Seòmar agus comataidhean

I imagine that that would be part of the UK Government’s normal post-legislative scrutiny process.

I think that that would depend on the circumstances of the individual case. However, your question illustrates why it is important that we have similar legislation across the UK. That is one of the reasons why we recommend consent. We recognise that the borders for the type of offence that we are talking about are not as clear cut as they might be for one that happens in real life rather than virtual life. Therefore, it is important that the legislation works across the UK.

I do not know whether Katy Richards wants to say a little bit more about that.

We do not have great data on that. As I said in answer to the convener’s first question, we do not have robust data that tells us how much self-harm is happening in Scotland. We also do not have enough data that tells us how much is being encouraged by online behaviour.

I think that we can be confident that prosecutions would be rare. The threshold is narrow and well defined: there must be intent and deliberate pushing, and an initial warning would be given. I do not think that the amendment will lead to a large number of prosecutions.

Like much of the bill, the amendment tries to shift the culture to ensure that individuals and corporate organisations can be held responsible for their actions. Much of it is about shifting the culture and preventing harm rather than about enabling prosecution.

It is not out yet.

Yes, we certainly could do that. The UK Parliament has had extensive engagement with stakeholders, including Scottish stakeholders, who are content with this particular amendment. There might be concerns about the Online Safety Bill more widely—people might want it to go further than it does—but our stakeholders in Scotland are particularly content with this amendment.

As you might imagine, people with lived experience were concerned that the bill might, as I said in my opening statement, criminalise people who were simply sharing their stories in order to seek or provide support. We have found that the UK Government has listened very carefully to those concerns, and the amendment has been crafted well to land in the right place with the appropriate balance and proportionality. Hilary Third might want to comment.

It is a regulatory bill, and Ofcom will act as the regulator and will have powers to take action, including imposing fines, against companies that do not fulfil their new duties. Criminal action will be taken against senior managers who fail to follow information requests from Ofcom. I presume that Ofcom will regularly present information, as it currently does, so that type of information will be added to its regular reports. Those reports are made to the UK Government rather than the Scottish Parliament, although we should, of course, be able to access that information.

Hilary Third might want to say a little more about self-harm. Self-harm is quite hidden, and it is very hard to get reliable data on its prevalence throughout the population, even in Scotland, where we are very keen on improving in that area. It is quite hard to know how common the condition is, and how many people who self-harm access information on the internet that might encourage them to harm themselves more or more dangerously is quite unknown.

However, we hear anecdotal evidence. We think that there has been an increase in self-harm among young people, but we do not know whether that is a true rise or whether there has been an increase because the stigma has been removed and people are talking about it more. Young people live online. They are innately able to navigate that space; it is their space much more than it is older people’s space. It is therefore important that we are ready and prepared for the shift in behaviour.

On how the offence will be prosecuted, the bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that the threshold is narrow so that it does not capture people who are not engaging in criminal behaviour. Much of the aim of the bill is to discourage such behaviour and to make it possible to police it without ever having to prosecute it, as is the case with much criminal legislation. We want to shift the culture so that the behaviour does not happen in the first place rather than having to prosecute the offences once they have occurred.

Yes. We are very focused on early intervention and prevention in the mental health portfolio. That is very much where our focus lies. As I have said, we are launching a mental health strategy in the next couple of weeks. We will also launch a specific self-harm strategy later in the year. I am keen to say that it is world leading; it is certainly innovative. It is not common for countries to recognise the challenge that self-harm presents and produce strategies to tackle it. It is not a well-recognised issue. It is hidden and stigmatised, and we are really trying to shift the balance of that in Scotland.

The strategy is more about shifting practice and culture and recognising, first, that the condition exists. As I said, one of the challenges with self-harm is that it is hidden, because it is such a stigmatised behaviour, so the strategy is about shifting the culture and practices and ensuring that our health and social services—all our public services—can recognise it and give compassionate support to people who are in that situation.

I do not think that we run the risk of that happening, because the amendment defines the scope of the offence very narrowly and sets a high threshold. There must be an intention to encourage or assist self-harm, and that self-harm must be serious. That really is quite narrowly defined. I would not expect that to be used widely.

What we and the UK Government are aiming to do with the bill as a whole is shift the culture. I do not think that the offence can be used maliciously, because of the high thresholds. That is why we are recommending consenting to the LCM. We think that the amendment is a helpful one, and we do not foresee any risk of its being used wrongly or too widely.