Chamber and committees

Absolutely.

I understand that, but the problem with continuity—and what I think people will be concerned about—is that it might be continuity of the status quo, which, in this case, means annual pay bargaining that ends up in industrial dispute and the removal of services and withdrawal of good will by officers.

The rabbit hole that we are going down is based on the evidence that we have in our committee papers from one of the leading protagonists in negotiations, so it is absolutely right that we raise those points, given that the SPF is not here to give us evidence prior to the vote.

The problem that we have is more of a procedural one. From what I understand, there is potential to revise the constitution but that would need to be done by regulation. What is the point of passing regulations to rubber stamp the constitution as it is, knowing that there are stakeholders who wish changes to be made and that future regulations that implement any changes will have to come back to the Parliament? Why not do it in one go?

It would be better for the Government to have a discussion with those who have presented evidence and, if any changes to the constitution have to be made, come back with regulations and do it as a one-hit wonder. I have no problem with the regulations, but I have a problem with being asked to rubber stamp a constitution with which some stakeholders clearly have problems.

Okay. So, the PNB makes recommendations to ministers. Is it then up to ministers to agree or disagree, or is the final decision what the PNB has recommended?

That is very interesting. By its very nature, AI is designed to create unnatural fantasy environments that have not hitherto existed in the real world. That could definitely be problematic in some circumstances.

There is so much that we could talk about and not enough time. I will throw my questions out there and if you want to answer one, just grab my attention. That way, not everyone has to respond.

Does anyone on the panel have a view as to what role artificial intelligence could or should have in the blocking, sharing or forwarding of internet imagery on any platform, where the sender or receiver is known to be a young person? That is a very specific question and I presume that dealing with it would require legislation of some sort at the UK or Scotland level.

My other question is to ask your views on the perceived increased exposure among young people to pornography and sexual imagery, and the fact that it is so much easier now to self-generate content on platforms such as OnlyFans, for example—there are others, so I do not want to pick any specific one—where it is possible to quickly and immediately monetise content of a sexual or intimate nature, with a view to make money or to increase one’s popularity among peers in a society where being an influencer is, apparently, a career these days? Has there been a massive shift in young people’s perception about that type of content? That question probably links into my earlier line of questioning. Wave your hand if you want to talk about any of those issues.

I thank Rape Crisis Scotland for its correspondence. I may, perhaps, have a contrary view to the convener’s, because I do not welcome the letter from the cabinet secretary. I welcome the letter itself but not its content.

This is an issue that we as a committee have been raising for a very long time, since the committee’s inception. I am sure that this is not the first time that the issue has been raised in Parliament. Although the tone of the letter from the cabinet secretary is helpful and positive—and I do not doubt the cabinet secretary’s intentions—the second to last paragraph is considerably lacking in detail. The cabinet secretary says that she is

“committed to exploring a pilot to support access to transcripts for complainers in sexual offences cases, initially. However ... it is still at the very early stages and initial discussions with the SCTS are taking place”.

I thought that those discussions had taken place. Given that this issue has been raised repeatedly by this committee and other stakeholders on numerous occasions over a prolonged period, I do not understand why the discussion is still yet to happen or is in the “very early stages”.

The letter also implies that the forthcoming Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is before the Parliament, may be a platform for providing a solution to this in the long term. I do not believe that we need primary legislation to resolve this matter; it just needs a bit of will and a bit of way. We have talked about this in numerous committee meetings. We understand the financial considerations involved in improving the situation. We have heard straight from those directly affected by this, in great volume.

When you read the survey responses that were sent to us by Rape Crisis Scotland—we put on record our thanks to the victims who have given permission for those to be used—you see two common themes coming through. One is that very few victims feel like they remember their day in court, due to the trauma involved, and they believe that accessing transcripts would form part of their closure—they might be seeking justice in other ways, through civil cases and so on. Many had a difficult experience in court, many believe that they were not treated particularly well, and in some extreme cases, they believe that there were miscarriages of justice. We should take note of the language that they have used and their responses should give us more impetus to push the Government on. The comments made include things like:

“A lack of access to my transcript has hindered my ability to complete a complaint against a case. It was cost prohibitive. I heard there was no point. It has allowed me not to achieve closure. Part of me is still seeking justice”—

and so on and so forth.

One went on to say:

“I had no idea that I was allowed to have access to them.”

There is a shocking spectrum of opinions on this and I suspect that a small number of those involved have tried to access the transcripts.

I feel that the letter says, “We are having a conversation with the courts. It is at the very early stages and we will get back to you.” That was what we heard last time we had correspondence from a previous cabinet secretary, and it is what we heard from the cabinet secretary before that. The content of the letters is always positive in saying, “Don’t worry, we are looking at this issue”, but we never, ever see any detail. It pains me to say that because I believe that the new cabinet secretary will take this issue very seriously and will try to make progress on it, but we are not seeing progress. We are seeing one-page letters promising action that we never see.

People out there want concrete detail about how this pilot will go ahead, what it will look like and how it will be communicated to stakeholders and victims. Quite simply, I would like to see more done faster.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and our other guests. I have two short questions, but first I congratulate the city of Glasgow on its successful bid to host the Interpol event in conjunction with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

My primary question is on the comments that the cabinet secretary made about road traffic accident exemptions. Is that a blanket exemption to all delegates for the duration of their time in Glasgow, or, if an incident occurred, could the proposition be made that it occurred while they were exercising their duties, which I think was the language that you used, and they could, therefore, claim immunity in such circumstances? I was a bit unclear as to how that would be handled by Police Scotland in the unfortunate event that what we hope does not happen were to happen.

Thank you very much, convener. The update from the First Minister is very helpful. It perhaps even goes a step further in its language than the letter that we received. As well as timescales, perhaps we could seek a broad sketch of what the pilot might entail so that we can manage expectations among stakeholders. If there is a large cohort of people who feel that this would be of advantage to them but later discover that the pilot is limited in nature, that will be disappointing for them. To make sure that we are heading in the right direction, this should be made as broad and comprehensive as possible.

I will continue on the same topic. We have been having a conversation about it as middle-aged adults. Is there perhaps a sense of naivety in our discussion, given that there is a huge amount of normalisation of such behaviour among young people? We know that from speaking to parents, teachers and, of course, young people themselves when we do visits to classes in schools. Sometimes we engage in conversations about the realities of life as a young person. I have not been a young person for a very long time, but some of the charitable organisations and other third sector organisations that are represented here work with young people on a daily basis.

Are we trying to police the unpoliceable? I am not talking about the issue of people committing horrific serious online sexual assault, exploitation and abuse. I am very interested in the subject of the peer-to-peer world and how it affects the lives of young people—in some cases, we are even talking about children in primary school, rather than teenagers. Such behaviour has become normalised because of technological advances and the fact that children have a mobile phone before they get to primary 1. I did not get one until I was 17.

The world has changed hugely over the past decade, and I wonder how realistic we are being in having such conversations and in our messaging and education. Does there need to be a reality check at our level among politicians, stakeholders and policing as to whether we are taking the right approach on the issue? Are we attempting to police something that is simply unmanageable? Should we be thinking differently about how we deal with it? I simply chuck that out there; I do not mean to be controversial.

Let us start by hearing from some of the children’s charities.