Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you. I will perhaps come back in later.

It was more in relation to somebody, for example, commuting from their temporary place of residence to the conference centre and something happening in that environment, whereby they could argue that they had immunity. However, that is fine.

The other question is more general. What discussions has the Scottish or UK Government had with Police Scotland about policing the event? Has there been any analysis of the resourcing levels that will be required, or has there been a finger in the air on the financial cost? That is not an issue as such, but it is important for the committee to keep a watching eye on such things.

Thank you—you make an interesting point, which touches on the one that Stuart Allardyce made about the language that we use and the need to not put young people off coming forward when there are actual issues, as opposed to day-to-day behaviour that they do not deem to be inappropriate, for example.

Who is best placed to get that message across? Should teachers do that in the classroom? Should it be done peer to peer? Is it a case of educating parents on how to have very frank and normal conversations about these things without being embarrassed? Given that, as you said, we are in an integrated world where Snapchatting in the playground to someone who is 3m away is normal behaviour, when we are putting together all these wonderful strategies and getting Governments to come together and legislate for change to improve things, surely a grass-roots approach that involves talking to young people on the ground at the earliest opportunity is the best way to get positive messages across on how to deal with problematic situations.

I will bring in Joanne Smith, because she probably has a lot of experience in this area.

It is fascinating and we could probably have a whole-day symposium on that subject alone.

I have one final question. I feel a bit like an audience member on “Question Time” with this one. What does the panel believe would be an appropriate level of sentencing for someone who is charged and prosecuted for possessing indecent images of children? I will start with the police.