Chamber and committees

I, too, associate myself with the comments that colleagues have made in relation to the First Minister’s family.

The UK Government has engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts to open the Rafah crossing from Gaza into Egypt to allow humanitarian aid to enter the territory. The crossing is now partially open and aid trucks have been arriving over the past few days. Does the First Minister recognise those efforts and acknowledge the delivery of aid into the Gazan territory so far?

I begin by apologising to you, Presiding Officer, and to members in the chamber, as I will need to leave shortly after my speech.

Edward Mountain was spot on, as usual. It is right that we highlight the challenges that our veterans face, the report by the veterans commissioner and the work that is on-going to better support our veterans. However, as a Parliament, we do not really focus on the contributions that our servicemen and women make to our country, which do not stop when they leave the forces. That is where I will start my contribution today.

I know a wonderful group of ex-servicemen and women in Lanarkshire called Veterans Community Lanarkshire, or VClan, which is a charity that supports veterans and their families in the Lanarkshire area. It is based in Craigneuk, but it also holds a drop-in cafe every Friday in the Kings church in Motherwell—I must say that the soup is delicious.

I have had the pleasure of the group’s company on many occasions, and it is one of the many reasons why I am proud to live in Lanarkshire. Like many veterans, VClan wants this Government to focus on issues that matter to it and its community. Our veterans fought for our rights and freedoms, and I believe that giving them the right support and tools is the least that we can do when they retire from service.

VClan is the custodian of war memorials in Lanarkshire. It cares for, cleans and tidies those important landmarks, and I know of many other groups across Scotland that also take on that important role. Members might be aware of the stark increase in the number of war memorials that have been desecrated in recent years. War memorials were commissioned throughout towns and villages in Scotland to commemorate the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we could live in a world free of tyranny and oppression.

For many of the families and relatives, those memorials provide the only focal point for remembering. It is the names of their loved ones that have been etched into the hundreds of war memorials across the country. The memorials are emotive and at the very heart of communities. It is important that we continue to meet at those important landmarks and that younger generations are educated on what the people who are named on the structures fought and died for.

Since 1996, there have been 66 attacks on war memorials in Scotland. Although that number appears low, almost 70 per cent of those attacks have occurred since 2014. That is a worrying trend. Data shows that most attacks have taken place across the central belt, particularly in the area that I represent. During my time as a councillor and now as an MSP, I have been made aware of several incidents in which war memorials have been damaged and vandalised.

The first incident, in 2019, involved the war memorial situated in the Duchess of Hamilton park in Motherwell. I was horrified by the wording of the graffiti that had been drawn all over the names of soldiers who fought and died for our country. Words such as “fascists” and “rats” alongside the phrase “scum of the earth” were written in red wax that had been stained into the stone. Although some community members and veterans attempted to clean it off, it required a specialised stonemason to carry out the repair work.

Following the attack, I have had involvement following incidents, including at the memorial in Coatbridge, Larkhall war memorial grounds, the Spanish civil war memorial in Motherwell and the Holytown war memorial. It should not be left to veterans and specialist stonemasons to carry out those repairs, because the attacks should not be happening in the first place.

Due to the number of attacks on war memorials across Scotland, groups such as the friends of Dennistoun war memorial have been at the forefront of a campaign to bring in better protections. It has organised a successful social media campaign to highlight the number of incidents and it has brought together groups of people who care about our heritage, our history and our war dead. The group has petitioned Parliament on numerous occasions, asking that more be done to protect those sites from the mindless and abhorrent attacks on the memories of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. However, sadly, those petitions did not go any further. That is why I have launched a consultation on a proposed member’s bill entitled the desecration of war memorials (prevention) (Scotland) bill. The bill has been asked for by veterans to support veterans and their families, the armed forces community and anyone who has a loved one’s name placed on a war memorial.

As the law stands, the desecration of a war memorial is treated as vandalism. However, that fails to recognise both the distress that it causes to communities and the significance of such landmarks. It treats the desecration of a war memorial in the same way that it would that of a lamp post or a telephone box.

My bill would create the offence of desecration of war memorials and increase the range of sanctions available for prosecuting damage caused to them. I hope that the bill would create a stronger deterrent and ensure that war memorials are given the protection that they deserve. As I have said, the bill is for armed forces in the veterans community, for those who have lost a loved one during conflict or for those who are related to, or know, someone whose name is etched into the stone. The consultation will run until 19 December, and I urge everyone to join in. I also ask whether the minister will consider my proposal for this important bill and give it his backing. That would show that the Parliament is truly on the side of veterans and of the fallen soldiers to whom we owe so much.

Do any of the other witnesses have a view on the independence of the legal profession from the state?

As Tracey Reilly mentioned, the bill is not clear on what evidence would be needed for a recommendation to be made to Scottish Government ministers. Would having to come up with such evidence place an additional administrative burden on people? Tracey Reilly also said that, given that it is not clear cut exactly what evidence would be required, the system could be ineffective in that, if there was not the right evidence, cases could not be taken further. Could you expand on that?

Thank you.

I welcome all the witnesses. We have talked a lot about the performance of regulators. In its current form, the bill gives the Scottish Government new powers to review the performance of regulators. Some people have argued that that could undermine the independence of the legal profession from the state. I am interested in whether the witnesses think that there is a risk that the bill could jeopardise the independence of the legal profession.

The SNP Government has failed to provide digital inclusion funding since 2020-21. As the SNP Government cuts council budgets year on year, how does the cabinet secretary expect local authorities to improve digital education without any support?

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s committee debate. I grew up at the same time as the rise of the social media giants. Bebo, MySpace, Twitter and Facebook were the main social media forums then, although there are many more platforms today. I must admit that they could only be described as the wild west.

Random chat rooms and websites were also doing the rounds; however, young people had begun to move to MSN, and although that was not completely safe, you at least had to know a person’s email address to talk to them. However, just because you knew the email address and the person you were speaking to, that did not stop the bullying. Many children and young people at that time were subjected to all sorts of online abuse. After all, it is easier to be a bully hiding behind a screen than to be one in person.

Looking back, I am glad that my mum and dad supervised the time that I spent online when I was a child. Back then, there was no real protection in place for young people, and not knowing the dangers, young people were exposed to all sorts. However, that is nothing compared with what children and young people are faced with now. AI is an example of those new dangers. During the debate, I was sent an article about a recent incident in a Spanish town, where police are currently investigating naked images of dozens of young girls, which have been shared around schools. The youngest victim is 11 years old.

However, it is social media content and its dangers that I want to focus on today. A global report in August 2022 found that the number of incidents of children aged between seven and 10 being manipulated into recording abuse of themselves has surged by two thirds over a six-month period. Through grooming, deception and extortion, self-generated abuse is typically created using webcams or smartphones, and then it is shared online. Almost 20,000 reports of self-generated child sexual abuse content were seen by the Internet Watch Foundation in the first six months of 2022, which was up from just under 12,000 the previous year.

That is a trend that should worry us all, and it is incumbent on us all to try to address the problem across the UK. The IWF’s chief executive, Susie Hargreaves, has said that self-generated abuse is “entirely preventable” due to where the abuse takes place. It takes place in the home, and homes are meant to be a safe place for children. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy for the UK Online Safety Bill, which is trying to address that worrying trend.

There is more that we can do to keep children safe online. Before allowing children to access the internet, parents should be aware of the privacy settings and age limits for certain websites, which have been discussed in previous contributions. When on social media, they should make sure that children are not befriending or interacting with people whom they do not know. However, I wish that it was only education that we needed to worry about when it comes to online child abuse, grooming and exploitation—we also need to be concerned about the approach that social media platforms are taking.

We have yet to find the right balance between young people accessing social media and protecting them. Social media can be used as an access tool for false information—I have raised the issue of misinformation about contraception on social media and how that might be contributing to Scotland’s record-high abortion figures. Videos on TikTok have included false claims about hormonal contraception, such as the pill, the implant, the jabs and some types of coils. The misinformation online often focuses on the side effects, with one video posted by a so-called influencer claiming that birth control is this generation’s cigarettes and that it ruins our bodies.

Hashtags including #naturalbirthcontrol and #quittingbirthcontrol have also been viewed hundreds of millions of times on the app. I would argue that that is a form of online abuse, because it is telling young women that they do not need to protect themselves during sex. I believe that influencers have a duty of care to their audience, and that one should be ashamed of themselves for spreading false information and putting young women’s health at risk. If the Scottish Government can do anything to help protect young women online when it comes to sexual health, it will have my full support.

In short, I do not think that we have found the right balance between access for children and young people to social media and protecting them from online abuse. However, social media can be a force for good. After all, 800 predators a month are arrested by UK law enforcement agencies, and up to 1,200 children are safeguarded from sexual abuse because of social media handing over vital data. That is why I agree with the Home Secretary, who has urged Meta not to roll out end-to-end encryption on social media platforms without robust measures. I hope that the Scottish Government will join in those calls.

We need to have more conversations about this issue, because social media is still the wild west, it still harms young people and we must work collectively to continue to put safeguards in place to stop online child abuse, grooming and exploitation.

I welcome the opportunity to debate maternity services not once but twice today. That shows how important the issue is right across Scotland. I hope that the members who have spoken or will speak in this debate will stay for the members’ business debate after decision time so that we can continue this important conversation.

Recent developments have rightly caused outrage across Lanarkshire and the surrounding areas. Local people have set up campaign groups to object to this ill-thought-out decision. Their message is simple: they do not want the neonatal department at University hospital Wishaw to be downgraded. Why would they? It is the same department that won the United Kingdom neonatal department of the year award in 2023. It makes no sense to me that the Government has decided to reward such an outstanding department by removing the vital support that it provides to expectant mums and their newborn babies. The kick in the teeth, which members have mentioned, is that the Government’s amendment has the cheek to congratulate the department on its recent achievements. Talk about being tone deaf.

Over the past few weeks, I have been in touch with wonderful women who have shared their stories about how much they value the neonatal department at University hospital Wishaw. It is great to see some of them in the public gallery to watch this debate and the one that will follow.

I recognise and commend the efforts of Lynne McRitchie, who has been the driving force behind the campaign to stop the downgrade of the Wishaw neonatal unit. She said recently during an interview that, while the decision represents

“a real loss to parents ... ultimately it’s a real loss to babies who are born so prematurely or poorly.”

Lynne’s petition has gained a whopping 12,337 signatures. If that does not send a strong message to the Government, I do not know what will.

Among those who have contacted me are midwives, past and present, who cannot make any sense of the proposals that are outlined in the document for NHS redesign of maternity and neonatal services. They have told me that removing a vital service from the heart of the central belt of Scotland is not the answer, and they are deeply concerned about the lack of evidence to back up the loss of a vital neonatal service. Not only will Wishaw general be impacted, but Ninewells hospital in Dundee and Victoria hospital in Fife have also been selected as part of the downgrade proposals. All those hospitals are in areas with high levels of deprivation, where wrap-around care needs to be as close to communities as possible.

Let us face it: this Government does not have the best track record when it comes to maternity services. We only need to speak to mums in the Highlands to know the consequences of removing maternity services—and, by the way, maternity services at Caithness general hospital and Dr Gray’s hospital are still not fully operational. There has been no urgency from the Government to reopen them, and that has undoubtedly put expectant mums and their unborn babies at risk.

I have only four minutes for my speech, which is not a lot of time, so I am pleased that we are having two debates on the issue today. To conclude, I make a direct appeal to the minister to back the petition, listen to communities and midwives, and stop the downgrade of the Wishaw neonatal unit.

Does the member agree that the forum should have happened before the decision was taken and that the fact that that did not happen and that they have not been involved in the process whatsoever has led to many families being exceptionally concerned about what is happening?