Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have identified that the visit was very informative. The courage that those individuals and their families displayed was obvious, and the information that we received from them was harrowing, because they were, without question, traumatised by the whole process. They gave one another a level of support and, in both of those locations, we saw the community working to help people, and the support mechanisms that are there. However, I do not think that the support mechanisms in the organisations that were outside those groups of people were as good. That was a concern, as the individuals who were victims were under the impression that they were not necessarily being totally supported.

It was quite disturbing to hear that the perpetrators were able to wander around and do things back in the community while the victims were now feeling a little bit housebound or unable to go places and do things because of that. There is a real concern there.

We also heard about the social media side of things, with trauma being recreated as the event is sent out across the web, which exacerbates the situation for the young individuals who were traumatised by the violence, as they have to revisit it and deal with their trauma again.

Like others who visited those locations, I learned a lot. As I said, the courage of the families and the young individuals needs to be commended. There is still work to be done on the issue, because there is no question but that there are gaps. The petitioner is strong on what he wants to happen on their behalf, which we have capacity to look at as a committee. The petition crosses over into issues related to the police, education and violence, and areas within the Scottish Government need to realise that. There are also organisations such as the Scottish Youth Parliament that should have a say on all this. A lot more can be done.

As you indicate, convener, this is a serious issue and one that we require to get more information on. We have the opportunity to write to a number of organisations, and I suggest that we write to EmilyTest, Victim Support Scotland, Universities Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and the National Union of Students to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition, including the suggestion that students who are awaiting trial for sexual offences should have access to online classes only and that anyone who is convicted of such an offence should face disciplinary action.

As I have said, this is a serious issue, and I think that getting up-to-date information from those organisations will provide the committee with a much more structured way to take the petition forward, which is important because I think that there is merit in it progressing.

The analysis is very useful in showing where we are and how we have progressed through the various parliamentary sessions to where we find ourselves at this point. As other members have indicated, there is a balance to strike in relation to motions, and that has been discussed in the past.

As others have said today, it is very important that members have the right to recognise individuals and organisations in our regions and constituencies. Giving that recognition to, for example, individual unsung heroes is a very valid part of our role. Other motions are largely supportive of other things that happen. I think that the best way to describe it is that there are categories of motions. We might be the ones who lodge the motions, and it might be our staff who help to make that happen, but it is our constituents who receive the recognition.

Emma Harper’s point about monitoring the situation, to see whether there is a surge in such motions, might be the best way to manage it. We have to acknowledge the work that the chamber desk team does to manage the number of motions that are submitted to it on a weekly basis. Analysis of that team’s work might be useful to identify whether there have been changes that have helped the team members in dealing with the deluge of motions that come on a regular basis.

I am content that we continue as we are but that we also monitor the situation for the future, because I think that that would be useful.

I acknowledge that. However, given the strong case that has been made in communities the length of the A9, which has been called the “spine of the country”, I think that doing something of that nature would go a long way to managing community involvement. I look forward to hearing how that might progress, depending on how things move forward.

It could be many things. It could be a lack of training or equipment—I do not know. I am making an assumption that there is a barrier because, from what you have said this morning, I am not convinced that Scotland should not be doing what is done elsewhere.

You have given information and evidence to suggest that it would be up to the professionals to decide. In my opinion, the professionals are not doing what I have described, because there is a problem. If there is a problem, it may be that a barrier is in place, or some kind of logjam that is causing the situation to occur. That is my interpretation, but it would be good to get your view on whether you think that there is a similar issue.

I support Mr Ewing, convener, because I think that there is an opportunity here. I would like to hear from the visitor management steering group as to where we are. I propose that we keep the petition open for some more deliberation.

It would be useful to get a flavour of your views and opinions on the proposed memorial. As I indicated when I spoke to the petitioner, it appears from your previous comments that you dismissed that type of memorial on the ground of road safety concerns. Now that you have heard from the petitioner what the intention may be, do you have a similar view, or has your view been changed?

Thank you.

I acknowledge that, Lord Advocate, but there seem to be barriers in Scotland at the moment and we are concerned about that. Imaging facilities are available in other parts of the United Kingdom and imaging takes place as a matter of course, but that is not happening here. We would like to know why. You explained that the professional organisation has a role to play in all that, but it is quite difficult for individuals, and for the petitioner, to see why there seems to be a differentiation between what takes place here and elsewhere. It is my understanding that there must, therefore, be a barrier in Scotland that is not permitting imaging to take place here. Do you acknowledge that there may well be a barrier if the service is not being provided to the same standard in Scotland as it is in other parts of the United Kingdom?

This is a very important issue, which, as you have identified, has already been raised a number of times in the Parliament, so it is important that we keep the petition open.

We should write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to seek an update on how the Scottish Government intends to allocate the consequentials that result from the UK Government’s funding of swimming pools in England—which has recently been discussed at length in the Parliament—and to seek details on the Scottish Government’s consideration of the support that it will provide to the sport and leisure sector in Scotland.

We should also write to sportscotland to seek further information on the support that it is providing to Scottish Swimming for the delivery of the Scottish swimming facilities project. That information would also help to give us an indication of where we are with the whole process.

Those are the actions that I propose, convener.