Chamber and committees

That does not echo the evidence that we have heard in the committee so far. Is it fair to say that, as the bill stands—we have not seen amendments thus far—you have managed to upset all sides of the debate surrounding legal regulation in Scotland?

How will striking the right balance be measured?

On the back of the discussions that we have had, I am struggling to understand. There seems to be a chicken-and-egg situation here. We have had to take evidence on a bill that will be substantially amended. Minister, why did you think that it was appropriate for ministers to be directly appointed as a legal regulator? Why has there not been more engagement regarding the amendments? As Paul O’Kane rightly said, the devil is in the detail, but the committee does not know that detail and it seems that senior professionals in the legal field do not know that detail. If you had concerns back in August, when you were getting evidence in response to the call for views, why did you not begin engagement then? I feel that we are clambering around trying to find a way to scrutinise legislation that we will have to look at all over again when we come back after the new year.

The Scottish Covid inquiry has heard that children with long Covid have been dismissed and ignored by those who are supposed to support them. The charity Long Covid Kids told the inquiry that healthcare professionals were not appropriately trained, that there is a postcode lottery of care and that healthcare professionals had been given no education regarding the condition. Does the minister agree that the Covid inquiry should be an opportunity to learn lessons from the poor treatment of people with long Covid? What training is being provided to healthcare professionals now so that they can adequately support children who are living with long Covid?

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support children with long Covid. (S6O-02808)

We already know the many existing dangers that women face in everyday life. Violence against women and girls is never acceptable, but do we, as women, really understand the dangers that we face?

Online violence against women and girls has escalated rapidly in recent years and it poses a major threat to safety and wellbeing. Technology is not something to be feared—we should embrace it—but we need to be mindful of it, as it constitutes a space where harm can be perpetrated.

The development of artificial intelligence brings a new discussion about the protection and promotion of women’s rights. Biased attitudes linked to gender roles and identities are programmed into social media platforms through automated decision making. Therefore, algorithms and devices have the potential to spread and reinforce unwanted and harmful gender stereotypes, particularly when it comes to younger men.

Research by the Open University found that 17 per cent of women in Scotland have experienced online threats, trolling, unwanted sexual remarks and other forms of abuse. The 2022 Girlguiding “Girls’ Attitudes Survey” found that 80 per cent of girls and young women between the ages of seven and 21 have seen or experienced sexism online, which is an increase from 68 per cent in 2018.

Therefore, there is a need for the Government to be proactive when it comes to technology-facilitated gender-based violence, because it takes many sinister forms. There is sextortion, image-based abuse, doxxing and cyberbullying. Those are all examples of how women can fall victim to gender-based violence. The same Open University survey showed that almost three quarters, or 73 per cent, of women in Scotland and more than half, or 55 per cent, of men want online violence to be made a crime.

The part that should concern us all is that many women and girls do not realise that they are a victim until it is too late. Sometimes, those who commit the crime are people whom women and girls should trust. Ex-teacher James Donoghue was jailed for predatory crimes after threatening two young women into having sex with him. He then posed as a modelling scout called Debzie and threatened to share unconsented filmed sexual content if the victims did not keep in contact with him or arrange to meet up. He even hijacked and hacked into a computer of one of his targets during the horrific sextortion plot.

It was Donoghue’s own girlfriend who helped the police to catch him in the act, to get him to confess to what he had done. He was handed only an eight-year prison sentence, which is not long enough in my view. The predatory behaviour shown by that vile individual will have caused unimaginable harm to the young women involved, but they are not alone. That one case shows the danger of access to filming devices and the rise of social media platforms, should someone wish to use them to inflict unimaginable harm on women and girls. Therefore, we need to get ahead of the curve when it comes to AI, because AI can impersonate and, in the wrong hands, manipulate.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to strengthening the AI ecosystem, because we need to ensure that the right safeguards are in place and that we invest in technology to ensure that women and girls cannot be exploited through that growing technology.

We have been unable to eradicate revenge porn or the online abuse that women receive, as is evidenced by the statistics. Last year alone, there were 140 domestic abuse charges relating to those offences—and those are only the ones that were reported. Underreporting of violence against women and girls has long been a concern, and I encourage anyone who has been a victim of those vile crimes to come forward and speak out. Accurate data means that we are better placed to understand. As technology advances, so do the number of risks to vulnerable people.

Today is about 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Everyone has a duty to ensure that we improve the lives of women and girls by doing everything that we can to protect them from the advancements in new technology.

I go back to the first answer that you gave. Do you think that where we are now is far removed from where you started in terms of your review? If you were to give any advice to the Scottish ministers at this point, would it perhaps be to relook at the original principles that you outlined?

I must admit that, after the line of questioning from Paul O’Kane, I am concerned about the current status of the bill. You rightly summed it up at the start by saying that the bill seems to have upset everyone. That is certainly true.

I am worried because we could end up having to heavily amend the bill, which would involve scrutinising the amendments that were forthcoming from the Scottish Government and engaging with all stakeholders involved. That goes beyond the legal side; it also relates to the consumer side, because the intention of the bill is to streamline the legal process to make sure that people can access it where possible.

I do not know whether you have any further comments on that, but I will put that aside and move on to the concerns relating to the independence between the legal profession, the judiciary and, of course, the Executive. Many concerns and arguments have been raised that, with the new legislation, the Lord President could be drawn into a collaborative Administration with the Scottish ministers.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the proposed powers for the Scottish ministers and whether there is any way of manoeuvring to make sure that the judiciary remains completely independent.

It relates to the powers that the bill, as it stands, gives to the Scottish ministers.

As it stands, the Parliament is scrutinising legislation that the Scottish Government itself intends to amend, and that aspect has been part of the discussion that we have had thus far. We are looking at the bill at face value, but we know that significant and valid concerns have already been raised, and we do not know whether the forthcoming amendments will make those in the legal profession more amenable to the bill.

I throw this question out there. Is there a risk that if the intended amendments are not forthcoming as soon as possible, the legal profession could lose confidence in the principle and direction of the bill? Given that we might have to invite witnesses back to re-scrutinise the amendments once we have sight of them, could that set back the implementation of the intended principles of the bill?