Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our penultimate new petition is PE2162, which was lodged by Sharon Glen and Alex O’Kane. Colleagues will recall that Alex O’Kane is also the petitioner in relation to the child violence petition that we discussed earlier. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it illegal for strangers to film or photograph children in public play parks.

The SPICe briefing explains that it is not illegal to take photographs or film video footage in public places, unless for criminal purposes. It is possible, however, for the police to charge an individual who behaves in that manner, under existing provisions for offences. There exist both a common-law offence and a statutory offence of breach of the peace. Under either offence, the police do not require to know or prove the intended use of any photographs or footage; the behaviour itself can be enough to constitute an offence.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights Police Scotland’s statement on the issue earlier this year. That statement notes that Police Scotland is aware of concerns being shared on social media about filming in and around play parks, and that individuals have been charged with alleged offences of breach of the peace in connection with some incidents. The statement explains that police officers balance the rights of people to film with the potential to cause fear or alarm, and that they make decisions based on individual circumstances. The statement also explains that a small number of unconnected reports of filming were found to involve parents filming their own children, or other individuals who were not filming children, and no criminality was established.

The Scottish Government response states that, although it may be possible to create a specific offence, it is not clear what in practice any such offence would provide to the police, prosecutors and courts in terms of powers that they do not already have, using existing mechanisms, to address the inappropriate filming or photographing of children in public places.

The petitioners have provided the committee with two written submissions that outline their concerns. The first submission shares their view that the current arrangements fail to properly protect children. It states that the current legislation was not designed, and has not evolved, to consider the fact that most people carry phones with video and photography capability. The petitioners suggest that photography and videoing be either prevented entirely or conditionally permitted as long as the police have new powers to investigate and reasonable explanations are given by those who are questioned. The final written submission suggests that we consider the possibility of signage being put in place in play parks to ask that no videoing or photography take place.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed, or any comments?

Our final petition for consideration is PE2161, which was lodged by Ivor Roderick Bisset, who had hoped to be with us this morning but is not well enough to be present. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to allow for the complaints period for people with cognitive disabilities to be extended to two years.

Section 10 of the 2002 act sets out the time limits and procedure for complaints. It states:

“The Ombudsman must not consider a complaint made more than 12 months after the day on which the person aggrieved first had notice of the matter complained of, unless the Ombudsman is satisfied that there are special circumstances which make it appropriate to consider a complaint made outwith that period.”

The SPSO website states that special circumstances can include demonstrating a good reason to delay because of health or personal difficulties, such as a defined disability that impacts upon daily living tasks and functioning.

The petitioner had applied for a time extension from the SPSO believing that he would get a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010, on the grounds that he is neurodivergent. However, his request was rejected.

The Scottish Government’s response shares the SPSO’s position that decisions on special circumstances are made on a case-by-case basis, with guidance available to decision makers. Its submission states that if the SPSO decides not to waive the time limit, that decision is subject to the SPSO’s review process under which the decision can be looked at again and which provides an opportunity for a complainant to supply new information. The Scottish Government is therefore of the view that the current legislation has a degree of flexibility and offers the SPSO a wide range of discretion in deciding whether to waive the time limit, with any such decision also being subject to the SPSO’s review process.

Edward Mountain MSP has provided a written submission in support of the petition. Mr Mountain believes there should be a separate category to the existing special circumstances category that allows for people with cognitive disabilities to have their complaints considered outwith the 12-month period.

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.