 Merdw i. The first item of business today is general questions. We start with question number one from Ian Gray. East Scottish Government, what plans and funds it has in place to expand rail services in East Lothian to meet the needs of the 10,000 new homes that are expected to be built in the area? Minister Hulman said? Through key agency role Transport Scotland works with Sestrans and East Lothian Council Felly, byddai'r holl ddwyllifatigau ffioriolau ac argymwynghau o ddiwg ddullog yn rhaid, oherwydd rydwg blaenolau â cyfnodau â'i hefydig ar gyfer oeddennig cyd-glas. Rwy'n cyfrindig gyda'r ffordd o'r ddydw i'n credu rhai ar gyfer oeddydd o'r ddiwg ddwylliant a ricegfodd o'r ddysgu yn g holding ar gyfer oedd gyrnodau aith y canfeydd. enhancements providing benefits for passengers using this line, Borders Railway and other services from East Lothian. In terms of a specific question around funds that may be available, my understanding is that the council are considering a section 75 in order to fund a transport fund. Of course, control periods 6, CP6 funding might also be appropriate in relation to funding for the future and the member may well be aware that we have a local rail development fund agreed, but the deadline for that is the 8th of June, so that might be too early for this particular scheme and proposal, but hopefully those funds give an idea of some of the support that is available. Iain Gray Thank you, but the trouble with that answer is that at a public meeting I'm pressing plans a couple of weeks ago, ScotRail Alliance were very clear that any plans that they have to increase capacity on either the North Berwick line or the Dunbarh East Coast main line for years to come are designed to alleviate current problems and they take no account of the projected population increase in the county. Since it was the Scottish Government who imposed the requirement for 10,000 new houses on East Lothian, does the minister not feel obliged to plan and indeed to fund the rail services to cope with that? Iain Gray I'm disappointed if that is the case. I'll endeavour on the back of this question to have a conversation with the MD of the ScotRail Alliance on that. As I said, Transport Scotland and its key agency role have been involved in those discussions. He may well be aware that we have the East Coast main line capacity study, the initial findings of that, due in the summer months, and I'll ensure that those findings are passed on to the member, which look at not just the current capacity constraints but also potentially future capacity constraints. That should be a key part of that study, but if he was at a public meeting where that view was not given, then certainly that is something that I'm more than happy to take up with the ScotRail Alliance and Network Rail. Emma Harper To ask the Scottish Government what the outcomes were of the national economic forum meeting in Dumfries yesterday, 16 May. Cabinet Secretary, Keith Brown. The biannual national economic forum gives businesses, third sector and trade union leaders direct influence on the development and delivery of economic policy at both a regional and national level through direct engagement with ministers on key economic challenges. Eight Scottish ministers attended yesterday's Dumfries forum, which focused on the rural economy and helped to shape the future south of Scotland enterprise agency and the work of the National Council of Rural Advisers. Emma Harper I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. Could he provide further information on the engagement work of the South Scotland economic partnership and the process for application of the initial £10 million? In addition, can he tell me whether the funding will be primarily allocated to public agencies or does he expect this budget to be opened up to a wider application from organisations across the south of Scotland to support inclusive growth? Cabinet Secretary The partnership is driving forward effective engagement. It is running 28 events across the area. I think that 18 of those have taken place already, with 400 people from communities and businesses across the area attending. I am pleased that the partnership is engaging as widely as it is. I know that its chair, Professor Russell Griggs, is also meeting all MSPs and MPs representing the south. The partnership will use the events that it has held and meetings to help inform its work moving forward. In this year's budget, as the member says, we have made £10 million available to support the work of the partnership, supporting inclusive growth and communities across the area. That £10 million is over and above what the public sector already spends in the south of Scotland. I have asked the partnership to consider all applications for funding and to assess them against clear and consistent criteria focused on key priorities for the south of Scotland. The projects will need to set out clearly proposed outcomes. They will then be submitted to the Scottish Government for approval, and the consultation events are generating quite a range, as the member knows, of suggestions for projects that could be funded. If members, though, from the south are aware of organisations with suggestions, the partnership would be more than happy to consider those. Dean Lockhart, does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that GDP levels in the south of Scotland are 20 per cent below the national average? Can he outline what specific steps the Government will take to address the issue? I have just mentioned the main measure, which is the establishment for the first time of a south of Scotland enterprise agency. The member is right to point out that there are disparities in terms of GDP across Scotland. The whole of the UK is one of the most unequal economies in balanced economies in the world. In fact, we have really an economy that flies on one engine south-east of England. That is not good for the rest of England, for Wales, Northern Ireland or indeed for Scotland. The main measure that we are taking is the establishment of the agency, the additional funding that we have provided for the south of Scotland. It is right that the Government takes that proactive approach to build on things such as the establishment of the border railway, the longest piece of new railway in the UK for more than 100 years. That is some of the tangible ways in which we are helping the south of Scotland. Liam McArthur, to ask the Scottish Government when the Minister for Transport and the Islands last met Orkney Islands Council and what issues were discussed. Minister, how is the issue? I last met Orkney Islands Council on 27 April. I met a number of councillors during a round-table discussion, with union reps. I also met the council leader, James Stockings, which I invited Liam McArthur. He was doing his best to make sure that he avoided me on that visit. I was visiting Northern Isles to engage with community and business representatives about our future approach to procurement of the Northern Isles ferry service. Other issues were discussed, including the introduction of RET, inter-island ferries, freight fares and indeed capacity issues on the routes. Liam McArthur. I thank the minister for that answer and apologise again that a family commitment prevented me from meeting him when he was in Orkney. He touched on the issue of the introduction of RET. He will have been advised of the continued and growing concern that there is about the lack of detail, about the introduction date and the way in which the scheme would work. In that case, I would invite the minister to update Parliament on when he may be in a position to provide that detail, which is anticipated and is so important to our local tourism industry in particular. Yes, I think that that very latter point is hugely important. I have had for my own constituency really keen to go on holiday for tourism purposes to the Northern Isles, both in Orkney and in De Shetland, but I am waiting for the announcement. I have committed to RET being introduced in the first half of 2018. In Orkney, I was asked on the question for the delay in announcing an exact date. The member, because I have had very constructive conversations with him, knows that the presence of a commercial operator on the route has made this a more challenging discussion now. The commercial operators—there are a couple—are very engaged constructively. There are one or two issues that still remain to be sorted and worked through, but I am very confident that we will meet our commitment to introduce RET by the first half of 2018. I endeavour to absolutely keep the member updated, but Parliament updated on the progress. Question 4, David Stewart. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment is made of the anticipated security of supply of medical isotopes following the UK's withdrawal from uratum. Scotland voted clearly and decisively to remain within the European Union and leaving the uratum community is an unwelcome consequence of the UK Government's desire to take the UK out of the EU and creates unnecessary disruption and uncertainty. The Scottish Government shares stakeholders' concerns about the future supply of medical isotopes and has been studying the potential impact of leaving uratum. I also share the concerns raised by the Parliament's Health and Sport Committee in its recent report looking at the impact of leaving the European Union on health and social care in Scotland. We are engaged in discussions with the UK Government on the future relationship with uratum and on how best to ensure a secure supply of those vital medical isotopes. That includes arrangements that are right for Scotland. David Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport is well aware of the concern in the scientific community about the security supply of medical isotopes post-Brexit. Will the Cabinet Secretary agree to meet me to discuss the implications for the care of cancer patients in the future? In the meantime, will she instruct Healthcare Improvement Scotland to carry out an urgent risk assessment with all health boards in Scotland, including an assessment of the future supply of radiofarmaceuticals through particle accelerators? I recognise, as I did in my first answer, the concerns of the scientific community. I thought that the report from the Health and Sport Committee was very important in recognising a number of concerns across the board, and that one in particular. David Stewart is right to recognise the potential impact on cancer patients. Those are things that we want to avoid. I am very happy to have a meeting with him on which we can discuss a number of issues, including the work that is going on around any future risk assessment and to make sure that Scotland has a secure supply of medical isotopes. Question 5 has been withdrawn. I would call question 6, but I notice that Neil Findlay is not present, which is disappointing. Question 7, Patrick Harvie. To ask the Scottish Government what action it plans to take to ensure that the right to protest is not restricted in the event of a visit to Scotland by Donald Trump. Minister Annabelle Ewing. I should make it clear that, at this time, the Scottish Government has not been advised by the UK Government of any proposed visit to Scotland. However, we remain in contact regarding the development of the itinerary for the present visit. There is no law in Scotland stopping people from protesting in a peaceful manner. Police Scotland has confirmed that arrangements are in place to police any visit in a way that maintains the public's right to protest peacefully while enforcing existing laws as necessary. I conclude by saying that Scotland has a deep and long-standing ties of family, friendship and business with the United States, and those will continue to endure. However, we will not compromise our fundamental values of equality, diversity and human rights. In whichever part of the UK the proposed presidential visit takes place, we would expect those values to be made clear. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful for the answer. Whether Trump's visit to the UK includes or does not include a stop in Scotland, a great many people in Scotland will want to ensure that the world sees that we stand alongside those friends that we have in America who are marginalised and threatened by the Trump regime and who wish to express very visibly a revulsion at the racism, the misogyny, the climate denial and the litany of lies that President Trump is responsible for. Will the minister reaffirm that all aspects of policing will be facilitating not restricting public protest because that has not always been the case in the past, for example, in relation to the G8 in Scotland? Will the minister also ensure that her own party colleagues support and participate in that demonstration? The greatest and widest sense of the opposition to the Trump regime must be seen and expressed by all the people of Scotland right across the political spectrum. Before I answer the question, I encourage members, as I did yesterday, not to refer to people from outside the chamber or inside the chamber just by their surnames, to try to use their proper form of address. It is well documented that the Scottish Government has disagreed with many of the actions taken by the Administration of President Trump. The list is perhaps a bit too long to mention at this particular point. The member will be well aware of that. On the nature of any policing operation, that is an operational matter for the police, but, as I said in my first answer, the Police Scotland has confirmed that any arrangements would be in place to police any visit in a way that maintains the public's important right to protest peacefully, while enforcing the existing laws that are not necessary. Scotland, of course, has a very proud and long-standing tradition of peaceful process, and I can assure the member that that will continue. Finally, in terms of the spirit and principle of freedom of expression, it would not be for me to insist on the presence of any individual at a demonstration of any kind. I think that the member, with his commitment to freedom of expression, would understand that point. To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken to ensure that children are able to give their views in a way that works best for them in cases of court-ordered contact. The Scottish Government has just launched a consultation on the review of part 1 of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. The consultation seeks views on a wide range of topics, including the best way for courts to obtain the views of a child. As well as the consultation, work is going on apace, and the Family Law Committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council has been carrying out important work to make the current court form, known as form 9, that is used to obtain views in contact cases more child-friendly, and that work is expected to be finalised very shortly. Is the minister aware of cases where abusive behaviour has been substantiated but contact is still being awarded? Would the minister agree with me that this situation is detrimental to a child's wellbeing and that children should always be at the centre of decision-making about contact? I agree with Ruth Maguire that the child's best interests should be at the centre of any decision regarding contact and residence. The consultation on the review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995, to which I had just referred in my earlier answer, seeks views on a number of issues that are pertinent to the member's questions and concerns. That includes questions that we would seek views on in the consultation as to whether to ban the personal cross-examination of victims of domestic abuse in contact and residence cases, seeking views on how to protect victims and vulnerable parties in child welfare hearings and how to ensure that the civil courts are provided with information on domestic abuse in contact and residence cases. I urge the member to encourage her constituents to make their views known in this important consultation, which, as I say, was launched on Tuesday of this week and is open for 12 weeks. Gillian Martin Thank you, Presiding Officer. Recently, a constituent of mine had her movements restricted to Aberdeenshire only by a court order obtained by her abusive husband, former husband, meaning that she could not see friends and family beyond the boundaries of the area with her shared children. Can the minister give any clarity on what safeguards there are to ensure the offences of cohesion and control cannot be continued after a relationship has ended via contact with shared children? Gillian Martin Minister I thank the member for her question. First of all, this Parliament recently passed the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act, which has received royal assent. That gives further protection to domestic abuse victims, particularly taking into account coercive and controlling behaviour. As I had already said in answer to Ruth Maguire, the consultation that we have just launched earlier this week on review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995 does indeed seek views on a number of important issues that would impact on the example of the constituent's case that Gillian Martin just raised. Those are very important issues, and we are seeking people's views, and we hope that we will get a widespread response to that very important consultation on family law. Those are fundamental issues about how we go forward in terms of family law cases, important cases regarding contact and residence where domestic abuse is very much an issue. Of course, all the time, seeking the views of those particularly impacted the views of children and young people. Finally, in response, I would say that, of course, in terms of the passage of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave an undertaking that there would be, by way of a separate consultation, on emergency barring orders. Again, that will be attended to in the months to come. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address the impact of adverse childhood experiences on the attainment gap. As part of the national approach of getting it right for every child, the 2017-18 programme for government committed to embedding a focus on preventing adverse childhood experiences and supporting children and young people in overcoming early life adversity. The wide range of actions being taken forward by the Scottish Government on adverse childhood experiences across education, health, justice and wider portfolios will all help to improve the health and wellbeing of children, which is important for helping to close the attainment gap. Specifically, using funding from the £750 million attainment Scotland fund, schools are delivering a variety of health and wellbeing interventions such as investing in educational psychologists, family support staff and counselling services to support their peoples, including those who have suffered adverse childhood experiences. Schools are also supported by Education Scotland, which provides national professional learning resources to support the development and practice of nurturing approaches. The cross-portfolio fairer Scotland action plan commits to making progress towards closing the attainment gap over the lifetime of this Parliament, but it does not address adverse childhood experiences. Those, according to Professor Sir Harry Burns, are the most important predictor of failure in terms of poor mental health, educational failure, offending and poor physical health. Does the Scottish Government intend to address that omission going forward? I can assure you that we are addressing the adverse childhood experiences that our children have from the minimum pricing of alcohol, which will reduce the number of people who are exposed to alcohol in their families, from the presumption against short-term sentences that will help 27,000 children in Scotland who have a parent in prison right across the Government and right across Scotland. We are tackling adverse childhood experiences, but let me say that I am pleased to have the interests of my Conservative colleague in this area, but I will take no lessons on addressing adverse childhood experiences from the party whose austerity project is such a threat to our public services, is tipping families into destitution and is sending our children to food banks.