Rural Affairs, Food and Environment
Renewables Industry (Business Rates Relief)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has made an assessment of the environmental impact of cutting business rates relief for the renewables industry. (S4O-05564)
The Scottish Government does not expect any environmental impact.
I thank the minister for her reply, although I am surprised by it. Her colleague Margaret Burgess MSP has confirmed that the Government is going to cut £10 million, and the cost will fall mostly on the small and medium-sized companies that operate in the sector. Does the minister not think it a little hypocritical to complain so bitterly about the United Kingdom Government’s decision to end the renewables obligation while simultaneously taking £10 million out of the sector? What impact does she think cutting that £10 million will have on our ability to meet our carbon emissions targets?
This has been a difficult decision in a very difficult budget. The renewables industry in Scotland has benefited from relief since 2010, uniquely in the UK. We have had to target our stretched funds to those who are most in need, including community schemes, while balancing the needs of the renewables sector with those of other non-domestic rates payers.
We do not expect the renewables projects that will no longer receive rates relief to stop generating, as their main source of income generation will be via the feed-in tariff or the renewables obligation. We do not expect there to be any impact on existing projects or the role that they play in providing low-carbon, cost-effective energy as part of a balanced generation mix.
Camping Management Byelaws (Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposed camping management byelaws for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. (S4O-05565)
On 26 January, the Scottish Government approved new camping management byelaws that cover a small area of the national park, as part of a package of measures that are aimed at improving visitor facilities and helping to manage camping in some of the most environmentally fragile areas that are suffering from damage caused by a combination of high-volume and antisocial camping.
As the minister will recall, I wrote to her in November 2015 after I received a large number of representations from my constituents expressing concern about proposed byelaws that would affect camping in the national park. They believed that such byelaws would infringe their rights, could lead to further restrictions and would unfairly penalise the vast majority, who adhere to and comply with the Scottish outdoor access code.
Can the minister assure me that individuals’ legal rights of access, as established in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, are not being undermined and that no precedent has been set for the introduction of any further restrictions in our national parks?
The measures should not be confused with the intentions behind the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The byelaws deal with specific circumstances in a national park where steps must be taken to prevent environmental damage caused by a combination of overuse and irresponsible behaviour.
Both the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 make provision for byelaws in relation to responsible uses of land. Access rights must be exercised responsibly, but unfortunately certain areas of the national park are suffering from considerable environmental damage, and local communities are having to deal with the negative impacts of the worst excesses of irresponsible behaviour.
The proposals to manage camping activity are designed to promote recreational access for all types of users, and not just campers, in the proposed management zones. The measures in the national park do not affect access rights in other parts of the country, and there is no evidence that the east Loch Lomond byelaws have led to calls for similar byelaws to be considered elsewhere in Scotland.
Antibiotic Resistance
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to deal with antibiotic resistance in the food chain. (S4O-05566)
The Scottish Government signed up to the United Kingdom’s five-year antimicrobial strategy for 2014 to 2018, which was produced in collaboration with public health and animal health authorities across the UK. The strategy combines actions in the human and animal health environments, and a working group chaired by the chief medical officer for Scotland has been set up and is developing detailed plans to implement it.
The Scottish Government also monitors scientific developments in antimicrobial resistance; liaises with other Administrations and public bodies with an interest in animal health, public health and food safety; and implements a veterinary surveillance programme that monitors the emergence of such resistance in animals.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed and comprehensive answer. Given the possible variability in the implications for different sectors, can he tell me whether the Scottish Government has investigated the economic impact on the farming sector of a rise in antimicrobial resistance in different forms of livestock—for example, poultry, cattle or sheep?
Because we view the issue through the prism of the impact on public health, there has been no such economic assessment in relation to our livestock sectors in Scotland, because it is not deemed to be an issue at the moment. However, it is certainly something that ministers and the agencies and public bodies involved with the issue will want to reflect upon as the debate moves forward.
NFU Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NFU Scotland and what matters were discussed. (S4O-05567)
Representatives of the Scottish Government met NFU Scotland on numerous occasions over the past few months to discuss a wide variety of topics. The most recent meeting took place on 29 January in Perth to discuss common agricultural policy—CAP—payments. I also delivered a speech at the NFU Scotland annual general meeting on 12 February, and during that I announced the £20 million hardship fund.
I am not surprised that the subject of that meeting was CAP payments, because the shambles of the basic payment scheme continues. With less than 1,000 payments a week being cleared, paying all claimants 70 per cent of their basic payments by the end of March as promised is looking increasingly unlikely, if not impossible.
Farmers are now beginning to ask what impact the issue is all going to have on other schemes, specifically the less favoured areas support scheme—LFASS—payment, which is normally paid in March. I ask the cabinet secretary a very simple question: when will this year’s LFASS payments be made?
I should inform Alex Fergusson and members that the number of farmers and crofters in Scotland who have received their first instalment is now approaching 50 per cent, which is equivalent to 80 per cent of the overall greening and basic payments.
It is indeed the case that there will be a knock-on impact on other schemes. I have been very open and clear about that, given that this is the transition year between the former common agricultural policy and the new, far more complex, common agricultural policy. There is also the fact that the information technology system is not working as quickly as we had hoped, and there is a range of other factors as well.
LFASS payments are normally made in March. I recognise the extreme importance of that payment, in particular to hill farmers in Scotland. That is why I am paying a lot of attention to it as we speak. While I have said that all other schemes will experience a knock-on impact of several weeks, I am paying particular attention to LFASS to see how we can minimise the impact on that particular scheme.
When will the cabinet secretary take decisive action? We now have farmers with expensive bank loans that they have had to shoulder because the CAP system has been a failure. Can he give us an update on exactly when all farmers will get all their payments, and will he recompense farmers who have had to take out expensive loans to get themselves through that system? The failure is impacting on rural communities across the whole country.
I make the obvious point that I cannot be lectured by the Labour Party. When it was in government at the United Kingdom level, it did its utmost to scrap direct payments to Scottish farmers and crofters. It is therefore a bit hypocritical constantly to criticise the Scottish Government on the payment timetable for payments that Labour did not want to exist in the first place.
However, it is a serious issue, and it is having a serious impact on cash-flow situations across Scotland. We are working flat-out to get as many as possible of the first instalments out by the end of March. As I have said, we are approaching 50 per cent as we speak and we will continue to do our utmost to speed up the process.
As the member knows, we cannot call down the money from Europe to pay farmers and crofters until we have sorted out the processing of the applications and addressed any errors or whatever may exist in each application form, under what is a very complex system. We simply cannot award the payments until that process has been carried out. Nevertheless, we are approaching 50 per cent at the moment.
In relation to decisive action, I have said that the £20 million that we announced at the NFU Scotland AGM will be available for genuine hardship cases. If any farmers or crofters are unable to get finance from their banks and they take evidence of that to the Government, they will be able to access that £20 million fund. We have agreed that with stakeholders because that is the most sensible thing to do. The vast majority of farmers and crofters, as we are aware, have good relationships with their banks.
The payment window for the overall scheme is from 1 December 2015 to the end of June this year. Clearly, in previous years we had a very good record of paying out in December. However, this is the transition year and therefore we are further into that payment window than in previous years. I wish that we were moving a lot further than we are, but we are where we are and we are doing our absolute utmost to get payments out of the door.
If the cabinet secretary is moving everything that he can, will he undertake to write as quickly as he can to individual crofters and farmers who have yet to find out how much they are getting or when they will get it, particularly if payment is going to slip into April, May or, as he has just said, June? Further, to pick up on Alex Fergusson’s question, can the cabinet secretary not simply tell Parliament today whether he will make LFASS payments in March or just come clean with the industry and say, “Sorry, it’s going to be in April”, which would, at least, let crofters and hill farmers make financial plans?
I accept the need for there to be as much clarity as possible. Clearly, we are unable to give a timetable to individual recipients with regard to their own application, because each and every day more recipients across Scotland get their payment, which means that many letters to farmers and crofters would be out of date as soon as they were sent.
On LFASS, I have said that it is normally paid out in March but that the payments are running a few weeks behind schedule. However, as we speak, I am actively trying to speed up the process to minimise the knock-on impacts. I am meeting stakeholders again next week, and I hope to be in a better position at that point to give people more clarity with regard to the timescale for the LFASS payments.
Wild Animals in Circuses
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in introducing a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. (S4O-05568)
The Scottish Government takes the welfare of animals, including circus animals, very seriously. There are no travelling circuses with wild animals presently based in Scotland. However, some visit Scotland on occasion, and we are aware that many people have concerns about the welfare of the animals.
The results of a Scottish Government consultation showed overwhelming support for a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses on ethical grounds. As that would require legislation, I am considering the best way forward, and the Scottish Government will set out plans in due course, certainly before the dissolution of Parliament.
One of the things that I am afraid of is that the cabinet secretary might be waiting for legislation to be brought in in England so that we can deal with the matter via a legislative consent motion. I do not think that that will happen soon, so I am glad that the cabinet secretary has said that he will lay out a timetable. Can he give us an indication of when that will be? He said that it will be before dissolution. Will it be just before dissolution, or will it be sooner than that?
In November 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wrote to the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations signalling its intention to develop a bill to ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses and offering to extend the scope of the bill to include other territories, including Scotland. However, we will do what is best for Scottish circumstances and, before the dissolution of Parliament, I will make clear our timetable for legislating on the matter in this country once we work out the best way forward in terms of how to frame any legislation that we want to support. I will not be influenced by timetables elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Air Pollution (Fife)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle air pollution in Fife. (S4O-05569)
The Scottish Government continues to work closely with Fife Council, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Transport Scotland and other partners to improve air quality in Fife.
Fife Council has produced an air quality action plan for the Cupar air quality management area, which is regularly cited as an example of best practice. The plan contains a comprehensive range of measures, including an effective public awareness-raising campaign. The plan has contributed to reducing pollutant levels to the extent that no exceedances of the objectives for nitrogen dioxide or particulate matter were recorded during 2014.
An action plan for Fife’s other air quality management area at Appin Crescent, Dunfermline, is also in place. It aims to mirror the success in Cupar.
Given the evidence that air pollution causes at least 2,000 early deaths in Scotland each year, and the fact that many areas, such as Appin Crescent in my Dunfermline constituency, continue to experience dangerous levels of air pollution, what extra funding will the Scottish Government make available to ensure that active travel is a more realistic option, and particularly to improve safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists to public transport links?
Given that the Scottish Government is planning to spend 200 times as much on building new roads as on tackling air pollution in the budget today, how likely is it that we will meet European air quality limits by 2020, as has been promised?
Tackling local air pollution is also a matter for local authorities, with support and guidance provided by the Scottish Government and other partners.
The Scottish Government provides practical support to local authorities through our policy and technical guidance and provides financial support through a series of annual funding schemes. Since 2000, Fife Council has received a total of around £530,000 to support air quality monitoring and associated work, plus around £520,000 since 2010 to help to implement the action plans in Cupar and Dunfermline.
Many actions that are being implemented at a national level, such as the green bus fund and the plug-in vehicles road map, are having a positive local impact across Scotland.
We have our stage 3 budget debate this afternoon and I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will say more then. Compared with 2013-14 we have increased investment in active travel by more than 80 per cent, from £21.35 million in 2013-14 to £39.2 million in 2015-16—and that is at a time when our overall capital budget has decreased by 26 per cent.
The Scottish Government invests more than £1 billion a year in public and sustainable transport to encourage people on to public transport and active travel modes. We have also invested £11 million in the development of the chargeplace Scotland network of electric vehicle charging points, which now comprises more than 400 units, with many more being commissioned over the coming months.
Land Reform (West Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact it expects its proposals on land reform to have on land in the West Scotland region. (S4O-05570)
The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before Parliament, will result in real improvements in how land is owned, used and managed across Scotland.
Land ownership by communities has gone from strength to strength, and there are impressive examples of community buyouts throughout the country. In West Scotland, for example, in 2006 the Neilston Community Trust registered an interest and then purchased a former bank building, which continues to be used as a community hub and resource as well as office space. More recently, in 2014, the Arran community land initiative saw the acquisition of 79 acres to develop a community woodland on the island.
Building on successes like those, the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 provides for the extension and streamlining of the community right-to-buy process and, for the first time, urban communities will be able to use the statutory community right to buy. Through the legislation and the Government’s 1 million acre strategy, we anticipate that many more communities the length and breadth of Scotland, including in the West Scotland region, will be able to realise the many benefits of acquiring land. The revised community right-to-buy legislation comes into force on 15 April 2016.
Will the minister give her clear support and indicate a timescale for introducing compulsory sale orders, so that local authorities can take the lead in bringing vacant and derelict land back into use, particularly in town centres and rural communities?
As I indicated during the stage 1 debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, we are supportive of compulsory sale orders and we are currently considering the issues around those. We support CSOs because we can see that they allow vacant and derelict land and buildings to be brought back into use.
Bringing forward an effective compulsory sale order will take time and careful consideration to ensure that it works and is in competence. If we are re-elected, the Government will actively explore bringing forward proposals for a compulsory sale order in the next session, as part of its wider land reform programme.
Leaving the EU (Fishing and Farming)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the impact that leaving the European Union could have on Scotland’s fishing and farming communities. (S4O-05571)
The UK Government has neither consulted the Scottish Government about the impact that a UK exit from the EU would have on Scotland’s fishing and farming communities, nor directly consulted those communities that would be affected.
EU membership provides a range of benefits, which include direct access to financial assistance, free access to a common food export market of over 500 million consumers, and the protections and opportunities that are offered by being part of a major global trading bloc.
Will the cabinet secretary highlight some of the benefits that EU membership brings to Scotland’s farming and fishing communities?
In terms of support for agriculture, billions of euros are making their way to Scottish farmers, crofters and wider rural communities between now and 2020; given that it is UK policy to scrap direct payments, that would not otherwise happen. We are protected only by EU membership. That is one direct benefit for the agricultural sector. Many of our seafood exporters rely on the European markets.
It is fascinating to note that the UK farming minister, George Eustice, has just declared for the leave campaign, having said a couple of weeks or so ago that it was up to the leave campaign to explain what would happen to common agricultural policy payments in the event of the UK leaving Europe. I therefore lay down a challenge to him today to please explain to Scotland’s farmers and crofters what will happen to the billions of euros that make their way to Scotland if indeed the UK leaves Europe.
Justice and the Law Officers
Environmental Justice (Access)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure equal access to justice in environmental matters. (S4O-05574)
The Scottish Government has undertaken a significant programme of reform to the justice system with the aim of making the court system more efficient and accessible. The Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 codifies recent changes to standing, which is the entitlement to bring a case. The result is a clear, broader entitlement to take a case to court, which we expect to benefit those who have an interest in public interest litigation, including cases that concern environmental matters.
Seeking redress through the courts may involve considerable cost. That is mitigated by the ability to access legal aid for those who are eligible and to apply to the court for a protective expenses order—a PEO—in certain cases, including environmental cases. A PEO protects the litigant from any expense beyond a limit that is set out in the PEO.
We are also progressing plans to publish a consultation paper on options that will cover areas such as the potential role of an environmental court or tribunal.
This is a vital issue. The Aarhus convention exists because the environment cannot go to court itself—people must protect it, sometimes with legal action. However, as the minister will be aware, that can be prohibitively expensive by anyone’s reckoning.
I agree that a specialist environmental court could and would help; the Justice Committee supports having one. The Scottish National Party manifesto promised an options paper and the Scottish Government has repeatedly told Parliament that one is coming, but still we have no paper and no timeline. Will the Parliament see one before purdah?
I agree with a lot of what Alison Johnstone said about the justice system’s role in protecting the environment, which does not have a voice of its own. I recognise that. On the point about the manifesto commitment, we intend to publish a consultation paper prior to the dissolution of Parliament.
The minister has largely answered my question, but I welcome the commitment to publishing an options paper and I look forward to seeing that paper before the dissolution of Parliament.
I am happy to confirm that the paper will be published before then. I appreciate Mr Campbell’s interest in the issue and the interest of other members. We will fulfil our commitment.
Prison Estate Improvement Plans
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to improve the prison estate. (S4O-05575)
I recently announced plans for the redevelopment of the women’s custodial estate. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service will progress its estates development plan—it is described in the Scottish Government’s infrastructure investment plan—to deliver a fit-for-purpose prison estate.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that we have had discussions in the past about replacing HMP Greenock. A substantial investment has been made in an initial site, and the current HMP Greenock has a limited lifespan. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could provide any assurances to people in the west of Scotland that replacing HMP Greenock is firmly in the Scottish Government’s plans for the future.
The site at Inverclyde remains available to the Scottish Prison Service for the replacement of HMP Greenock, which is one of the prisons that the SPS has identified as requiring to be replaced. To replace that facility, a detailed plan would need to be made and the SPS would then need to secure capital funding. The site at Inverclyde remains in SPS ownership and will be available to the SPS should it choose to use that site for a replacement of HMP Greenock.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that the unacceptable conditions of the toilets for remand prisoners at Cornton Vale have been raised by members of the former prison visiting committee. Complaints about issues in the prison estate are now covered by the new independent prison monitoring service. Will the cabinet secretary comment on the reported problems with the new service, which include poor implementation of reforms and inadequate communication? Will he provide assurances that the Government will address those issues with immediate effect?
I presume that the member is referring to the recent HM inspectorate of prisons for Scotland report on HMP Cornton Vale. The report highlighted a number of areas in which significant improvements have been made as a result of the actions of staff at Cornton Vale. Equally, it highlighted areas in which further improvements are needed, which include night sanitation.
The member will be aware that the Scottish Prison Service has proposed that, while it starts the decommissioning process at Cornton Vale, just over half the women there will be relocated to the young offenders institution at Polmont. I have approved that proposal, which will be implemented in the coming months and should be taken forward by the summer. That will allow women who have experienced problems with night sanitation facilities at Cornton Vale to be relocated to Polmont while the SPS starts to decommission the Cornton Vale facility with a view to creating and building the new national facility for 80 women in the next couple of years.
The cabinet secretary has set out his general plans for improving the estate. What will the impact on his plans be of the Government’s continued commitment to reducing the prison population, which has stayed stubbornly at the same level over the past five years? What is the timescale for the reduction?
The member is factually wrong, as the prison population has declined over the past couple of years. The level has stabilised, but there has been a decline in recent years, so he is incorrect on that point.
The member will be aware that the programme that we have set out for building the new female custodial estate will considerably reduce capacity in that estate. A key part of that is the greater focus that we are placing on community alternative disposals, which we know are much more effective in tackling offending behaviour, as a means by which we can seek to reduce our prison population overall. That will be a key part of the approach that we take following the redesign of the custodial estate, alongside a greater focus on using more effective and robust community disposals. Such an approach will help to reduce reoffending rates in Scotland—which are, incidentally, at a 16-year low as a result of the progress that we have made in recent years. I want to build on and accelerate that progress, which will assist us in reducing the female—and male—prison estate population overall.
Cashback for Communities (North East Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the cashback for communities programme is having in North East Scotland. (S4O-05576)
We are rightly proud of our unique cashback for communities programme and have published information by local authority area on the cashback website. It demonstrates that, up to the end of March 2015, young people from North East Scotland, which covers the local authority areas of Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Angus, Dundee city and part of Moray, have directly benefited from nearly £5.5 million of cashback investment that has delivered more than 250,000 activities and opportunities for young people in the area.
I very much welcome the £5.5 million that has been recycled from the pockets of criminals for the benefit of the public good in North East Scotland, as has happened elsewhere in Scotland. What criteria might the cabinet secretary wish to see used for the future selection of cashback projects?
Our approach in the past three phases of allocating cashback money has been to work with the 14 partner organisations that are responsible for projects across the country. They range from sporting organisations to cultural organisations and youth groups and they focus on areas that are deprived and where there are disadvantaged young people.
We are coming towards the end of phase 3 of the programme, which goes up to March 2017, and I am considering the arrangements for phase 4. I want to ensure that it is targeted more on deprived areas, that it focuses on assisting us to reduce inequalities in our communities and that, in doing so, it maximises the benefit for communities. There is no doubt that the programme has been an extremely successful way to take money from criminals and put it back into our communities. We intend to build on the important work that we have achieved in recent years with the programme.
Autism Support (Justice System)
To ask the Scottish Government what support the justice system gives to people with autism. (S4O-05577)
The Scottish Government is committed to improving the lives of people with autism. For individuals over 16 years of age with autistic spectrum disorder who come into contact with the criminal justice system, the support of an appropriate adult is available. The appropriate adult’s role includes facilitating understanding or communication during police procedures for an accused person, suspect, victim or witness. For those under 16, support would be offered by a responsible adult.
To assist vulnerable individuals in giving evidence in court, there is now greater access to special measures, including the use of screens or the ability to give evidence via videolink. Similar measures are available for the purposes of giving evidence in civil proceedings. Tribunal hearings, which tend to be more informal, will be flexible in their arrangements to support vulnerable people giving evidence.
The minister demonstrates clearly that anyone who has an autistic spectrum disorder faces particular barriers when accessing any system. Will he give an update on what training is available for front-line police officers and for fiscals and their staff to ensure that victims and alleged perpetrators are given the correct support and justice is done?
I will write to Christina McKelvie with more detail, but training is clearly vital when dealing with those with particular needs. I thank her for raising this really important issue. I understand that representatives of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have recently been in touch with the National Autistic Society Scotland with a view to developing training and policy on how staff interact with those with autism. The training of fiscals and other staff is a matter for the Crown Office, but I would be more than happy to raise her concerns with the Lord Advocate, who may wish to provide further information on the matter.
Prior to the creation of Police Scotland, Scottish police forces undertook training in 2010. Police Scotland remains engaged with the autism network Scotland and continues to identify and share good practice in localities. As I said, I will write to Christina McKelvie with further detail.
Domestic Noise Nuisance
To ask the Scottish Government what the police are doing to tackle noise nuisance in domestic properties. (S4O-05578)
Responsibility for dealing with the majority of complaints about domestic noise rests with local authorities, which have a duty to investigate such complaints under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or, depending on the nature of the complaint, the noise provisions under part 5 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. In some instances, the police can become involved.
Legislation grants authorised officers in local authorities various powers to deal with noise nuisance. Under the antisocial behaviour legislation, an officer may issue a warning notice to the person who is responsible for excessive noise. If the warning notice is not complied with, other available measures include fixed-penalty notices or the power to enter premises to seize noise-making equipment. Abatement notices are also available under the provisions of the 1990 act.
One of the most regular complaints that I receive is about noise from nuisance neighbours. My constituents are moved from the police to the local authority to try to find a solution, but unless the local authority actually catches the person in the act, my constituents are told that nothing can be done for them. I have seen families torn apart and children sleeping at their grandparents’ home just to get a decent night’s sleep. Does the minister agree that local authorities should and could do far more to assist people when dealing with the issue?
I am sorry to hear about the experience of Mr Adam’s constituents in Paisley in dealing with noise from neighbours. The situation that he describes would clearly be very distressing. The local authority has perhaps been unable to resolve the situation to his constituents’ satisfaction. I have every sympathy with those who suffer from such a situation. I fully agree that it is unacceptable for such strains to be placed on normal family life as a result of inconsiderate and selfish behaviour by neighbours.
When a local authority investigates a noise complaint, it must consider the facts and circumstances of each case when deciding what action to take. I am aware that an environmental health officer must either witness the noise or be in a position to measure the level of noise, to determine whether the law is being breached. In cases in which it has not been possible to witness or measure the noise as it happens, local authorities may install recording equipment in homes to establish whether acceptable levels are being breached and to enable them to take appropriate enforcement action. My officials have been in contact with Renfrewshire Council and have been informed by the council that it provides that service. However, given the experience of Mr Adam’s constituents, that might not be widely known and there might be a case for ensuring that people are notified that building an evidence base could be a potential solution to the problem.
Violence Against Women
To ask the Scottish Government how the justice directorate is tackling violence against women. (S4O-05579)
The Scottish Government is committed to tackling and eradicating violence against women and girls. Over the period from 2015 to 2018, we have committed £20 million from the justice portfolio to support a range of projects and initiatives. We are strengthening the law in the area and are seeking views on a new specific offence of domestic abuse. We have established the equally safe joint strategic board, which will drive forward real and lasting change through key areas such as justice and prevention. As a Government, however, we recognise that to truly achieve our goal, enhancing the justice system in isolation is not enough. It is through tackling the root causes of gender inequality in all aspects of life that we will realise our true goal of eradicating violence against women and girls.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the comprehensive amount of work that is being done. How is the Scottish Government supporting children and young people who witness domestic violence?
I am grateful to Fiona McLeod for raising that important issue. We have to remember that the whole family can be severely affected by domestic abuse, especially where children have been involved.
On support for victims, there is a range of existing measures to support vulnerable witnesses through our justice system, including children who witness domestic abuse. In addition, to assist children who are giving evidence, all those under 18 are entitled to supportive measures such as the use of screens and videolink systems as they move through the court process. Furthermore, the children’s services fund supports a range of specialist services that offer direct support to children and young people who have experienced domestic abuse. Fiona McLeod can be assured that the Government will be unrelenting in its commitment to ensuring that we continue to tackle all forms of domestic violence that are perpetrated against women and girls.
When will the cabinet secretary publish the research that has been commissioned on commercial sexual exploitation, and when will the symposium on that research take place?
Some of that work is coming to its completion. Part of the work—on the stakeholder meetings that were due to take place—will be completed this month. Once that work has been undertaken and we have engaged with all the various stakeholders, we will be in a position to consider the final paper that comes from the research and the work that we have engaged in with our stakeholders.
Question 7, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, has not been lodged and an explanation has been provided.
In Care Abuse Survivors (Compensation)
To ask the Scottish Government what action the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will take to allow survivors of child abuse in care prior to 1964 to seek compensation. (S4O-05581)
I will respond to Mr Gray’s question, as I have responsibility for the policy on time bar and have had the opportunity to engage with survivors. As he will know, this is a complex and sensitive issue. I have heard personally from survivors about the difficulties that they have experienced in trying to raise a claim in the civil courts, and I can very much understand their feelings of injustice. That is why I intend to lift the three-year limitation period from civil actions in cases of historical child abuse. We have previously committed to publishing a draft bill before the end of this parliamentary session.
As Mr Gray is aware, the limitation period applies only to actions that are based on harm that occurred after 26 September 1964. For harm that occurred before that date, the law of prescription applies. We gave serious consideration to removal of the law of prescription, but the legal issues for such cases were too difficult to overcome. We are of the view that to reverse the law of prescription would be incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
I know that that has come as a great disappointment to many survivors, and I can understand their frustration. However, the legal issues in respect of prescription mean that there appears to be no viable legislative solution for the pre-1964 cases. We are looking at what else can be done for survivors in that group, which includes looking closely at experience in other jurisdictions. That work is on-going.
No one doubts the complexities. In her recent meeting with survivors, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said that, prior to dissolution, a paper would be produced with options for action. Is that still the Scottish Government’s intention?
Yes, I can confirm that Ms Constance met survivors on 11 February and has committed to sharing progress on the work before the Parliament dissolves.