regular dialogue with their counterparts in the UK Government, relaying our concerns about the impact of migrant ingress into the channel tunnel on the Scottish fish processing sector.
The last update that I received from the haulage industry said that Scottish food exporters who go through the channel are facing increasing insurance costs because of delays and spoiled goods. A few weeks ago, drivers who were at the channel received food parcels. North-east hauliers are telling me that the fence that has been erected at Calais is just a gimmick. All of that shows a clear escalation of the crisis at Calais. Will the minister gather that evidence and highlight to the UK Government the implications of the crisis in Calais and beyond for the Scottish food industry?
I sympathise with the drivers who are facing increased costs and insurance premiums. However, insurance cover is a commercial matter for the industry and our primary focus remains on continuing to urge the UK to play its part in a co-ordinated and comprehensive EU plan of action to deal with the humanitarian crisis.
The UK Government has commissioned work to quantify the direct and indirect costs of the cross-channel disruption and to provide an initial identification of the implications for supply chains. The Scottish Government has also asked Scotland Food & Drink to work with industry partners to explore the potential for alternative transport routes from Scotland. That could reduce costs and create a range of mid and long-term options for businesses that look to export their products.
United Kingdom Government Energy Policies (Impact on Climate Targets)
To ask the Scottish Government what the impact on its climate targets is of the UK Government’s energy policies. (S4O-04766)
The Scottish Government remains committed to addressing climate change and, as we look towards the negotiations in Paris starting later this month, we are committed to working with the UK, the European Union, the United Nations and France to secure an ambitious, robust and durable climate treaty.
However, the UK Government’s changes to energy policy since June will make the achievement of Scotland’s climate targets more difficult. Since June, there has been a raft of announcements, many of which have created uncertainty across the energy sector and which the Scottish Government has resisted strongly.
Those changes are, to say the least, not helpful as we look towards 2020. That view is echoed by others, not least Lord Deben, the chair of the Committee on Climate Change, who has written to Amber Rudd stating:
“The uncertainty created by changes to existing policies and a lack of replacement policies up to and after 2020 could well lead to stop-start investment, higher costs and a risk that targets to reduce emissions will be missed”.
Will the minister outline what discussions ministers have had with their UK counterparts ahead of the Paris conference of the parties to negotiate a new international treaty aimed at limiting global warming?
Ahead of my attendance at the UN conference of the parties, I met the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, at the environment councils in June and September to discuss our shared ambitions. The Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations have been consulted on the UK negotiating position. The First Minister and the Prime Minister have also corresponded on our shared objective of an ambitious climate agreement and are committed to continue to work together on that vital issue.
Tail Docking Ban (Working Dogs Exemption)
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in considering a tail docking exemption for working dogs. (S4O-04767)
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment wrote to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 26 October to explain the Scottish Government position on tail docking. A case has been made to us for possibly introducing a very tightly defined exemption regime to allow vets in Scotland to exercise their professional judgment and dock spaniel and hunt, point, retrieve pups only, if they believe that the dogs are likely to be used for working in future and that the pain of docking is outweighed by the possible avoidance of more serious injuries later in life.
The committee replied to say that it would support a full public consultation on that specific proposal and, therefore, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment will reply to the committee in the near future about plans for such a consultation.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to consult on what would rightly be a tightly defined exemption regime for working dogs only. I seek from the minister an understanding of when such a consultation might be launched and how long it would run for.
We thanked the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee for its letter of 4 November supporting a possible consultation on a tightly defined exemption to the tail docking ban in Scotland. We will reply to the committee by 11 December as requested. That reply will help us to determine whether to proceed with a consultation on the issue.
I call question 8, but I need short questions and answers.
Veterinary Surveillance Centres
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Scotland’s Rural College on the deployment of veterinary surveillance centres. (S4O-04768)
Earlier this year, SRUC consulted on the future of its disease surveillance laboratory network. In response to a large number of concerns expressed through the consultation on specific aspects of the proposals, it is now considering alternative proposals and intends to bring them forward for discussion this Friday at the strategic management board for veterinary surveillance. The Scottish Government has been in close contact with SRUC throughout the process and will continue to be so to ensure that the provision of veterinary surveillance services continues to meet the standards that the strategic management board has specified.
The minister will be aware that Auchincruive in my constituency hosts one of the busiest disease surveillance centres in a livestock-intensive area. Can she give me any assurances that that centre will be retained in the national network?
As I understand it, SRUC has indicated to the Scottish Government that it no longer proposes to move the Ayr disease surveillance centre to Glasgow.
The Inverness surveillance centre has been under threat. Will the cabinet secretary listen to SRUC’s evidence and take some time before he makes up his mind on what to do?
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will do that. SRUC has indicated to the Scottish Government that it now proposes to open a post mortem facility in the Inverness area to replace the Drummond Hill site.
Justice and the Law Officers
Police Scotland (Monitoring of Political Activists, Trade Unionists and Environmental Campaigners)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to determine whether Police Scotland or its predecessor forces have monitored the activities of political activists, trade unionists and environmental campaigners. (S4O-04771)
In response to Hugh Henry’s question on 6 October, I made it clear that authorisation of police surveillance is a matter for Police Scotland. Scottish ministers have no role in that authorisation process. Surveillance activity is overseen by the independent and judicially led Office of Surveillance Commissioners. The OSC carries out regular inspections of the relevant public authorities and makes annual reports that are laid in this Parliament and at Westminster.
Any person who is aggrieved about any conduct that is authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 is entitled to make a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Information about the tribunal, including details of how to make a complaint, is included on its website.
That is typical double standards. When there were allegations that the communications of MSPs were under surveillance, Scottish National Party ministers had plenty to say. Indeed, the First Minister called on the Prime Minister to act on Government Communications Headquarters snooping of MSPs; she called on him to declare whether MSP communications were being intercepted.
Surely political activists, trade unionists and environmental campaigners deserve the same level of care and concern from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government cannot be bothered to ask. I ask the cabinet secretary to reverse that shocking complacency and at least to ask the question.
I am afraid that Hugh Henry is confusing a number of different issues, in terms of surveillance and interception of communications. The issue that he is referring to in relation to elected members is interception of communications. As he is a former justice minister, I would have thought that he would have been aware of how that differs significantly from surveillance, which is dealt with under different legislation. That legislation and the safeguards alongside it were brought in by his own Administration when he was a minister.
As I have set out, a regulatory regime is in place for the authorisation mechanism and for complaints that individuals have in relation to surveillance matters. That is also the case for anything to do with interception of communications. If Hugh Henry is aware of individuals who have grievances, I am surprised that he has not directed them to the regulatory framework that his Government put in place to deal with concerns about such matters.
An individual can hardly make a complaint about activity if they do not know that it is happening. Surely we can all acknowledge some information that is in the public domain: Strathclyde Police officers were caught on tape admitting to infiltration of climate change campaign groups and attempts to disrupt their activity. Do not we all have a responsibility to give a clear steer to set expectations about the appropriate use of police powers, when there is surveillance or other attempts to undermine and disrupt legitimate peaceful campaigning?
As I mentioned, there is already in place a regulatory framework that sets out the thresholds regarding both the necessity and proportionality of any type of surveillance that the police choose to undertake. For example, direct surveillance must be authorised by a superintendent or officer of higher rank. Intrusive surveillance must go to an officer in Police Scotland of the rank of assistant chief constable or above, and the authorisation must be signed off by a police surveillance commissioner, independent of the police, before the surveillance can take place.
Issues with how surveillance is conducted can be reviewed by the judicially led Office of Surveillance Commissioners, which ensures that the process has been appropriately adhered to by law enforcement organisations. If the OSC finds that any actions have been inappropriate, it can investigate the matter further, and the case can go to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which can consider the issue in much more detail.
As I said, there is at present a regulatory framework in place to deal with all that. However, as Patrick Harvie will be aware, the UK Government intends to change that framework by revising the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which will have an impact on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, given that the OSC covers Scotland, too.
There will be a very brief supplementary question from Neil Findlay.
The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has established the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing in England and Wales. What correspondence has there been between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to give Scottish people an input into Pitchford? Alternatively, will there be a similar inquiry in Scotland?
To my knowledge, there is no reason why people in Scotland could not make representations to the Pitchford investigation. If Neil Findlay wishes to raise specific allegations with me, he should feel free to do so. I will ensure that any allegations are passed on to the appropriate body for its consideration. I should say that the member has not to date, despite having said a lot about the matter, contacted me with any specific allegations that he wishes to have investigated.
The letter is in the post.
Prison-Court Videolinks
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to encourage and expand the use of closed-circuit television videolinks for prisoner appearances at court. (S4O-04772)
The modernisation of our justice system remains one of the Government’s main priorities. The “Digital Strategy for Justice in Scotland”, which was launched last year, seeks to promote and encourage the use of live videolinks between organisations in the justice system.
Scottish Government officials continue to work closely with justice organisations in developing the use of videolinks between prisons and courts. Justice organisations are also working with the legal profession to encourage greater use of the equipment that has been installed in prisons and courts, for the benefit of vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime and, where appropriate, for prisoners.
In addition to enabling appearances from prison, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill seeks to change the law to allow more hearings to be conducted via videolink. At present only a limited number of hearings are allowed to be conducted via videolink. The legislative provisions that the Government has introduced will allow more hearings in the future to be conducted by videolink, where it is appropriate and in the interests of justice to do so.
Given that increased use of CCTV videolinks for prisoner appearances could save millions of pounds every year, does the minister share my disappointment that the figures for the past few years do not show any significant uplift in use of that technology? For example, figures that have been released under freedom of information requests show that, in 2012, CCTV links were used 259 times, last year they were used 260 times, and this year they have been used just 228 times so far. What more will the minister do to speed up the process?
First of all, the figures to date cover only the first seven months of this financial year, so we are, I hope, seeing an improvement in uptake rates. However, I take Cara Hilton’s point seriously. We want greater use of videolinks where possible, in order to help engagement between solicitors and people who are in prison or awaiting trial, and to help victims—especially vulnerable victims—and witnesses.
A pilot project on solicitor-prisoner videolinks is currently running on a limited basis with a number of criminal defence lawyers. About 177 agents have volunteered, but only 40 agents are currently using the videolinks. However, the project is now moving to national roll-out and we anticipate a substantial increase in use of videolink technology. That will, I hope, lead to the efficiency improvements that Cara Hilton seeks to achieve.
Retail Thefts (Link to Hunger)
To ask the Scottish Government what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s response is to reported concerns that some retail thefts are directly attributed to hunger. (S4O-04773)
National crime statistics report only on instances of shoplifting. We are unable to validate centrally whether retail thefts are directly attributed to hunger.
However, it is clear that major welfare changes and benefit cuts that have been imposed by the United Kingdom Government are driving more people to food banks. In 2014-15 the Trussell Trust food banks provided emergency food parcels to more than 117,000 beneficiaries in Scotland.
We are doing everything that we can with the resources and powers that we have available to tackle inequalities and food poverty. That includes our £1 million emergency food action plan, which helps 26 emergency food projects to provide food aid, and which also funds FareShare to redistribute food from retailers to community organisations. Our total investment in broader welfare mitigation measures since April 2013 has been £296 million.
There is growing anecdotal evidence and newspaper reporting on the issue. In 2014, Durham’s police and crime commissioner, Ron Hogg, said that crimes are being committed by people nationwide “simply to live”. Is there any possibility of co-operation between the police and charities to identify people who are stealing as a result of welfare reform and hunger, and can any help be offered to them?
I have no doubt that Police Scotland would be more than happy to work with charities to try to identify individuals who might be at risk of stealing because of the situation that they find themselves in as a result of welfare reforms and hunger. No one should ever find themselves in that situation. As I said, there is no statistical information on the prevalence of the issue. I am of the view that this is an area in which prevention is much better than people finding their way into our criminal justice system. If Clare Adamson has a suggestion with regard to Police Scotland engaging with specific charities to try to address some of the issues, I would be more than happy to ensure that Police Scotland looks into that.
Scottish Police Federation (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the Scottish Police Federation and what was discussed. (S4O-04774)
I meet representatives of the Scottish Police Federation on a regular basis and, last week, I was delighted to attend the first Scottish Police Federation bravery awards, at which officers who have gone above and beyond the call of duty were recognised for their bravery. Every day, our officers are presented with difficult, dangerous and challenging situations. It is important that we pay tribute to every member of our police service who day in, day out shows continued professionalism and dedication in keeping people safe.
The cabinet secretary is aware that, over the past few years, I have been dealing with a constituency case that relates to a serving police officer who was accused by his employer of breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and fraud. Earlier this year, he was formally acquitted, with the sheriff stating that he was not sure
“why it was ever felt necessary to bring criminal charges in this case”.
Could I hurry you along to a question, please?
Yes.
At the cabinet secretary’s next meeting with the SPF, will he raise the matter of other serving police officers who have fallen foul of data protection legislation? The SPF has expressed the view that
“The whole approach is just wrong.”—[Official Report, Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, 5 February 2015; c 19.]
Will the cabinet secretary also ask the SPF whether the matter is being addressed by the Scottish Police Authority?
I would of course be more than happy to raise the matter with the Scottish Police Federation the next time I meet it.
When the member raised the issue back in March, I set out that I would ensure that further work was taken forward in the area. I can inform the member that progress has been made on the information with which officers are provided. In July, Police Scotland, in conjunction and consultation with the Crown, introduced a new redesigned training package for all officers and staff. The training, which must be completed by all officers and staff, will reinforce the obligations that the service has under the Data Protection Act 1998. It also sets out the situations in which staff and officers can access data and highlights the risks that are associated with data access. That enhanced package has been introduced to raise awareness among staff and officers and to prevent data access that is not in line with the law.
I am aware that Police Scotland’s counter-corruption unit is running a series of divisional workshops looking at the main areas of risk in the service. Those workshops will reinforce the new DPA training, with the aim of preventing breaches of the act in the first place.
Sheriff Courts (Unnecessary Repetition of Case Stages)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to reduce the reported £10 million that is lost in the sheriff court system by cases repeating stages unnecessarily. (S4O-04775)
The Scottish Government welcomes the Auditor General for Scotland’s report “Efficiency of prosecuting criminal cases through the sheriff courts”. The report acknowledges that, despite overall reductions in crime, increases in the prosecution of more cases involving domestic abuse and sexual offences have caused additional pressures on courts and the wider justice system. By their very nature, those cases are complex ones that sometimes require more than one hearing.
In response, through the cross-agency justice board we committed £1.47 million in additional funding in 2014-15 to the Crown and courts for extra fiscals, judiciary and administrative staff to address delays and speed up access to justice for victims and witnesses. During the current financial year, we have provided a further £2.4 million to ensure the efficient progress of cases involving domestic abuse and sexual offences. That funding will continue in 2016-17 and 2017-18.
The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that criminal cases are managed as efficiently as possible, and we will continue to work with justice organisations to speed up access to justice within sheriff courts. We are also committed to implementing measures in the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, including the new criminal Sheriff Appeal Court, which opened on 22 September 2015 and is part of the package of reforms to ensure a more efficient and effective court system.
Given that the number of summary cases completed within a timeframe of 26 weeks is the only performance indicator of sheriff court efficiency, will the minister commit to introducing more detailed performance indicators in order to allow the public a more comprehensive picture of how well our sheriff courts are working?
I certainly agree that performance indicators are important. Not wishing to be complacent—we know that there is a lot of room for improvement—I note that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has confirmed that currently summary criminal trials are being set within the 16-week target in over 95 per cent of our sheriff courts. I know that the member’s point was about the completion of cases as well; we will keep that under review, but operational matters are a matter for the chief executive of the SCTS. I will raise the matter with Eric McQueen myself, but the member may also wish to write to him to raise those points.
Very briefly, Rod Campbell, as long as the answer is also brief.
Aberdeen, Dundee and Hamilton managed to reduce the cost of churn last year. How can other sheriff courts follow suit?
Improved performance is secured through collaboration with justice partners; local criminal justice boards are key to ensuring that that is achieved. The remit of local justice boards has been revised recently and all boards now support the sheriff principal in ensuring that optimum performance is achieved across all courts by challenging inefficiency and ensuring that best practice is shared. I hope that that answers the member’s point.
Domestic Abuse (Protection of Children)
To ask the Scottish Government what support is available through the justice system for the protection of children in families experiencing domestic abuse. (S4O-04776)
The Scottish Government is committed to taking action to tackle the unacceptable levels of domestic abuse in our society. That includes enhancing support for all victims of abuse including children.
There is a range of specific measures available that can protect children. For example, there are both criminal and civil non-harassment orders and civil domestic abuse interdicts with a power of arrest that can be imposed by courts to protect those affected by domestic abuse, including where children are involved. Breaches of such orders by domestic abusers can lead to penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment. When children are required to give evidence in court, a range of measures is available to help to reduce the trauma of the experience.
The Scottish Government has supported a number of initiatives that tackle domestic abuse, such as Police Scotland’s decision to roll out across Scotland a national disclosure scheme for domestic abuse, which was announced in the past few weeks.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the effect that domestic abuse has on children’s security, resilience and self-esteem. He will also be aware that abusers often use access to children to continue to perpetrate abuse after a relationship has ended. Does he agree that access should not be granted under such circumstances? What steps will he take to protect families in such circumstances?
I am very aware of the issue that the member raised and of some of the challenges in that regard. I am also aware that some third sector organisations have expressed concern about information sharing with sheriff courts when they are considering custody.
As I am sure the member appreciates, such matters have to be put before the court, and it is important that the welfare of the child is at the centre of decision making, to ensure that children are appropriately protected. That is currently the case and will continue to be the case.
It is also important to ensure that people who have been subject to domestic abuse and who are involved in our court system, whether they are involved in civil or criminal matters, are given the right support, assistance and advice at that point. That is why we have provided further funding to the ASSIST—advocacy, safety, support, information, services together—project’s programme of work. ASSIST provides assistance, information and advice to individuals in those circumstances who have experienced domestic abuse, and we want it to continue its important work.
My apologies to those members who indicated, in advance and during question time, that they wanted to ask supplementary questions. I am afraid that the questions and answers today were not succinct and I was unable to call a number of members. We now have to move on.