 Rhyw roll cyllidol. Cynonogau�r, cyso, no 1, yn y meun casr,钟 yn ei ansri gwyllgor. On i'r cysiwch, restriction no 2, restean yn McElvé. Felly, ni dfynt. Felly, rhai hwnny'r Llyfrgell yn gwy cineilliaid i'r cyntaf ar cysileid gyda highidferioio Mae gefnogaeth Gwunus iawn yn cychwynhwyrience. Gyfichyng y ti probech pulse hammer y dyspicymau, fe fyddwn i gael ei dynnu'r ffordd i gwasanaethu'r ddullydd. That's why the Scottish Government considers there's a strong case for creating a specific offence making it illegal to share explicit, intimate images without consent. We intend to seek views on this matter soon. I bespoke criminal offence with assist procedures and prosecutors and send a clear signal to society that such behaviour is criminal. However, existing laws, which prosecutors can currently use when prosecuting the distribution of explicit images of another person without their consent, for example, offences of threatening and abusive behaviour or improper use of a public communication network, may apply. Prosecutors are committed to ensuring that those criminal activities are effectively dealt with. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, personally, I have been involved in this campaign for a number of years now, but Scottish Women's Aid has recently restarted their campaign, Stop, Revenge, Porn and Scotland, with the tagline, It's Not Your Fault, We Are Here For You. One of the things that I am very interested in is what the cabinet secretary did about a bespoke criminal offence, which is something that I am hoping that he is looking at very carefully. He also mentioned existing laws. One of the things that concerns me is whether prosecutors in question are using those existing laws. What education is being put in place to ensure that prosecutors are using the laws at the disposal now, and whether he will commit to work with Scottish Women's Aid on the bespoke criminal offence to ensure that we stamp this thing out for good? I am aware of the member's campaign on that issue. Indeed, her debate within this Parliament, so I am aware that she is prescient, perhaps, in leading the requirement for action. We have obviously entered into discussions with Scottish Women's Aid. The Lord Advocate has been pivotal in leading on this issue. I think that I can give you an assurance that the Crown are aware of the complexity of this. They understand the great harm that it causes because Scottish Women's Aid liais with them. For that reason, prosecutors are advised and indeed schooled and trained on the current laws that are available, but the Lord Advocate has made it clear that bespoke offence would be better and would make it simpler and more straightforward for prosecutors. I can give the member the assurance that we are going to work on all those areas, use the appropriate laws that we have at the present moment to the best of our abilities, ensure that those, whether in police, whether in the Crown are properly appraised of them and properly trained and schooled, and equally I can give her the assurance that we are seeking to go into consultation on bespoke offence. The devil is always in the detail, but we are aware that other jurisdictions are proceeding to bring in such legislation, and that is something that we require to consider and we will do so positively. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government in relation to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Scottish ministers have discussed the TTIP with the UK Government at meetings of the GMC in March and October this year. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being has been in correspondence with the UK Secretary of State for Health regarding concerns about the impact of TTIP on the Scottish NHS. Officials are actively engaging with UK Government officials about the progress of the negotiations and any potential implications for Scotland. I have seen a copy of a letter from Vince Cable of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to members of Parliament at the House of Commons dated 22 September. I do not know whether the minister has had an opportunity to consider that. Is he happy with the UK Government's assurances on the substance in particular of the interstate dispute settlement provisions? Does he believe, or does the Scottish Government have a view as to the transparency of the negotiations taking place? As Mr Campbell is aware, my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being, is primarily dealing with this, but my understanding is that assurances have been sought from the EU commission and from the UK Government. The response from the EU commission has been encouraging. The response from the UK Government has had a lack of an unequivocal assurance that the NHS will remain as it is at the moment and not open to potentially being sued for not going down the privatisation route. That is something upon which we are still seeking cast-iron assurances from the UK Government. To ask the Scottish Government how it will take forward the recommendations of the wild fisheries review. The independent wild fisheries review, chaired by Andrew Thin, submitted its thorough and wide-ranging report to me on 8 October 2014. This Government takes the conservation status of our wild fisheries seriously and is determined to ensure that the management of our fisheries is fit for purpose for the 21st century. I have committed to considering the review's report and its recommendations in depth and consulting on proposals for a new management system for our wild fisheries in due course to ensure a sustainable future for that sector. One of the recommendations of the review is to halt the declines in Atlantic salmon stocks. Recent reports from NASCO point to a decline in Atlantic salmon numbers at sea from 10 million to 3.6 million. The percentage of returning salmon smolts to Scottish rivers has dropped alarmingly in recent years. What will the Scottish Government do to improve and fulfil its international obligations towards conserving salmon stocks? Should it not follow the example of Ireland, which in 2007 brought its drift netting regulations in line with scientific advice and evidence? Will not the Scottish Government do the same with net harvesting of mixed-stock fisheries and can the minister inform me of any timetable relating to the progress of the review and its recommendations? There are a few questions there. I hope that you have your patience on display today with my answer. In terms of salmon stocks, clearly conservation is very important. We have announced a preliminary move in terms of closed season bringing into play measures that were done on a voluntary basis by putting them on a mandatory footing. The member will be aware that we are taking that forward for the period up to 1 April across Scotland, and we will be consulting on that shortly. We have also had conversations with colleagues in Norway, Iceland and Chile about similar challenges that they face in terms of high mortality rates for salmon. It is fair to say that there is a degree of uncertainty about the causes of mortality of salmon. Clearly, there have been suggestions made that we need to do more research collectively, and I am looking forward to collaborating with Governments in Chile and Norway on how we can take forward a common agenda on research about the future conservation states of the species. Clearly, other areas such as netting were part of the review, and Andrew Thin has brought forward recommendations that we are considering about the future management of netting activity. I say to Mr MacGregor that there are different circumstances in Ireland and England in terms of heritable rights for netting in Scotland, and we have to take that into consideration. However, we are taking very seriously our obligations on conservation of salmon and other species. Mr Gibson, have you promised to ask one question? I will give you a supplementary question. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a very short one. Since the demand for more beets in the wider angling community and young anglers is something that we should welcome, how will the Scottish Government develop the angling for all proposals that are contained in the Wild Fisheries review? Clearly, this is an important aspect of Andrew Thin's review. We are keen to see a viable future for the sport of angling. It is a very popular sport, but we are aware that there are difficulties in accessing opportunities for young people to enter the sport and to make sure that there is adequate provision for the general population to enjoy a sport sustainably and with conservation of the species in mind. I assure the member that those are issues that we are looking at very closely, and I am aware of the particular programme that he has identified, and we will come forward with recommendations in due course. To ask the Scottish Government what support it has offered to employees affected by Tata Steel's sale of its long-products divisions, which has operations in DL and Clyde bridge. Minister, Fergus Ewing. This is a worrying time indeed for the employees of Tata Steel and their families. On learning of this announcement, Angela Constance, the Cabinet Secretary for Training, Youth and Women's Employment, spoke with John Park, strategy and policy director at the community trade union, which represents the majority of the Scottish workforce. Yesterday, I spoke with John to maintain our close links with the workforce and to discuss the emerging situation, and I have agreed to meet him for further discussions. I have also spoken to David Mundell MP, parliamentary under Secretary of State for Scotland, regarding the concerns of the workforce in Scotland. I followed that up with a letter to Vince Cable, underlining our commitment to work together with the UK Government to safeguard jobs and investment in Scotland. Finally, Scottish Enterprise has maintained its dialogue with Tata Steel and is engaging with the Clesch group. At present, there has been no announcement of any impact on jobs, however, we continue to closely monitor developments and stand ready to support the workforce. What assurances may be obtained if Clesch groups successfully buy the Tata Scottish operations that jobs will be maintained in the Scottish sites? I am sorry, I am not sure if I picked up the actual precise wording of the question, but I want to assure the member that we will leave no stone unturned, we will do absolutely everything possible to preserve and protect the jobs in Scotland. It is a priority for us and, across the Scottish Government, we will do everything within our power to maintain the steel production in Scotland. I can appreciate the minister and his involvement so far. I think that everybody will agree that any takeover raises big concerns. On this occasion, those concerns can be well justified because Clesch has a reputation for asset stripping and dumping companies, which poses a threat to steel workers in Mullerwatt and Canva Slang and Scottish manufacturing in the wider economy. Whilst I can ask the minister that he has had this consultation, has he directly asked for a meeting with both Tata and Clesch to remove those concerns for the people who I represent in Mullerwatt? I have had the opportunity to visit the Scottish sites and have had discussions with Tata. Of course, we continue to engage closely with the companies. The primary responsibility and the primary need for the moment that Mr Pentland is aware of is for Scottish Enterprise, through Lena Wilson, its chief executive, directly to pursue discussions, both with Tata and the Clesch group. I can assure Mr Pentland that we will keep him fully informed of all developments, as Angela Constance made clear at the outset. Secondly, I personally will be liaising extremely closely with Lena Wilson in the work that she does. It is absolutely essential that we do everything that we can to maintain steel production in Scotland. We rely, of course, on the UK Government in working closely with us and fully co-operating with us, and we shall make sure, within our power, that that happens as well. To ask the Scottish Government what control measures it is considering following its recent consultation on promoting responsible dog ownership. As the member will know, the consultation focused on a range of issues to promote responsible dog ownership, including compulsory microchipping, licensing, musling and dogfilling. It also provided an opportunity to suggest alternative measures to foster responsible dog ownership. There was a good response to the consultation, with over 2,000 responses submitted. Analysis of those responses is now complete, and we will be publishing the analysis report on the Scottish Government website tomorrow. I am sure that the member will wish to read the report in due course, but what I can say is that there appears to be wide support for compulsory microchipping, little support for compulsory musling, and mixed views regarding some of the other measures in the consultation. The Government, of course, will now be carefully considering those views, and we will seek to announce a response and mixed steps in the near future. Presiding Officer, as the minister is aware, I am sure that all members in the chamber want to work together to ensure that we take forward that very issue, but it has been over a year since Brogan McWague was attacked in our local constituency. I wonder what action the minister can take to ensure that we come forward to the chamber with the proposals that we wish to take to ensure that we take another lasting commitment to ensure that we give our communities absolute maximum protection from irresponsible dog owners and dangerous dogs. Of course, it is exactly in response to the horrific incidents in the member's constituency and elsewhere in Scotland that we are taking those issues very seriously and conducting a wide-ranging consultation on a number of measures that could make a real difference. We have to balance the interests of animal welfare with public safety and will give careful consideration to the measures, but I can assure the member and the rest of the chamber that the Government is taking those issues very seriously indeed, and we will bring forward measures as quickly as we can. 7. Willie Coffey Thank you to ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in introducing a direct rail service from Kilmarnock to Edinburgh. Through the next ScotRail franchise, Kilmarnock will benefit from the extension of the new two early services from Stranrair, which provides eight services a day in each direction enabling connection to Glasgow via Barhead. In addition, the extension of the Stranrair to Air services to Kilmarnock offers increased connection via Dumfries to Carlyle. This route will further benefit from more services from December 2017, catering provision from December 2015, scenic trains on route, new platform waiting shelters, increased cycle storage, rolling stock refresh, including fitting auto door closing and Wi-Fi plus, the more generally the roll-out of smart cards and fares initiatives. However, throughout the life of the franchise, we will continue to work closely with the franchisee in the review of current service levels and demand as we seek to identify even more improvements for passengers. I thank the minister for that answer. He is fully aware of the employment opportunities that a direct service with reduced journey times to the capital would have for my constituents and that those may not require much investment in the existing rail infrastructure. Would the minister agree to meet me to discuss the matter further and see how we might take us forward? The member has been a staunch champion for the improvements to the services, some of which have outlined and I am sure that that was noticed by the franchisee during that process. Of course, some of the longer-term improvements involve infrastructure and timetabling, but I am more than happy to meet the member to discuss them. To ask the Scottish Government whether it is suspended the use of transvaginal mesh implants. In line with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Welfare's announcement on 17 June, the acting chief medical officer wrote to all health boards on 20 June, requesting that they consider suspending transvaginal mesh implant procedures. Since 17 June, when that letter was sent and when mesh was supposed to be suspended, one health board alone, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, has implanted a further 29 women with those tainted products. As we know, the deputy chief medical officer wrote to health boards asking them and I quote, to encourage women to take part in clinical trials. So, was the cabinet secretary's call to suspend mesh genuine or has he been undermined by his senior officials and some within the medical profession who have a vested interest in continuing to implant mesh? I do not think that it is appropriate to question whether the cabinet secretary's request to suspend the use of this particular mesh is genuine or not. The cabinet secretary stated in the strongest possible terms about the potential for suspending those types of procedures. However, the member will also be aware that there will be individual circumstances where clinicians in consultation with the women involved will consider all the potential risk factors and potential complications and the women themselves may choose to go ahead with that particular procedure and we should allow women who may wish to make that decision to be able to do so. In relation to the deputy chief medical officer's letter as well, this was in relation to a different procedure and came about as a result of a request from clinicians about a new procedure that they were looking to undertake and to encourage women to take part within those clinical trials in order to improve that procedure for the women concerned themselves. However, I do think that for our disingenuous of the member to try and suggest that the cabinet secretary has been other than being committed to trying to address that dreadful issue. To ask the Scottish Government what progress local authorities have made in settling equal pay claims. Local authorities equal pay claims are the responsibility of the local authorities concerned and the Scottish Government therefore does not hold data on them. However, the Scottish Government is keen to see a resolution to all local authority equal pay claims and will continue to encourage councils to resolve all such issues as quickly as possible. I thank the minister for his response. What assurances can the minister give to those many thousands of low-paid female workers who were affected by the failure of local authorities to settle equal pay claims? Timelessly, those claims will now be settled much quicker and will receive full compensation for the equal pay claims that should have been paid out many years ago. Minister, that is of course a matter for local authorities, but the Scottish Government has tried to be helpful in encouraging local authorities along. Where there is financial pressure to bring closure to this issue, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, has agreed to the request from COSLA to provide more financial flexibility to deal with equal pay claims. We hope within that set-up and response that the outstanding local authorities, who remain to conclude these matters, will do so as quickly as possible.