Chamber and committees

The plan is to roll out operation begonia nationally and get the support in place for that. As I said, it is currently operating in four places. I know that the committee has had an evidence session with Police Scotland, so you will know that one of the challenges is how to get people who are involved in prostitution to have confidence in, and trust, the police, and the police have been working very hard on that since we implemented the strategic approach last year. The long-term aim is to get that approach rolled out nationally. I know that there could potentially be legislation in relation to that, including this bill, but we are currently concentrating on getting the support in place for people who want to exit prostitution, because it is a very complex issue.

The crux of it is how we get societal change so that it is unacceptable for men to use violence against women and girls. There is a lot of work going on in that area with Police Scotland. Jeff Gibbons may have some further information.

Yes, women’s safety is my main concern. As I have said, this is a really complex issue, which involves lots of vulnerable people. I appreciate and understand that it is about violence against women and girls, and exploitation. However, we must ensure that we do not put any women in further danger, and there is that possibility here.

I appreciate that there are conflicting sides to the argument. It is not clear cut. I do not think that anybody who has watched your evidence sessions could just jump to one side—I personally could not—because both sides are passionate and the issues are emotive. The issue of the potential for women to be made less safe is one on which I feel that further work needs to be done. I do not want to put any women in further danger.

Yes. I am aware of that report from Ireland, which came out in March, and of the conflicting evidence that was heard by the committee in that regard. I will bring in Jeff Gibbons, because he liaises with various Governments that are involved in the prostitution legislation. He can give you an update on what we are doing on that point.

At this stage, we are staying neutral. I have been watching all the evidence sessions with great interest, and I am aware of the conflicting issues and concerns that have been raised on both sides. I do not think that criminalising the purchase of sex is a silver bullet—we need to take a more holistic view, and look at support. We have been looking at all the international examples of where the type of model in the bill has been implemented—again, there are conflicting views on how that is working in different countries.

In my personal view, there is still a lot of work to be done. As I said, the Scottish Government is not against criminalising the purchase of sex, but we need to get it right. I cannot currently see that anywhere in the world is doing it right. We are currently focusing on support and the exiting of prostitution, and trying to bring about a societal change with regard to men’s demand.

I will talk about my reasoning for our view that convictions should not be quashed. Although we acknowledge that there has been a legitimate debate about how criminal law should operate in respect of prostitution in the future, if the bill were to quash convictions, it would encroach on the role of the independent criminal courts by quashing legally sound convictions. The Post Office situation was unique, and we know that there were no sound convictions. The quashing of convictions under the 1982 act would be unprecedented in recent Scottish history. Although the Parliament has acted historically to repeal offences relating to offensive behaviour at football matches, the relevant legislation did not quash the convictions. That is because legally sound convictions were achieved under the law of Scotland at the time. Parliament can change the law for the future, but it should not revisit independent criminal court decisions, as that would significantly impact the independence of the court system.

I will touch on the Post Office. When the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Act 2024 was passed, prescribed conditions were met. However, the fundamental difference is that the convictions were tainted by the fact that the information technology system had not been functioning properly. The Parliament took an exceptional step to quash those convictions in order to ensure that victims could speedily access justice and that they could receive compensation from the United Kingdom Government for the harm that was caused by the use of the IT system. I am not sure whether it was appreciated how much of an unprecedented step that was.

Another issue is that the costs that were involved in quashing the convictions under the 2024 act were £4,000 per person. That is a considerable amount of money, given that there are about 10,600 previous convictions in relation to Ms Regan’s bill. Also considering the independence of the judiciary, that is not something that the Scottish Government or the Lord Advocate would support.

One reason is that women who currently choose to be involved in prostitution and have clients come to their house can have security in place, so that they can get the client’s identification, passport, credit cards and so on.

Just let me get my point across. If we were to decriminalise the selling of sex, there would be nothing that is against the law, so the police would not have any powers in relation to the purchasers.

Repealing the offence for selling sex in section 46 of the 1982 act would require further consultation with stakeholders and communities, given the sensitivities and complexities associated with prostitution. In general terms, conviction for a section 46 offence is generally spent within a year at most, and it is not included in conviction information on any level of disclosure when it has been spent. I have a lot of detail on when a conviction can go into disclosure; I do not know if the committee is interested in me verbalising that, or perhaps sending it on.

Yes.