Chamber and committees

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.

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.

That is very diplomatic of you. The reason why I ask is that the last time a survey was done on public perception of sentencing—it was pre-Covid and I do not know whether there has been one since—77 per cent of the public believed that someone should receive a custodial sentence for a crime of that nature. Very few believed that something such as a community payback order or some form of educational mandatory statutory treatment would be an appropriate sentence.

I am not putting forward a view; I am simply asking for your opinion. I appreciate that it is difficult for policing to comment on what are independent guidelines by the Scottish Sentencing Council, but I am sure that others have a view. Stuart Allardyce, you must have a view on this.

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.

I apologise for being unable to make the visit. I wonder whether the SPS would be willing to host members of the committee who were unable to make that visit. It would be very interesting to get a proper tour of the prison, perhaps once it is operational. I know that that would make it slightly more difficult, but there is certainly a willingness among members to go back or to attend for the first time.

Obviously, the SSI is a legal instrument, which means that the site can be used only for a prison building. Has the Government indicated what its plans are for the old building or the wider site? That question might have been answered yesterday—it probably was, as I imagine that someone will have asked it.

If it is no longer being used as a prison, what will happen? Will it just be demolished and remain Government property?