Official Report 777KB pdf
Good morning, and welcome to the 31st meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee in 2025. We have received no apologies this morning, and we are joined by Ash Regan.
Our first item of business is to continue our scrutiny of the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill. We have one panel of witnesses, and I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this evidence session. I refer members to papers 1 and 2.
I welcome to the meeting Siobhian Brown, Minister for Victims and Community Safety; Anna Donald, deputy director of the Scottish Government’s criminal justice division; and Jeff Gibbons, the violence against women and girls unit head. You are all very welcome.
Before we start, I remind everyone to be as succinct as possible in your questions and responses, please. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement, and we will then move on to questions.
Thanks very much, convener, and good morning.
I have been watching with keen interest the evidence that the committee has gathered while scrutinising Ms Regan’s Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill. I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out the Scottish Government’s current position on the bill, considering that evidence, and I hope that you will allow me the time to do that.
While we have taken a neutral stance on the bill and await the committee’s final report on it, I want to put on record, for the first time, the fact that the Scottish Government strongly supports the principle of legislating to criminalise purchasers of sex. That position aligns with that of our equally safe strategy, which is that commercial sexual exploitation is a form of violence against women and girls.
However, I have significant concerns with the bill as it is currently drafted. If the bill were to become an act, it would create a criminal law, and it must therefore be clear and unambiguous and must have the confidence of Parliament.
Let me turn to those concerns. On the criminalisation of purchase, we are supportive in principle, as I have said. However, that must be achieved in a way that ensures that the safety of women is paramount. Concerns were expressed to the committee about forcing activity underground and the subsequent risks to women’s safety, and that remains an issue that is not adequately addressed by the bill. Similarly, the bill does not take sufficient account of the reality that the gateway for involvement in prostitution is increasingly online, or of the fact that there are strong links in many cases with serious and organised crime and human trafficking. The bill as drafted does not engage with those significant issues, and it would require amending before it could gain the confidence of the Parliament.
As I have said previously in correspondence, the right to support that is proposed under the bill is not well defined, it is not fully costed and it does not take account of the current provision of services. I again point to the need for clear legislation, particularly to allow for adequate financial memorandums. The bill as drafted does not allow for that, and there need to be amendments to outline what support is required, so that costs can be properly assessed.
I have already made clear why we do not support the quashing of convictions, and our view on that has not changed and will not change.
Given the points that I have outlined, I am extremely concerned that there are significant policy and operational challenges with the bill as drafted, and there is a need for substantial amendments to address them. I am also concerned that there may not be enough parliamentary time left to develop the amendments that would be needed to deliver competent, safe and workable legislation that we can all agree on and have confidence in.
The bill is not a Government bill, and it is for the committee and the member in charge to decide on how those concerns can be addressed. If it was a Government bill, in order to address the clear issues that we have identified with it, we would require, at the very minimum, significant consultation and engagement with the women who would be impacted by it, with justice partners including Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and with wider stakeholders, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the third sector organisations that currently provide support.
By way of example, committee members will be familiar with the time that was taken to develop the necessary amendments to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in order to address the concerns that were raised and the committee’s views. That bill was considerably broader than the one that is before us today, but that example highlights that, without that time to develop the policy behind the amendments, we would not have had a workable bill.
Anyone who has put forward a member’s bill knows that there is a lot of hard work behind it, and I thank Ms Regan for all the work that she has done thus far. This is an emotive, sensitive and complex issue, and it is important that we get it right. As elected representatives, we have an obligation to scrutinise all proposed legislation, whether members’ bills or Scottish Government bills, and to address concerns that are raised during the parliamentary scrutiny process. The issues that have been raised with the bill as drafted cannot be ignored. They must be addressed adequately by the member, so that we have a clear and workable bill to vote on as legislators. I am interested in the committee’s and Ms Regan’s views on how to address the issues that have been raised with the committee by the Government and stakeholders ahead of the stage 1 debate.
As has been reflected in much of the evidence available to the committee, legislation alone will not address the fundamental reasons why women turn to prostitution in the first place. The Government is also tackling those fundamental societal issues, within our powers, including the cost of living, addiction, inequality and poverty.
The Scottish Government will continue its work to tackle violence against women, to support women to exit prostitution and to support Police Scotland with its operation begonia approach, which recognises that those involved in prostitution are victims and signposts them to support to enable them to exit from prostitution should they wish to do so, while at the same time tackling kerb crawling and exploitation. We have been clear that this is not the end of our work around commercial sexual exploitation, and we will build on that work using what we have learned.
I am happy to take any questions.
Thank you, minister. There is a lot for us to think about and cover in our lines of questions.
I will open up the questions with a fairly general one relating to the equally safe strategy, which has been embedded for quite some time. The strategy includes provision regarding prostitution, recognising that it is a form of violence against women and girls. Could you set out in a bit more detail the approach that has already been taken in Scotland to tackle prostitution within the context of the equally safe strategy?
Our equally safe strategy, which was launched in February last year, explicitly states that prostitution is violence against women and girls, and that has helped us with our strategic approach to challenging men’s demand.
The strategy aims to challenge men’s demand and to put in place support for people with experience of commercial sexual exploitation and help them to exit if they wish to do so. It also aims to raise public and professional awareness that women with experience of selling or exchanging sex are victims of exploitation. It highlights the importance of engagement with stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to inform future policy.
Our strategic approach aims to challenge and deter men’s demand for prostitution and improve access to support for women, from crisis support through to longer-term support. That reflects the complexities of the issues that are associated with prostitution and the need for a multifaceted approach.
On the ground, we are currently working with Police Scotland to support the implementation of operation begonia, its new national approach to prostitution, which is designed to route women with experience of commercial sexual exploitation to support services as opposed to their being charged, and involves police more evidently using the powers that are currently available to them to challenge men’s demand.
Operation begonia has been going on in Aberdeen for many years; it is now operating in Dundee and Edinburgh, and in Glasgow under another name. The latest update from Police Scotland on the operation states that there have been more than 114 patrols; that 171 males have been warned and 48 charged; and that there has been in excess of 250 intelligence logs. Importantly, where women consented, 79 men have been referred to support.
That should give you an idea of what is happening. There is a lot more work going on, but that is what we are currently doing with our strategic approach.
Thank you, minister. As a north-east MSP, I am familiar with the brilliant work that has been going on in the city of Aberdeen for quite some time within operation begonia; it involves some fantastic multi-agency partnerships and work.
Some of your correspondence to the committee referred to the potential development of operation begonia; I might be wrong on this, but I think that I read that there was potential for the operation to be further developed. I would be interested in hearing what other plans, if any, the Government has, separately from the bill that we are scrutinising, with regard to reforming the approach to prostitution.
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.
My quick final question relates to the issue of tackling men’s behaviour, which has been mentioned in some of the evidence that we have heard. I am interested to know what work, if any, is going on in Government with regard to that particular aspect of the overall approach to tackling prostitution.
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—I am happy to add to that. As part of broadening out operation begonia from a local to a national concept—developing a consistent national strategic approach for the operation is one of the key changes—we are addressing the education aspect. We are working with education colleagues on producing products and leaflets both for the public and for those who are involved in prostitution.
09:45We are also working with institutions to ensure that the staff are appropriately aware and able to manage the issue, and that they have the proper experience. There have clearly been issues with regard to the extent to which some national organisations—not necessarily those that form part of the support network—had not ensured that their staff were sufficiently aware of the issues around language, engagement and behaviour. That is quite a significant change.
We are also focused on data gathering, which has always been an issue. The gathering and sharing of data between support organisations and the police was one of the elements that was highlighted following the Emma Caldwell case. That work will also inform some of the educational work that we do.
Those are quite significant developments with regard to ensuring that people have the confidence to report to the police and that appropriate action is taken early.
Thank you—that is a good update to hear.
I will open up the session to questions, and bring in Liam Kerr.
Good morning, minister. According to the policy memorandum, the bill’s remit
“is to reduce the amount of prostitution in Scotland”.
It will do so, according to your letter of 23 June, by challenging men’s demand and tackling commercial sexual exploitation. As you will have seen, the committee has heard conflicting evidence on whether the bill’s provisions, and specifically the new offence in section 1, will achieve those aims. In particular, it has been suggested that the bill will not reduce demand. Based on the Government’s interrogation of evidence, especially international evidence, does the Government think that the bill’s core provisions will achieve those aims? If so, does the Government support the bill in principle?
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 press you on that. If you have been looking at the international evidence, what does the Government conclude regarding whether provisions such as those in the bill would reduce the amount of prostitution in Scotland and tackle demand?
To me, the conclusions are unclear that it is not working internationally.
Forgive me, but I did not quite understand that answer.
You are asking me whether the Scottish Government thinks that the international examples of criminalising the purchase of sex are working.
And whether they would map on to Scotland in order to achieve the same end.
Yes—I am saying that the international examples, which the committee has heard about in evidence, show that that approach is not 100 per cent working and there are challenges with the implementation of such legislation internationally.
Thank you. The committee has heard in evidence that key provisions of the bill—again, section 1 in particular—would impact on the safety of people selling sex. Does the Government share those concerns? If so, in what ways does the Government think that the risks would be increased? Does the Government think that any amendments could be made at this stage that would reduce those risks?
To me, women’s safety has to be paramount. In your evidence sessions, and in the discussions that I have had, I have heard women who are currently involved in prostitution expressing genuine fear that they would become more endangered as a result of the provisions in the bill. I do not think that their voices have been in the conversation thus far, and we must have them around the table as we consider this legislation, because it will impact them. If we are to legislate, we must work together on how to do so safely, so that we do not put any women in further danger.
I understand.
I would like to pick up on the issue of safety, which has been a substantial concern for me and, I think, all of us on the committee. In one of our evidence sessions, someone made the point—which I was very taken with—that you can never make the selling of sex truly safe. The fundamental question for us is whether the bill makes it less safe for those involved. There has been conflicting evidence but concerns about safety have definitely been expressed—at the very least, there is a perception that the bill could make things less safe. Is that your uppermost concern?
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.
That is certainly my uppermost concern. It has been difficult because of the conflicting evidence that we have heard, as you said, but that concern has definitely been expressed.
Before I turn to your remarks about the need for substantial amendments, I would like to pick up on Liam Kerr’s questions. The bill is predicated on reducing demand, and he asked about the international evidence in that regard. In your letter of 29 July, you cite the Irish experience and the fact that the Irish justice minister set out that their review highlighted that demand had not decreased under the model. Has there been engagement and dialogue with other jurisdictions to try to understand what their practical experience has been?
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.
We have been in contact with lots of different countries about their experience for some time. As you have highlighted, Mr Hepburn, one of the challenges is the conflicting evidence. I do not want to point to any particular country, but the engagement that we have had has highlighted challenges between the rationale that is adopted for pushing forward legislation—that is, the principle behind it—and the challenges around its implementation.
At least two of the countries that have looked to adopt aspects of the Nordic model have had to reflect on those issues and have made changes since. That process is on-going. We have particular contact with justice colleagues in other countries, and we know that police in the Republic of Ireland face on-going issues, particularly regarding the challenges around online activity, because the Nordic model was established some time ago and does not necessarily translate to the changing scenario. Similarly, from our discussions with the police and the organisations that we deal with in Sweden, we are also aware that they have not seen a change in culture and are aware that men are still purchasing sex when they go overseas, for example. There has been some concern there about how the model has worked in practice.
I do not want to pick and choose which pieces of evidence to highlight, but those examples raise the broader issue in relation to the Nordic model about the need to ensure that sufficient safety considerations are in place to negate concerns about the consequences of criminalising the buying of sex. I would highlight the challenge of delivering the services that would ensure that those considerations are in place. In the French example, we learned that there were huge challenges with social housing, which was essentially part of their model, and they have not been able to deliver on that aspect.
Those issues need to be part of the broader discussion. The international examples have informed our thinking about how future legislation might work from the police’s perspective, and the broader challenge of providing support.
So there is direct engagement—you are not just relying on written evidence.
We have conversations, including with our colleagues in France, which is often cited as an example.
That is useful to know, and we may want to hear more about it in due course.
Minister, you mentioned that there would be a need for substantial amendments to the bill to ensure that it can work effectively with regard to the fundamental principle of criminalising the purchase of sex, which you support. Can you set out in a bit more detail what you mean by the substantial amendments that would be required?
We need more detail on support. If this was a Government bill, you would quite rightly be scrutinising the proposal and asking for detail on how long the support would be provided, whether we would be paying for rent, council tax and childcare, what would happen if the woman chose to go back into prostitution and returned to receive support in three months’ time, and what the timescales were expected to be. Those are the kind of questions that I would expect to be able to answer as a Government minister. If it is to be good legislation that we can vote on and have confidence in, MSPs would need to have detail on how much it would cost and what support would be in place. At this stage, we do not have that detail.
I have one final question. You mentioned concerns about the provisions on quashing convictions. I know that other colleagues want to ask about that, but I have a specific question. A contrast will be drawn with the situation regarding the Post Office’s Horizon system. I want to better understand what you meant in your letter of 29 July, when you said, in relation to the Post Office case, that those convictions
“could not be considered as safe”.
Perhaps I can set out my understanding and see whether that tallies with what you have said. Putting to one side for a minute whether we think that there should be convictions under section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982—of course, that is the fundamental question, but it is the law as it stands—is your position that convictions in those cases can be considered safe?
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.
That is helpful to understand.
10:00
Minister, you said that this is a difficult issue. Do you agree that, for a long time, the issue has been put in a box that is labelled “too difficult”? You said that you agree with the general terms of the legislation that is before the Parliament and the general principles of its various provisions, but that you believe that amendments are necessary because there are significant concerns about the drafting of the bill. Do you agree that it is our responsibility to work on the bill to get the drafting in the right place?
I have concerns about the number of amendments that may be needed. On your point about putting the issue in the “too difficult” box for too long, we must acknowledge that, in 2025, we are living in a different world from the one which the Nordic model was introduced in Sweden in 1999, because of the online aspect. The bill does not currently take cognisance of the online factor, which is a growing trend that we need to consider how to tackle. Also, when we come to legislate in five or 10 years, there might be something that we are not even aware of at this stage.
That might be the case, and the Government might want to introduce further legislation in due course. However, you said that the Scottish Government supports the creation of a criminal offence that would prohibit paying for sex. Are you suggesting that something has happened to change that view?
No, that view is part of our equally safe strategy. We consider paying for sex to be a form of violence against women and girls. We have never opposed legislation on the matter, but we have focused on providing support and looking at how international models of legislation are working and how they are not working. That work is on-going. We are not opposed to legislation, but we want to do it right.
You were asked by Jamie Hepburn whether you believe that the bill would make things less safe for women. Are you suggesting that the provisions that would criminalise paying for sex would make things less safe for women?
From what I have heard, they could potentially do that. You have heard evidence from women in that regard. I do not want to go into detail about the reasons why that is, because I am sure that you have heard such detail.
It would be helpful to get some detail about why you think that.
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.
So, the issue is about checks—you think that that aspect needs further exploration and discussion.
Yes.
On the provision about quashing existing convictions, will you clarify the Scottish Government’s position on pardoning the women who have such convictions?
Pardoning is something that we have previously done. It becomes an active consideration only if the activity that would be pardoned is not also decriminalised. It also relates to the Historical Sexual Offences (Pardons and Disregards) (Scotland) Act 2018. We would need to do further engagement if we were to do that.
To clarify, is the Scottish Government in favour of decriminalising women who are involved in the sex trade?
We are not looking at that at the moment, no.
That is part of the bill. Do you have a position on it?
We do not support that at the moment.
So, you are saying that women should continue to be criminalised. That is the reason why you would not support the quashing or the pardoning of previous convictions.
Pardoning is complex, and that is why we need to have more engagement. If we did decriminalise—
If you think that women—
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.
Yes, I understand that—
That would put the women in more danger.
Are you saying that you do not support decriminalisation?
I do not support that at the moment.
At the moment, you are willing to accept the status quo, which is that the perpetrators, most of whom are men, behave in a lawful manner and that the women who are involved in the sex trade are criminalised. Is that acceptable?
We have to look at the safety of women, and I have had discussions that potentially—
Well, I have asked whether it is acceptable.
Is it acceptable? We are doing everything that we can.
In your opinion, is it acceptable?
We are currently doing our best to ensure that women are kept safe. We will not do anything or roll out anything that puts women in any further danger.
Thank you.
Good morning. Having listened to your answers to Liam Kerr, I confess that I am unclear about the Government’s position on the criminalisation of the purchase of sex. I totally acknowledge what you said about the world having changed and about women’s safety, but is the Government in favour of introducing a criminal offence or not? Perhaps you do not support the bill, but are you at all in favour of criminalisation?
It is something that we would consider in the future. As we said, we see it as a form of violence against women and girls. That is covered in our equally safe strategy. The Scottish Government has not been working on legislation on it, but we do not oppose doing so in the future.
So, it is right to say that you do not oppose criminalisation in some form?
Yes.
I do not know whether Jeff Gibbons could answer this, but has the Government done any background work on the factors that drive women into prostitution or the sex trade? We have heard offline from some women who are involved, but we do not have a full picture of what drives women into the trade. There are various factors, but I wonder whether the Government can share any data on that.
In many ways, the genesis of the strategic approach is the recognition that criminalisation on its own will not address the reasons why women are driven into prostitution in the first place. It is very much about ensuring that poverty, housing and the many issues that have been identified, including in lots of the correspondence that you received from other organisations, are addressed first. The focus has been on ensuring that a support network is in place in order to support any further moves to legislate. In instances in which criminalisation has come in and the support network has not worked, the reasons why women are there in the first place have not been addressed. We are focused on ensuring that a support network is in place first, which will drive the legislation that we want thereafter, and on what we need to change societally in order to address the reasons—drug addiction, poverty and so on—why women turn to prostitution in the first place.
The reason why I asked that question is that we have heard that poverty is a factor, which is borne out in your data. Is it because benefits are too low? I do not know anything about the earnings of those involved.
It is multifaceted. Some of the challenges for women who are involved in prostitution are around access to services and how those services engage with them. For example, part of our work has been around employability, so that when the women approach employment, people can support them, direct them to the right places and ensure that their concerns about employability—this goes back to the issue of criminal offences—are addressed as part of the process.
It is about ensuring that the stigma that is attached to prostitution and the judgmental attitude that a lot of organisations have are addressed so that the women engage. Some women already engage with statutory services, but that is not necessarily recorded or accounted for. That is part of what we need to understand better through data gathering. The issue is how the women access and respond to existing services, but we also have to understand the reasons why they turn to prostitution initially. As much as we want to tackle prostitution and enable those who are involved to exit sustainably, we have to drive policies to ensure that they do not need to turn to it in the first place.
That is why I am asking the question—I am not aware of the data. Are you saying that the data shows that it is primarily because women are in poverty, as opposed to because they can earn a lot more money in prostitution than in an ordinary job? Do you see what I am asking?
I had a briefing last week from Linda Thompson from the Women’s Support Project. She does a snapshot every year and she gave me a preview of last year’s snapshot, which looked at about 100 women across Scotland. It goes into the complex areas of poverty, drug addiction and mental health issues. It is a very good report, and I think that the committee would benefit from seeing it.
So, the Government is basing its approach to this issue—as well as your violence against women strategy—primarily on the view that it is about women being in poverty. I understand—
The reasons are complex. It is not just about poverty; it is also about mental health issues and addiction.
In other words, in order to get women out of prostitution, those are the issues that need to be addressed.
Yes.
Thank you. Do you think that prostitution is, in effect, decriminalised now? Given that we do not have a current law that criminalises the buyer, and we have heard from the Crown that there are very few prosecutions of the women, is it, in effect, decriminalised right now?
Based on our conversations with Police Scotland and the work that it is doing at the moment, I think that the police are not targeting the women; they are targeting the men.
Do you have a concern that prostitution is, in effect, decriminalised, because we do not have anything to prosecute men with?
This is the thing—I go back to the fact that it is a complex issue. We are not seeing any examples anywhere. Anna Donald can come in on that.
I refer to the statistics that the minister mentioned earlier about operation begonia. Charges have been made against men as part of that operation, so there are legal routes for charging, although not for the precise offence that is being suggested in the bill.
What are they charged with?
There are different offences.
There are quite a few, including running a brothel and trading in prostitution.
One of the challenges with the approach previously was that the police were not being seen to use the powers that they already had. That is part of the reason why we have engaged with Police Scotland on a national approach.
When it comes to soliciting as set out in section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and other offences, Police Scotland is clearly treating the women as victims, and quite rightly so. That is where engagement and signposting to support services come in. The police are utilising their powers more, and part of our discussion with them is about—
So there is existing legislation that could be used better.
Yes, and that will drive what additional legislation or powers they might need in order to address the changing dynamics of prostitution.
Lastly, the Government said in a response to us that there would be potential challenges to enforcing the proposed new offence in the bill. Have those challenges been covered in what you said to the committee so far? What did you mean?
From listening to the police, I think that they are supportive in principle, but there is the issue of how it would work operationally. That is what I meant.
Did you mean setting charges against men—
Yes.
Did you mean proving the offence?
Yes. In the police’s evidence, the main issue was how the offence could be proven and at what point the offence could be said to be completed. That seemed to be the main issue that the police raised as an operational difficulty.
If the concern is that it would be difficult to prove evidentially, is there a way of fixing that with amendments?
I think that that would be—
If there is not, we would have to draw the conclusion that there would be no way of drafting it.
We would need to continue to discuss that with justice partners, just as we would want to discuss other powers that may be necessary to address the actual issues.
Are you talking about the way in which Ash Regan’s bill is drafted at the moment?
Yes. I took from some of the police’s evidence that they thought that that would present evidential challenges, particularly in relation to how to prove when the offence is completed.
It could be done in a different way, potentially.
It is not a Government bill, so we have not looked at that aspect in particular.
Thank you very much.
I would like to follow up on Pauline McNeill’s line of questioning about the provision in the bill for the repeal of the offence set out in section 46 of the 1982 act that criminalises street prostitution. Given your responses to that line of questioning, I would like to know whether the Scottish Government is supportive of the repeal of that particular piece of legislation.
10:15
At the moment, yes, but the Scottish Government feels that repealing section 46 on the offence of selling sex would require further consultation with stakeholders and communities, given the sensitivities and the complexities around prostitution. I can go on to talk about further work if you would like me to.
We can maybe come back to that if there is time. I am keen to let other members in. I will bring in Sharon Dowey and then Rona Mackay.
Have you had any discussions with Police Scotland and the Crown Office on how an offence that prohibits paying for sex might be policed effectively and prosecuted, and, if so, what were the outcomes of those discussions?
We engage regularly with Police Scotland, especially on operation begonia, and also with the Crown Office. I will bring Jeff Gibbons in, as he is the one who has those discussions.
We have regular contact and engagement with the police and the Crown about the use of existing powers and where the police might wish to enhance powers or gain new ones. That is part of the broader engagement on potential future legislative change. We are having on-going discussions that are predicated on the focus on providing a sustainable service to support any legislative intervention.
Are you confident that, as the bill is drafted, we would be able to get prosecutions? We have heard from some witnesses that they are not supportive of bringing in criminalisation. I wonder whether we would be able to get statements from the women concerned. If we did not get statements from the women, would the police still be able to get a prosecution?
As the minister outlined, the supporting principle for that broader discussion around how such an offence would work in practice is subject to the consideration of the bill. As part of the strategic model, we are talking about what legislation we might require to address the challenging demand element, but we have not got into detail about specific provisions in the bill.
I know that the committee has also raised the issue with the Sentencing Council. We need the member in charge to say how that kind of thing is going to be fixed for the bill to be workable.
Your letter to the committee on 23 June refers to the international challenges to the enforcement of legislation that are being faced. In particular, you say that the Scottish Government is
“well aware of the challenges that the online aspects have posed in relation to enforcement and policing”.
You spoke about the online aspects a wee bit earlier. Could you tell the committee exactly what you mean by the “online aspects” that would cause trouble for policing with the criminalisation of buyers?
We all recognise that the digital and online landscape is a critical battleground in the fight against commercial sexual exploitation. It is important that the Scottish Government’s approach to that area is adaptive and responds to changes and, at this stage, I do not feel that the bill addresses that.
I think that the committee heard from Police Scotland about how it would work operationally—it had 966,000 calls in one year—and how the police would manage to investigate every single call. As I keep saying, it is very complex, especially the online aspect. There is no magic bullet. The online situation is always evolving and we have to be on top of it.
The regulation of the internet is reserved to the UK Government, but my officials continue to liaise with it on relevant aspects of the Crime and Policing Bill, such as where it could block internet protocol addresses and things like that. Work is on-going between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on how we tackle that. In saying that, we could have a new challenge next week or the week after, but we are continuing to work on this.
What are your views on the estimated costs of the bill that are set out in the financial memorandum?
I think that I have touched on that. I have concerns that they are not realistic. We need to have more detail, especially with regard to the support aspect of the bill. I do not know how much that would cost; I think that the suggestion is that the money would come from the funds for the equally safe strategy, which have already been allocated. The member must supply more detail if we are to work out how much the bill will cost. We want legislation to be affordable and workable.
Based on the Scottish Government’s existing strategic work to tackle prostitution, approximately how much could the Scottish Government dedicate to delivering assistance and support?
At the moment, we have committed just under £22 million through the equally safe fund in this financial year. That money is fully allocated to support services and so on. We have also funded a secondment to Police Scotland in relation to operation begonia.
Earlier, you said that the right to support is not defined or fully costed. You also told us that substantial amendments to the bill would be required, and that there would need to be significant consultation. You have said that you have a neutral stance on the bill, although you agree with its aims. However, you have also said that there is not enough parliamentary time to get the necessary amendments through. Is it the case that the Government is supportive of the aims of the bill but is not minded to support it in this parliamentary session?
We are supportive of the aims of the bill but, as I said, we need more detail. I am concerned about the timeframe. If the bill had been introduced a year earlier, there could have been time to deal with it. However, there are only 16 weeks left in this session. The cabinet secretary’s Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and my Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill were fully scrutinised. Some 600 amendments were lodged at stage 2 of my bill, and it took a long time to get the bill into a form that could be passed by the Parliament. All I am saying is that the bill that is before us is not a simple piece of legislation. The issues are complex. We are dealing with people’s lives here, and I feel that the bill needs more scrutiny. However, it will be up to the Parliament to decide on that.
Good morning. I want to raise the issue of so-called brothel keeping, which is not addressed in the bill. We have heard from sex workers that the current situation makes them considerably less safe because they cannot work together. Are you aware of that concern? Is there any way around the current provision that would keep the women safe?
We need to consider the existing policies and legislation in the area of tackling exploitation, and the issue that you raise is one that has been highlighted in that regard. Sex for rent—indeed, any exchange of sex for accommodation—is exploitation. Local authorities have powers relating to housing and engagement with sexual exploitation, but these issues need more consideration and consultation. I know that officials are working with Police Scotland and the short-term accommodation sector on ways of raising awareness of sexual exploitation—I think that everyone is familiar with that work, which I know will continue into next year. Jeff Gibbons can elaborate on what is being done in that regard.
I can confirm that we have discussed with Police Scotland the operation of the existing legislation and related challenges around that, particularly with regard to short-term lets. It is part of the broader discussion that we have been having with Police Scotland about what legislative change might be required to support the on-going work in this area. As the minister suggested, we would look to bring something forward in that regard once we are in a position to ascertain what the scope of the legislative ask might be. There is an issue about our ability to respond to changing circumstances through legislation, which can mean that we are always catching up in particular areas, and we have to look at novel ways of addressing issues as well.
We are certainly aware of the issue that you raise, and it is part of our on-going discussions.
I know that a lot of work is being done on organised crime and human trafficking. Is that all part of the work that is being done in relation to brothels?
Yes. It goes back to the previous discussion around support networks. We are taking a holistic approach. It sounds like a cliché, but we are working across service providers in government, nationally and locally, which is a challenge because work in this area has not been as joined up as it could have been, which is one of the broader issues. That has certainly been a challenge internationally, because, although money has been provided, there has not been that linkage. We are doing exactly the same with regard to bringing together the human trafficking strategy and the serious organised crime strategy as we are doing in relation to support services. It is very much a focal point.
To go back briefly to women’s safety in relation to online business, if the customers are criminalised, they will not give details that would enable women to screen them as part of their safety measures. Also, if they feel that they cannot give their personal details, especially now that most business is online, how on earth could they be detected and prosecuted? That is an issue that has been overlooked, and the bill absolutely fails to address it. I do not think that there is enough emphasis on the way that the landscape in terms of sex work has changed. Would you agree with that?
I have raised those concerns previously. There is an evolving world online. We face challenges today that we did not face a decade ago, and there will be new challenges in 10 years’ time. When the Nordic model was introduced in Sweden in 1999, the online business that we have now did not exist, so that was not taken into consideration. It is a huge worry that we have to be on top of these days.
Good morning, minister. As others have noted, you have said that you agree with the principle in the bill of criminalising the buying of sex and that you do not agree with the quashing of offences, which are two of the main aspects of the bill. The bill partly meets the Government’s position, but you have concerns, which you have outlined. My question is quite a general one. How do we square that circle, and is there anything that the committee can do to help?
What I am trying to ask, if I can be blunt, is whether you and the Government are open to suggestions that the committee will come up with in the stage 1 report on a cross-party basis. I emphasise that it would be on a cross-party basis, because I feel that this is very much a non-party-political issue. Is that something that the Government is open to?
Yes, and the Scottish Government will remain neutral ahead of the stage 1 report. We want to hear the committee’s views and recommendations after its evidence sessions, and I am looking forward to listening to the member in charge to see how she is going to address all the issues that have been raised. It is important to listen to all the evidence in order to see how the legislation can be adapted to ensure that it works and gains support. I am happy to consider what the committee recommends.
Thank you, minister; that is reassuring. One of the concerns that I have is that we continue to go back over this area again and again. We have heard from those with lived experience on both sides of the argument that they are tired of having to continually come in, speak to politicians and defend their position one way or the other, whether they want to continue to have the right to sex work or whether they are against it and they want to see the bill passed. I am therefore concerned that a new approach might feel like starting again.
It is probably too early to ask, because we are at stage 1 and you have a neutral position, but how confident are you that the Government could take this forward—in other words, safely criminalise the buying of sex without continually having to revisit the issue—in a new parliamentary session? Has that crossed your mind?
10:30
I cannot commit to it being done in the next parliamentary session—that would be up to the new Government. However, as I have said, we have never ruled out legislation. It is just about how we get it right. It might be quite traumatic for some of the women, whether they are for or against such legislation, to bravely give their evidence, but we need their voice at the table if we move forward with it, given all the complex issues, including how to deal with past convictions. That does not necessarily mean that they would have to give evidence in front of the public, on television and in front of committees—it could be in private sessions. I would want their voice at the table, because I want to hear from people with lived experience on how we can move forward with the best legislation. I hope that the process would not be as traumatic as having to give evidence to committees.
I have one final question. I appreciate that the question is as much for the member in charge of the bill as it is for you. In fairness, I will ask it to the member in charge next week, if somebody else does not do so beforehand. What discussions have the Government and the member in charge had as the bill has progressed or in its earlier stages? Have there been any discussions at that level to try to square the circle, as I mentioned earlier?
We had a few meetings in the initial stages with Ms Regan, in which I raised quashing and the detail about support that I raised with you. Ms Regan thought it was up to the Scottish Government to provide that detail, but it is not; it is a member’s bill, so it is up to the member to provide the detail and for everyone to scrutinise it. As I said, if I proposed a Scottish Government bill, I would expect scrutiny, and people would be asking me questions on detail. We have gone forward with the evidence sessions, but I have not had any requests for a meeting recently.
I have a further question in relation to the potential new criminal offence. Do you agree that the central issue for this committee and for the Scottish Government is whether criminalising paying for sex is the right thing to do for society and the women involved? Do you agree that the issues around the difficulty of prosecution that were raised in evidence to the committee are very similar to those around other offences, such as rape and sexual offences, given the nature of those offences and this potential offence?
Yes. As I said in my opening statement, we are supportive of the principle, but it is about how we do it and that we get it right.
There are very low conviction rates for rape, but nobody suggests that that means it should be decriminalised. Do you agree that the central issue is whether the act should be a criminal offence?
Yes.
I will ask a further question. You said that you cannot make a commitment to carrying the bill over to the next parliamentary session. However, surely the Scottish National Party Government should be making a commitment about what it would do in that session. If you take the view that there is simply not enough time to advance the bill in this session and that that time genuinely cannot be found, because of the amount of work that would be involved and because there are so many other bills—I have a member’s bill myself—surely you should be making the case that this issue should be allowed to be carried over to the next parliamentary session? Is your role not to try to advance the bill as far as possible in this parliamentary session and, if, in March, the Parliament is genuinely in a position where the bill cannot be enacted, to make the case for carrying it over?
I do not think that it is my role to push a member’s bill forward as much as the Scottish Government can, because—
It is a policy position.
Yes, but I have raised concerns—there are elements that we agree with and elements that we want further detail on. It would be premature for me to be dismissive of Ms Regan’s bill at this stage and to say that we will commit to carrying it over into the next parliamentary session. I am not against doing that and would be happy to do so if the SNP were in government in the next session, but that commitment would have to come from the First Minister. However, I can commit that there will be on-going work on how we can legislate in the future is this bill does not pass.
My question is a follow on from the answer that you gave to my question about what types of substantial amendment would be required. Minister, you mentioned the type of assistance and support that should be provided for in the bill. There has been widespread support for on-going support and assistance for those who are involved in the selling of sex so that they are able to exit the selling of sex. It has not always been clear precisely what that should constitute, beyond its having to be available evenly across the country. I take the point that it is largely for the member in charge of the bill to answer about what is intended, but do you have any sense of what that support should look like—perhaps informed by the support that is available through operation begonia, for example?
I have an associated question. We all understand that the provision would be predicated on trying to get women out of the selling of sex. However, a perspective has been articulated—including by those who oppose the bill and by one or two people who have given evidence who support the bill—that support should be available for those who are not immediately leaving the sale of sex. Do you agree with that as well?
I do. We need more detail—one of the provisions in the bill is to support women who leave Scotland, and I want to have more detail on how long that would be for after those women leave Scotland. It is important that we get the detail of the costings.
Presumably it is not only the costings, but the specifics of what is intended.
Yes. We need detail of the specific support as well.
I am sure that we will pursue that with Ms Regan when she gives us evidence.
Earlier, in response to Sharon Dowey, the minister expressed her concern that there was insufficient time to get the bill through, and she prayed in aid two other bills. This bill has 11 sections, one of which is the short title. The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, as drafted, had 72 sections plus schedules, and the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill had 93 sections and three schedules. It is my view that the Government has form: if it wants to get something through, it will. I note that we will now sit in February—we will not take a February recess—to ensure proper scrutiny of all the legislation going through.
Can the minister clarify why she thinks that this bill cannot be properly dealt with over the next 18 weeks? If that is about consultation—as she has alluded to—who has not been consulted?
I appreciate the different numbers of sections in the different bills. When I said that I had concerns about it, I was alluding to the fact that, when we have evidence sessions, it is up to the Government or to private members to come back and say how they will address that evidence. A lot of issues have been raised during the evidence sessions.
I do not agree that the Scottish Government will just put legislation through. We take our time and listen to members. I hope that the member in charge will do that as well with her private member’s bill.
I have genuine concerns about the parliamentary timetable. We are all aware of the number of members’ bills and Scottish Government bills that we are currently try to put through in the next 16 weeks—you said it was 18 weeks, but I counted 16.
I asked a question earlier regarding the provision in the bill to repeal section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which relates to the offence of criminalising street prostitution. You gave a helpful response and indicated that you could perhaps offer more detail on that. We have a little bit of time in hand, so I would like to come back to that point. Could you expand on your previous response?
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.
We have a bit of time, and I would be quite interested in that.
That is fine.
Even in the unlikely scenario where a section 46 offence was deemed relevant by the police for the purposes of a level 2 PVG—protecting vulnerable groups—scheme disclosure, the individual would have the right to request a review of that or other relevant information before it is disclosed to an employer. Inclusion of such information is subject to a statutory test.
I need to reiterate that the new Police Scotland approach prioritises women’s safety and routing them to support, as opposed to criminalising them, and convictions for such an offence are therefore less likely to be accrued, given the general policing approach to such behaviour. I can provide further information on that. The same approach applies if an individual is asked by someone, for example, an employer, to self-declare their convictions. A section 46 conviction does not need to be self-declared once it is spent, regardless of the time of disclosure or the role. A system of disregards could be considered, which would introduce a process whereby convictions could be removed entirely from ever having to be disclosed in the criminal records check. However, that would have to be developed for the bill. It could be considered, but it is not something that we have been doing any work on. That would have to be for the member in charge.
A level 2 PVG disclosure, which is commonly referred to as a “PVG scheme”, is a legal requirement for people in a regulated role with children or protected adults, such as a teacher, a nursery or day-care worker, a volunteer, a childminder, a social worker, a doctor, a dentist, a sports coach or an adult care-home worker. A PVG scheme shows any unspent convictions, certain spent convictions, any notification requirements, unspent cautions and other relevant information that is held by the police. Those who are on a barred list for work with children or adults or who are under consideration for inclusion on the barred list for work with children or protected adults, or who have been served any prescribed civil court order, are members of the protecting vulnerable groups scheme, and members of the PVG scheme are subject to continuous monitoring in that situation.
I can move on to level 2 from the barred list check. Do you want me to keep going, convener?
I think that we have got the gist of it. I was not expecting quite that amount of detail—but that is helpful. The committee has been made aware that, while it might not quite be a pick and mix, some legislation is utilised while some of it is not. I am thinking about how we might consolidate a lot of it, with consideration to the provisions of the bill. I am interested in what legislation exists already and what the thinking is around the future of that existing legislation—and in how it would work alongside the provisions of the bill, should it be enacted. That was a helpful update.
We have a wee bit of time, and I do not know whether any other committee members want to come in. If not, I invite Ash Regan to speak at this point.
10:45
Good morning. Operation begonia is the utilisation by the police and the Government of the existing laws that we have on prostitution, which we have had for some time. It seems to be working very well. Although we have laws that criminalise sex buying, such as the kerb crawling legislation, that is only able to target somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent of the whole market of prostitution. As the minister has picked up, prostitution has changed over the past few years and most prostitution is now happening off-street—so, indoors, in various different settings.
If the Scottish Government recognises that prostitution is balanced against women and girls—which the minister has done for more than 10 years and has repeated here today—that off-street prostitution now constitutes around 80 or 90 per cent of the prostitution market, and that no laws at all exist to combat the violence that the Government has said that it does not agree with, then surely this is a good opportunity for the Government to work with and support me to get the bill into law. That way, we can address the violence that the Government says that it is opposed to.
One of the things that the member has acknowledged is the increase in online prostitution. If it is 80 per cent now—
Not online, but off-street prostitution—indoors.
Our discussions with Police Scotland and the Crown Office are about how the legislation would work operationally. That is where we need more detail, and we will be happy to listen to that detail as you come back from stage 1.
I will press the minister here. You said that you support the principle of challenging demand and that you are opposed to violence against women; I have pointed out that there are no laws prohibiting that violence whatsoever. If we can get the bill into a position where the Government is happy with it, will the Government support and work with me to get it into law?
It is a member’s bill—it is your bill—so you will be doing the work to do that. However, I am happy to have conversations with you. As I said, we now have 16 weeks to go. I have several member’s bills and Government bills to get through in the next 16 weeks, so I do not have a team at the moment that could work specifically with you or any member to get their bill through. However, if you lodge amendments yourself, we will definitely consider it.
As Liam Kerr very effectively pointed out, this is quite a short bill, so I would imagine that there would not be anything like the number of amendments that we have seen on other bills that have gone through the Parliament recently.
Survivors have given evidence to the committee. The Casey report into grooming gangs, which the United Kingdom Government commissioned, recommended the removal of prostitution convictions for those who have been exploited in prostitution. Scotland’s justice agencies echoed that recommendation very strongly when they gave evidence to the committee—in their view, it is very important that Scotland send a message that women should not be criminalised, and that that message be updated in law and not only in practice.
The minister has raised concerns in relation to the quashing aspect, and she is quite right to say that we have already had a discussion in private about the issue. I am very open to looking at other ways in which those convictions could effectively be removed, not by the process of quashing but perhaps by another system—a pardons and disregards-type system, perhaps, which would achieve the policy aims but do so in a way that the Government would be more comfortable with.
The fact that the Government supports the principle of criminalising the buyer and not the women surely shows that the Government supports the majority of the bill. Would our coming to an arrangement that suits the Government—perhaps on pardons and disregards—satisfy it and allow it to support the bill?
I would have to see the detail. At this stage, I am staying neutral and will not commit the Government to supporting the bill. Once I have the detail, I will consider it.
Okay. Thank you.
I think that Rona Mackay wants to come in with a final question.
Ms Regan, you acknowledged at the start of your questioning of the minister that so much of sex work is now off-street, indoors or online. Your bill, as it stands, reflects that. You said that the bill would be enforceable and workable with the detail in its sections—
Ash Regan is due to come into committee next week, so that might be the opportunity to ask her that question.
That is fine.
There are no more questions, so we will draw this session to a close. Thank you very much, minister and officials, for joining us today. We will suspend for a few minutes to allow our changeover of witnesses.
10:50 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance