Chamber and committees

I will lay out what my amendments intend to do. They can be grouped into four main categories. They intend to extend the reporting restrictions that the bill would apply in respect of victims aged under 18 so that they also apply to deceased underage victims; give the court the same power to extend reporting restrictions in respect of an underage victim, alive or dead, as the bill confers in respect of an underage offender; provide a mechanism by which offenders, whether suspected, alleged or convicted, live victims or the close family of deceased victims can request an order requiring the takedown of information that would have been covered by a reporting restriction while an offence was suspected or during proceedings; and provide a mechanism by which offenders, whether suspected, alleged or convicted, victims or the close family of deceased victims can request an order reinstating in whole or in part reporting restrictions.

Folk will have seen the open letter sent from 65 families urging change, but committee member colleagues will remember that it was a letter from an individual family member that first drew our attention to the area. It laid out the significant impact that continued and traumatising press and social media coverage had on them, and asked MSPs to be mindful of the impact of our words and to not name victims when discussing the topic.

Since then, Victim Support Scotland has led the way in campaigning for change, and I commend it for its work in ensuring that the voice of victims has been heard. I fully understand that this is not a straightforward matter to solve and I understand that, in legislation, we have to be alert to unintended consequences. I acknowledge that the committee has not taken extensive evidence on the matter, but I am absolutely certain that there is a need to address the matter—not just to discuss it further but to actually address it.

The evidence that we have for change is compelling. A parent who lost their child to murder said:

“When my child died as a result of murder, every detail of their life, their siblings and school was in the public domain. This was put under further microscopic detail during the trial, while the perpetrator was afforded significant privacy and protection. The media intrusion which followed my child’s death further compounded the trauma I was already experiencing. My children cannot be children because of the constant fear of what the media will print next. It still goes on to this day, and I am constantly worried when and how my other children will find out more distressing details about their sibling’s death.”

They went on to say:

“I have had several articles and pieces of inaccurate information removed from the mainstream press and social media, but the coverage feels never ending. Every day I am constantly reminded about the traumatic nature of my child’s death. This could all have been prevented had my child’s name not automatically been released to the public when they died.”

I acknowledge and thank the minister for her words about further discussion and engagement. She mentioned a round-table event, which I think would be hugely important. It is crucial that the voice of victims is at the table, and I seek reassurance that those with direct experience of the trauma that is caused to surviving siblings will be part of the discussion.

That is a hugely important point.

The committee heard from an academic who gave very helpful and specific reasons with regard to the challenges. There was one sentence about the human cost of this. I think that we all want to have those with expertise at the table, but we must never forget the people who are affected. Everybody dealing with the topic needs to be looking in the eyes of the families who are affected. I seek assurance from the minister on that matter.

I will leave my remarks there for now.

I move amendment 124.

Our processes are the vehicle that we have in order to legislate. I draw members’ attention to the letter from Victim Support, which was signed by 65 families. It is a small number of families—thankfully—who are affected, but that letter provides access to direct lived experience, and we can see the impact. I do not think that there needs to be a whole fresh consultation. We know what the problem is, and there is access to people with lived experience. We just need a bit of urgency to get folk round the table and work our way through the issue. It is not beyond us—it cannot be beyond us.

Amendment 124, by agreement, withdrawn.

I absolutely understand what the minister is saying. Given that the children’s hearings system is a welfare system, I wonder whether restorative justice would play a part in understanding the impact that actions had had on the other child who had been harmed.

I will make more substantive remarks in the later group, with your permission, convener. At the moment, I will say that the focus of the bill is children and their rights. Children can cause harm or be victims of criminal harm, either directly or as a result of a sibling or family member being harmed. All of those children matter, no matter what they are experiencing that has led them to come into contact with the care or justice system.

They should be equally entitled to their rights. I acknowledge that balancing rights is not straightforward, and I hear all the reasons to not take action, but it cannot be beyond us to uphold and promote the rights of all children. This must not be put in the too-difficult box because of the challenges around finding a solution to what is most definitely a problem that causes trauma and stress to families and siblings. That is all that I want to say just now.

Will the minister take an intervention about the use of social media by peers or aunties, for example?

Thank you, convener. Forgive me for that.

I understand the argument that is being put. However, if we think about rights and children’s rights, surely we are not suggesting that a cousin’s or a friend’s right to broadcast their feelings about the deceased is more important than the right of the family of the deceased to privacy in family life? That is a challenge.

I will not be the only person in the chamber who lost someone during the pandemic and who will be finding this display quite despicable. We are serious politicians in a serious place. It would be good if we could talk about the actual issues, rather than grandstanding. It is a disgrace to the people who lost their lives.

It could be said that the amendments are completely at odds with the principle of the bill and with keeping the Promise. How would you respond to that?

Minister, you laid out in detail what is available, which was certainly helpful to hear. However, the committee heard about a potential issue with children accepting referral on offence grounds without understanding what repercussions that could have for later life. The example was given that, if a child was in trouble, they could accept a referral on offence grounds, as they would be given support and intervention. It can feel like the best thing to do, and often it will be. I am not making a judgment on that, but a potential issue has been identified.

Although the answer might not be in the blanket approach of offering legal aid, would you commit to having a further look at the problem that has been highlighted to the committee? It may be that something in the existing system could be tweaked that would make it better for children who are accepting offence grounds.