Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I have heard of that first hand.

I thank you and your colleagues for your attendance.

Cabinet secretary, do you know whether those new powers have been deployed? Have they been used?

I want to turn the conversation around to the victims. I should say that one thing has changed over the lifetime of this Parliament—well, actually, two things have changed. First of all, the fact is that, since we began to consider the petition on youth violence in 2022, the committee itself has evolved, and not everybody who is on it now was on it then.

However, I was a member at the time, and I was able to go out to various places and hear from people who were victims. The other thing that has changed in the lifetime of my being a member of this Parliament is the use of smartphones and digital technology. What everybody thought at one time would be a great asset to life is, in all the cases that I heard about, now being used by young people to glorify the violence that is perpetrated. They feel free of prosecution, because of their age, but victims find that the humiliation, grief and suffering that they experienced are permanently accessible, and they feel that no weight gets attached to their on-going suffering.

I am interested in getting a general sense of the support, protection and information that are currently available through both the criminal justice and children’s hearings systems for victims of offences committed by children, and in hearing what you think will change as a result of the 2024 act. Secondly, do you think that the protection of victims in the longer term is keeping up with the way in which the digital environment and, indeed, the world in which they operate and live are moving forward at pace?

Thank you very much. When we began, I was struck that, in response to Mr Golden, you made the reasonable point that prosecution is just one part of the way in which all this has to be dealt with. I do not suppose that there is a right answer to my question, but I am interested in your opinion.

Shortly before he died, I did a programme with the late former First Minister. One of the questions that was asked before we went on air—it was a preamble—was about the use of digital technology and devices to intimidate children, leading to bullying, exploitation or whatever. It was interesting that the panel of adults all said what they had to say and the audience all did their usual, “Yes, that sounds very reasonable” and applauded, but after it was over some young people who had been in the audience came up to me and said, “You adults haven’t got a clue as to what is actually going on any longer in the digital era. You’re all too old. You don’t really understand the pace at which the technology and the apps and the ways in which they can be used are developing.” They felt that we were approaching the issue in a very noble way, but in complete ignorance of what is going on on the ground and of the way in which apps are being deployed and how things move from one day to the next. Standing there as a 66-year-old adult, I realised that that was probably true. I do not have the faintest idea how all those things are deployed.

In the challenge that you set of wider society understanding the harms and the ways in which violence is being perpetrated and digital technology being deployed, is the justice system, is the COPFS—are we—able to keep up with any of this? Is it moving at a pace that presents a challenge, the scale of which it is very difficult to grapple with or know how to properly respond to?

I am grateful for your expression of empathy with the victims and the efforts that you have been making to progress changes.

On victims, you referred to the new statement of prosecution, which states that under the UNCRC the best interests of the reported child and of other children should be given primary consideration. We understand that there is no hierarchy of rights, but we have heard throughout our work in this area that young victims feel that their rights are brushed aside in favour of the rights of the reported child, for example on youth violence.

I come back to the two examples that we heard. The first was at the LoveMilton community centre, where we heard from a young girl who was there with her parents, who was possibly not the most socially adept girl within her year group. She had been befriended by one of the people in her class and invited to meet at an external destination. When she got there, she found five to 10 people with phones who recorded the most horrendous explosion of violence on her, which left her very, very seriously injured—for a while there was some concern as to whether her life was at risk. The children were all 12 at the time; they were all young.

She no longer feels safe to leave the house for school—or, at the time, she did not—or to socialise for fear that what happened would happen again, and because it had all been recorded publicly. Her mother felt very much that although the police were incredibly supportive, they did not think that, ultimately, this would go anywhere.

There seemed to be a tremendous amount of support in place to try to have the individual who had committed the offence understand the nature of what they had done and understand how filming it had been deeply harmful, but that individual was still in the community and that individual’s parents were tormenting the girl’s family and saying, “There you go; there is nothing you can do about it”. That young girl felt that she was locked up at home with no education, no counselling and no social life.

How is the long-term impact on victims taken into account when determining what the appropriate justice route might be for reported children? In the consideration of an example such as that, who ultimately is representing the interests of that victim? Even insofar as those interests are represented, what weight is finally given to them in progressing these matters?

Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Our colleague David Torrance, the deputy convener, will be joining us shortly.

Our first item of business is simply to agree to consider evidence in private under item 3. Are colleagues content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I am conscious of the cabinet secretary’s time.

Cabinet secretary, I will begin with the same anecdote that I put to the Lord Advocate. It returns to the online theme that you addressed in the remarks that you have made to this point. I referred to a television panel that I appeared on with the late First Minister just before he died. The introductory question, which was not broadcast, was about the use of online activity and the filming and posting online of attacks on young people. The panel of adults, including the late First Minister, all gave what we thought were very worthy answers and heard the usual kind of polite applause from the audience. However, after the filming session was over, young people came up and said, “You adults haven’t got the faintest idea what you are talking about in all this. You are talking about online and the use of digital technology, which is way beyond your experience of it. It is not how we as young people see it at all.”

We talk about the rapid development of digital technology and the way in which young people experience it. I referred at the start of the proceedings to an individual who was lured, with the incident being filmed by a number of people. It was then broadcast on social media and sits there in perpetuity as a legacy of the harm that was caused. Are we, as politicians and legislators, keeping up with how online activity is being deployed against young people in a series of different ways, including, sometimes, by young people against other young people?

I am conscious of your time, cabinet secretary. Finally, you have referred to various summits that have taken place. Are we clear yet about specific outturns from those or is that still work in progress? Do you expect that the evidence that was heard in those summits might lead to a debate in the chamber later in the year, which this committee might be able to participate in, given that we have been taking evidence on the same issue during this session of Parliament?