Local Government and Transport Committee, 03 Oct 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 3, 2006

Official Report 271KB pdf

---

Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Agenda item 3 is stage 1 consideration of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill. Our first group of witnesses is from the Scottish Executive. I welcome Alison Douglas, who is head of the corporate killing and prostitution team, and Patrick Down, who is part of that team. As normal, I will ask them to make introductory remarks, after which we will move on to questions and answers.

Perhaps I can start by explaining the context for the bill. The Local Government Committee in the first session of the Parliament considered Margo MacDonald's member's bill—the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill—following which it asked the Executive to examine the issue of street prostitution more broadly. The Executive set up an expert group, of which Ms MacDonald was a member. The group reported in December 2004.

The report included proposals for amending the existing soliciting offence under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The Executive put the group's report out to consultation, which closed in April 2005. We then issued our response in November 2005 and made two commitments. One was to amend the existing soliciting offence and introduce a new gender-neutral offence, which would apply to both sellers and purchasers of sexual services and bring the purchaser into the picture for the first time.

It was decided that an objective test should be introduced, which would make it unnecessary for a complaint to be made. Although the expert group had suggested that there might be a number of possible models, the responses that the Executive received to its consultation made it clear that an objective test would be more effective.

As a result, a commitment was made to introduce new legislation that would repeal section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which is on offences related to soliciting and importuning by prostitutes. In addition, guidance will be issued to local authorities and their community planning partners on how to deal with street prostitution at a local level to acknowledge the fact that, in Scotland's four major cities, the picture of the number of people involved in these activities and where they take place is rather disparate.

Patrick Down will explain the bill's provisions in more detail.

As Alison Douglas has outlined, the bill covers prostitution activity in public places and replaces the existing provisions in section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 with offences that apply to people who purchase and sell sex.

The bill makes it an offence to loiter or solicit for prostitution-related purposes

"in such a manner or in such circumstances as … to be likely to cause alarm, offence or nuisance"

to "a reasonable person". I should point out that the terms "loiter" and "solicit" are used to describe the actions of both purchaser and seller.

With an objective test, there will be no need for a member of the public to be caused actual nuisance, offence or alarm. Instead, the test is whether the offence will

"be likely to cause alarm, offence or nuisance"

to "a reasonable person" who might witness it.

There are two reasons for such an approach. First, if another test were applied, people might be reluctant to complain for fear of being intimidated. Secondly, the objective test will enable the police to enforce the legislation in practice. After all, we cannot rely on the prospect of an individual always being present to be caused nuisance, offence or alarm, even though, given the areas where such activities take place and the activities themselves, that is quite likely to happen.

The offences apply in what are termed relevant places, which in the bill cover public places and other places that other people would think of as such—even though, in a strict sense, they are not. For example, the term covers any place to which the public would usually have access

"whether on payment or otherwise",

which includes theme parks, nightclubs and football grounds. The bill covers public transport separately because, strictly speaking, although buses and trains are generally regarded as public, they are not places.

In contrast with the loitering offence, the soliciting offence also applies explicitly to motor vehicles and to any

"place which is visible from"

a public place. If someone were to solicit for the purposes of prostitution or purchasing sex from a window from which they could be seen from the street, from a driveway just off the street or from a car being driven down the street, they would be committing an offence. However, the loitering offence applies only in relevant places.

I should also point out that hire cars are specifically exempted from the loitering offence. Although hire cars are a form of public transport, they are much more analogous to private cars, to which the soliciting offence applies. If someone parks or drives around slowly supposedly for the intention of obtaining a prostitute's services, the loitering offence will not apply.

Given that these are only low-level summary offences, the maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale, which is currently £500. We are encouraging the use of alternative rehabilitative disposals, as outlined in the Executive's response to the expert group. However, that is not a matter for the bill, because such disposals might apply to a range of offences.

Section 2 gives police constables a specific power of arrest in relation to these offences over and above the general common-law power of the police. That is because the police tell us that nowadays they prefer to have statutory powers of arrest to clarify their powers in relation to individual offences.

Thank you for those introductory remarks. We will move on to questions. Margo MacDonald is here; I am happy to allow her to ask questions, but I will take the committee members' questions first.

Section 1 is concerned with the sellers and purchasers of sexual services. Section 1(6) says:

"No offence under subsection (4)",

which is on loitering,

"is committed by B if B is in a motor vehicle which is not public transport."

I cannot find anything in the explanatory notes about section 1(6). Are you saying that the loitering offence for which someone can be arrested under the special powers in section 2 is not applicable to someone in a motor vehicle?

Both the loitering offence and the soliciting offence are applicable in principle to the purchaser and the seller. I was not sure whether you understood that. There is no distinction between purchaser and seller; both offences of soliciting and loitering can be committed by a purchaser or a seller.

Section 1(6) clearly says that no offence is committed by an individual if that individual is in a motor vehicle.

Our lawyers have told us that an offence of loitering cannot be committed by an individual in a private motor vehicle.

Soliciting is currently an offence.

Only in relation to the seller.

I thought that the bill was meant to address the imbalance and criminalise the purchaser of sexual services as well, but it will not do that if he is in a car.

It is important to understand that it is possible for a purchaser to solicit. It has often been understood that soliciting is the act of approaching someone in order to sell sexual services, but it is possible to solicit someone to purchase their sexual services.

However, you are correct that under the bill, it will not be possible to prosecute someone in a vehicle for loitering. There is a technical reason for that, but there is also a practical reason, which is that it would be difficult to prove the intent of someone driving round the streets. That was raised as a particular issue in Glasgow, where one of the main areas for soliciting is in an area where people come and go 24 hours a day to work in call centres or to pick family members up from work, for example. Therefore, it would be difficult to prove that people who might be driving around an area slowly or sitting in a stationary car intended to buy sex. There would have to be an approach from somebody in a vehicle—in other words, soliciting behaviour—in order for an offence to be committed.

I stress that I am using my imagination here, but I understand from what I have read and seen on television that when prostitution takes place it normally involves a guy in a car going round an area. Is dealing with such behaviour not the whole purpose of the bill?

The minute that they solicit from the vehicle they are potentially committing an offence.

But the bill says that no offence is committed if an individual is in a motor vehicle.

No offence is committed under section 1(4), which is the loitering offence. The soliciting offence applies to people operating from a motor vehicle; however, on the loitering offence, we decided that it was not really possible to get evidence of somebody in a motor vehicle loitering for the purposes of prostitution.

So section 1(1) is not just about the seller of sexual services; it is about the purchaser as well.

That is the point I was trying to explain. Soliciting can be done by either the purchaser or the seller. Traditionally, people have understood that soliciting meant that the seller was soliciting somebody. However, the definition of "solicit" covers the purchaser as well as the seller.

I am pursuing this point because I think that it is important. Section 1(1) is not just about the seller but about the purchaser of sexual services. What you are saying is that somebody can solicit from a car.

Somebody may solicit to purchase sex or to sell sex.

I understand that entirely, which is why I am asking what the point is of section 1(6), on the offence of loitering.

Because people may be causing a nuisance by loitering on the street or in a relevant place—

If you are saying that section 1(1) is sufficient to catch both the purchaser and seller of sexual services, why do you need a further provision?

There are two different types of behaviour: soliciting and loitering.

I am still not clear about that but perhaps I shall come back to it.

I have a supplementary question that follows on closely from Mike Rumbles's question. I think that I am clear about the issue of someone being in a motor vehicle—the example that you gave was of someone quite innocently picking up a family member or friend. However, I do not understand section 1(5), which says:

"For the purposes of subsection (4) it is immaterial whether or not B is on public transport."

I do not quite grasp how someone who is on a bus or a train could be described as loitering. How could you ascertain whether someone was loitering with the intention of purchasing sexual services if they were on a bus or a train?

We would have to agree that such a scenario would be pretty unlikely, but we did not want to rule it out.

In all our previous discussions on the issue and Margo MacDonald's Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill, the debate tended to focus on the relationship between a man and a woman, with the woman being the prostitute. For clarity, is any distinction made in the bill for male prostitutes?

None whatever.

To continue Mike Rumbles's line of questioning, driving round slowly in cars in an area where prostitutes are known to operate is commonly regarded as kerb crawling, and such conduct is regarded as offensive. Correct me if I am wrong but, as I understand it, if someone is simply driving slowly round an area looking at prostitutes and perhaps establishing themselves as a potential buyer of sexual services, that is not an offence under the bill.

An offence requires an approach to be made.

Driving around slowly, or kerb crawling, which almost certainly establishes the driver as a potential customer in the eyes of a prostitute, is not an offence.

An offence is committed the moment that the person stops the car and winds down the window or flashes their lights as a signal.

Let us say that a person drives around the block three or four times and establishes himself as a potential customer. Then he pulls over to the kerb adjacent to an apparent prostitute who is on the street and winds down the window. If he says nothing after winding down the window, but the woman approaches him and says, "Are you interested?"—or whatever is said in such transactions—am I right in thinking that he has not done any soliciting? All he has done is wind down the window.

I would not like to give a definitive answer, but it is at least arguable that the act of winding down the window, following which the woman might get into the car, is almost proof that he is soliciting, albeit tacitly.

That seems bizarre. You are saying that there cannot be an offence of loitering when someone drives around in a car because intent cannot be proved, but how can you prove intent from someone pressing a button to wind down their window? The person might be asking for directions. I presume that in such a situation, the soliciting is done by the woman who approaches the driver.

Let me go back to my example. The driver has established himself as a potential customer by crawling round the block a few times. He then pulls in opposite a woman whom he believes to be a prostitute and the soliciting is then done by the woman—assuming that it is a female prostitute rather than a male one. The offence will almost certainly have been committed by her because all the driver has done is wind down the window. If there can be no offence of loitering because intent cannot be proved, why is soliciting an offence when intent cannot be proved?

We recognise that there are evidential issues. In most situations the person who is selling sexual services is on the street and involved in a greater number of transactions. Therefore, it is inevitable that they are more likely to be prosecuted.

However, an important purpose of the legislation is to send a deterrent message to individuals who go out to purchase sex. For the first time, we are trying to bring the purchaser into the picture, notwithstanding that there might be challenges in proving a case.

You say that there are evidential issues with soliciting from a car, although that is to be an offence. There are also evidential issues to do with loitering in a car, but that will not be an offence. Is that not what you are saying?

The evidential issues in relation to loitering are greater. It is worth bearing in mind that although the term "kerb crawling" is used colloquially, the English kerb-crawling legislation criminalises soliciting from a motor vehicle for the purposes of obtaining the services of a prostitute. I dare say that there are frequent evidential difficulties, but convictions are obtained under that legislation.

But if you want to go around sending messages rather than having properly framed laws, would it not send a better message to the public about the unacceptability of kerb-crawling if, notwithstanding the evidential difficulties, you said that loitering from a car was an offence? That might be evidentially difficult to prove in the same way as proving soliciting from a car might be evidentially difficult, but surely the message should be that, in Scotland, we disapprove of kerb-crawling. We could make loitering illegal in the same way as soliciting and then deal with the evidential problems according to the circumstances of the offence.

There is a significant difference in contact between loitering and soliciting. Contact must be made for soliciting to be proven. You are saying that simply driving slowly around an area could be tantamount to the commission of an offence.

What about loitering by the seller? You say that walking slowly up and down a street for an hour or so is tantamount to committing an offence. Is that not what loitering is?

A person must be causing nuisance—that is the public order element that is relevant to individuals who are on the street.

So you would say that a greater nuisance is caused to the public by a prostitute—male or female—walking slowly up and down a street for an hour or so than by somebody cruising around the block four or five times in a car.

A combination of factors is involved. The bill uses the phrase

"in such a manner or in such circumstances",

which might bring in evidence about the purpose of somebody's activity. Evidentially, it is easier to prove the intent when somebody is on the street.

I do not doubt for a moment that intent in such circumstances might be easier to prove evidentially, but the point that Mr Rumbles and I are getting at is that the bill is supposed to be neutral and balanced, so it is curious that it says that one of the activities that people complain about most, which kerb-crawling undoubtedly is, is not an offence. Does not the bill say in effect that what we commonly regard as kerb-crawling is not an offence?

Kerb-crawling could be taken to mean approaching people or calling out to them from a vehicle.

Most people regard it as cruising around rather than calling out, because most cruisers know that the minute they slow down, they will have all the solicitations they need and will therefore not commit an offence.

I understand the point about excluding loitering if someone is in a car, because somebody who is perfectly innocent might be picking up a family member, for example. However, could not the offence be worded such that a person's defence could be that they were picking up a family member from a call centre, for example? The police could check whether that person was related to them, was working in that call centre and was due to finish work.

We considered that option, but we were advised that it might have European convention on human rights implications.

Margo MacDonald's member's bill would have introduced tolerance zones. Has any of its provisions on tolerance zones been incorporated in the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill?

The offences in the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill apply anywhere and their application is not intended to be suspended in tolerance zones or other areas.

So we can be unequivocal that no element of tolerance zones is included in the bill and that the Executive has no plans to introduce proposals on tolerance zones.

That is correct.

For clarity, the Executive has rejected any idea of tolerance zones.

The expert group concluded that tolerance zones were not the appropriate route to go down. That was reflected in the consultation and the Executive was unequivocal on that point.

The bill proposes imposing a fine that does not exceed level 2. How was level 2 chosen?

That is simply the same fine level as applies to the soliciting offence at section 46 of the 1982 act.

Should the buyer be subject to a separate tariff that is higher than that for the seller?

The fine is a maximum, so there is some discretion for the courts.

The Executive has said clearly that it will introduce an element of enforcement for buyers. Why is the fine set at the same level as for sellers? Was that decision made simply to ensure parity? How did you go about making it? Why should the fine not be set at level 3 or above?

We thought that level 2 was appropriate because we are dealing with a low-level public order offence. Patrick Down alluded to the fact that we will encourage the courts to consider alternative disposals, where available. We want to address the underlying issues for sellers, such as drug addiction. There are also diversions from prosecution. A Sacro project in Edinburgh is trying to divert women away from prosecution. Kerb-crawler diversion schemes have been set up by police forces in England and Wales to re-educate men who have been caught kerb-crawling, instead of prosecuting them.

The point that I am trying to make is that we are dealing with two different offender profiles. A significant percentage of sellers are likely to have problems with drug addiction. I argue that the profile of buyers is different. Why is the tariff for both buyers and sellers the same? Should not buyers be subject to a different tariff, to send out a message and to ensure that there is no market for sellers? If we want to send out that message, should not we ramp up the tariff that is imposed on buyers?

This is a public order offence. The aim is to protect communities from the nuisance that is associated with prostitution-related behaviour. The intention is to strike a balance for the first time between purchasers and sellers. The Crown Office and the courts will deal with individual cases on their merits.

How will repeated offenders be dealt with? If someone commits 10 offences, will they just come back to court repeatedly to be fined? I am talking about buyers, rather than sellers.

I am not sure how the courts will deal with repeat offenders. The only disposal that is available is a fine.

So someone with a significant income could have to pay 10 fines of up to £500, but there would be no other deterrent. Is there no possibility of imprisonment or something similar for persistent offenders?

The deterrent for the purchaser is not the fine per se but the stigma that is associated with being convicted of an offence of this nature. Prosecutors take into consideration the impact on individuals' families of their having been convicted of purchasing the services of a prostitute and the fact that some people have lost their jobs as a result.

The courts have a general power, in addition to any other punishment that they impose, to disqualify from driving any convicted offender where the use of a vehicle is in some way connected to the crime. In England and Wales, that power has been used for repeat offenders in relation to kerb-crawling. I see no reason in principle for the same not to be done here, if the bill is passed and there is a specific offence that criminalises kerb-crawling.

I want to pursue the line of questioning that Mr Rumbles and Mr McLetchie embarked upon. I return to the example of the kerb-crawling man, circling in his car. Characteristically, such a man circles around town late at night; the pattern is one of slowing down before circling again. Surely the bill could provide for that. Let us say that someone is charged for driving a car in that way, goes before the court, and is found, on evidence, to be guilty. That person will have a bit of explaining to do, as that is not the way in which someone normally drives a car. I can see no innocent purpose that is readily consistent with driving a vehicle in that way, late at night. The convener mentioned the example of someone saying that they had been picking up a family member. In those circumstances, the family member could easily support the driver's version of events.

I suggest that it may be possible to use the rebuttable presumption standard, the usage of which is quite common in statutory offences such as bankruptcy offences, which I used to deal with in the courts. If that standard were used, a driver who was charged with kerb crawling because he had been circling around and slowing down—in other words, there was evidence that met the standard of proof that is required in criminal cases—would be presumed to be guilty of the crime unless he was able to rebut the presumption by transference of the burden of proof. His defence would be that he was picking up his granny or whoever and he would have to rebut the presumption by proving that that was the case.

I am familiar with the rebuttable presumption method, which is applied routinely to behaviour that most ordinary people would perceive to be consistent with guilt. We are talking about behaviour that would be described as being consistent with innocence only in circumstances that most people would consider to be pretty unlikely. Have you considered that method of draftsmanship? If you have discarded the concept, why did you do so?

As I think I mentioned, we explored whether we could place a reverse burden of proof. We were advised that that could raise ECHR implications.

What implications?

We were advised of the potential, by requiring someone to prove that they were there for a legitimate purpose, for compromising their right of being innocent until proven guilty.

That is merely a restatement of what you said previously; it does not answer the question. If the European convention on human rights states that this device cannot be used, it would not be used in other areas of criminal law. In bankruptcy law, someone who does not disclose his assets to his trustee will be found guilty of an offence unless he can prove that there was a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Why is the device acceptable for some criminal statutory offences but not for this one? I cannot understand how it can contravene the ECHR.

In rejecting Fergus Ewing's proposal, your defence seems to be the reverse of the position the Government takes with regard to people who are caught by speed cameras: someone will be convicted of an offence if they do not disclose who the driver of the car was at the time the car was caught on camera.

I am not an expert on ECHR; we can return to the committee with a more detailed explanation. My understanding is that questions of proportionality are involved, in that whereas it might be judged appropriate to require a reverse burden of proof for a more serious offence, the offence under the bill is a low-level public order offence. The advice that we have been given is that, on balance, what has been suggested would not be appropriate for the bill.

Saying that a person who wants to buy sex from a prostitute commits a low-level offence whereas a person who is speeding commits, presumably, a high-level offence seems a very strange value judgment. It seems plain wrong, but I appreciate that you have not come here as a lawyer. Frankly, we have not had anything remotely approaching a proper explanation of the matter. Although that is not your fault, the legal advisers who drafted the bill have lamentably failed to create a balance between the prostitute and the buyer. It seems to me that the punter will escape scot-free time and again. That is not what we want. As a committee we want—perhaps I am speaking prematurely; it is what I want—the punter to be made a criminal and stopped. The bill would not do that.

I also want to raise a general point of principle. It has been suggested that the offence under section 1 relates to public disorder. That does not seem appropriate. In many cases, a transaction is undertaken of which the public will know nothing. If there is a disorder, the public are not aware of it. In some cases a great deal of nuisance might be experienced by people if the transaction takes place in a residential area, but in many cases the problem is not that there will be a breach of the peace, a nuisance or a disorder but that a transaction will take place in which a man buys sex. From that point of view, is not the whole concept of the bill misconstrued?

You said that the bill's aim is to change the balance between the prostitute and the punter, but it will not do that because the Executive has approached the matter from the wrong standpoint. If we are to create that balance, surely we must make it absolutely clear that the crime is a man buying sex from a prostitute. Forget the disorder—it may, or may not, be a component of the offence. The offence should be simple: the punter who crawls around in his car and acts in a way that, in the vast majority of cases, is inconsistent with any explanation other than that of seeking to buy sex should be criminalised. Would it not be better for the Executive to redraft in that way the whole basis of the offence?

The question raises a profound issue of policy. I will give a factual response: the expert group did not recommend that the purchase of sex should be criminalised, it was not the majority opinion among respondents to the consultation exercise, and it is not the Executive's policy. That is all I can say on that point.

Fergus Ewing might want to pursue the issue with the minister.

I want to focus on the balance between purchaser and seller, which is the Executive's policy objective in the bill and which I believe is absolutely the correct approach. As far as I can see, the bill redresses the balance, in practice and in theory, on the offence of soliciting. Anyone—whether man or woman—who solicits in a public place will be guilty of an offence. That is clear. However, although it is clear that, in both practice and theory, it will be an offence for a seller to loiter with intent in a public place, there will not be a similar balance for the purchaser because of section 1(6). In practice—so we are told—such people go around in a motor vehicle. As David McLetchie said, if we want to end kerb crawling, which is what I thought we wanted to do, section 1(6) should be removed from the bill. If that subsection was removed, we would have balance in both theory and practice.

I am in danger of repeating the points that I made earlier. I am not sure that I have anything useful to add.

We can put the point to the minister.

The bill focuses on prostitution in public places but the offences are defined as being in relation to any relevant place. What is your understanding of the limits of that definition? I am thinking about the nuisance that can be caused to the public by so-called massage parlours and other sorts of brothels. Are they covered by the bill?

They are not covered by the bill. The expert group's report specifically looked at street prostitution. The intention was to take a phased approach to the wider issue of prostitution. We wanted to make the first phase manageable, which is why we focused on street activity. There is further work to be done with regard to indoor prostitution and trafficking.

Margo Macdonald might want to comment at this point. I ask you not to say too much, Margo, as we will be hearing from you in a second.

Earlier, you said that you were influenced by the response to the consultation on the report that was produced by the expert—I hope you will excuse that expression—group and that your response was to change what had been a main plank of that report, which was that the new offence should be complaint led. Why did you make that change? From where I am sitting, that was an essential part of the dovetailing of the advice that was given to local authorities with the change in the law.

The expert group's report talks about a complaint-led offence, but it acknowledges that there are arguments on both sides about whether the test should be objective. In fact, of the three options that were identified, one has an explicitly objective test, one is based on a complaint with the courts being able to introduce an objective test and the third is based on an objective test. The expert group seemed more in favour of a complaint-led approach than having an objective test, although it recognised the merits of having an objective test. The group suggested that the issue could be explored in the consultation. Of those who expressed a preference for a particular model during the consultation process, the majority were in favour of the Scottish Law Commission's codification route, which uses an objective test. On balance, the Executive has been persuaded that the arguments that are in favour of an objective test are greater than the ones that are in favour of a complaint-led approach.

Convener, I seek your guidance, as I think you might prefer to question me on this point rather than have me question the officials. I can refer to the report that the expert group produced in order to explain why the complaint-led approach was decided on.

It would be best to deal with that when you are the witness.

That is what I thought.

Ms Douglas, would you agree that, in some ways, the lawyers have tried to come up with something that is perfect law—I say that with all due respect to the lawyers because, were I a lawyer, that is what I would try to do—whereas what we are trying to do is come up with a pragmatic response to a defined situation?

In Aberdeen, you do not find many complaints about kerb crawling, because of the location where sexual services are bought and sold; in Dundee, you do not find any problem with kerb crawling; in Edinburgh, you do not—or you did not—find that there were many complaints; but in Glasgow, because of the locations, there is a real problem. The bill has perhaps fallen between the two stools of creating perfect law and trying to find the solution to a real problem.

Is there something specific that you would like me to respond to?

Yes. As long as the convener does not mind, I would like you to talk about what happens in Glasgow. Two areas of Glasgow are affected. The east end concerns Michael Martin. I am sorry—I meant Paul, who does not look a bit like his father.

There is definite kerb crawling in the east end, and it is often kerb crawling of the tourist variety. People do not mean to purchase a service; they just want to be offensive or funny. According to the bill, if they are cruising along shouting obscenities—or what they would regard as great witticisms—they are not creating a nuisance unless they stop their car and approach a prostitute. But they do create a nuisance, and the bill was meant to tackle the nuisance that is experienced by the general public.

The Glasgow police are complaining that the bill would be very difficult to enforce. If it were enforced, it would be the seller—who is usually the female prostitute—who would be criminalised and who would bear the penalty. However, the situation I describe applies only in Glasgow. You have to take that into account when you try to come up with a perfect solution that fits all four cities. Do you agree?

Legislation is a tool; it would be up to local police to decide how to enforce it. In doing so, they would clearly take account of local circumstances. They have told us that the bill will provide them with another tool in the toolkit, to allow them to combat the nuisance associated with prostitution.

You spoke about people in vehicles who cause a nuisance but who do not intend to purchase sex. Even if the loitering component of the bill extended to people in cars, it would not extend to people who were, if you like, joy-riding. You might be talking about a more general driving offence.

I wonder how the measure would be implemented. If someone were cruising around in a car and then stopped for someone to get out, a policeman might come along and say, "You're nicked." But the driver could say, "Why? I was only letting him out of the car. Prove otherwise."

If someone is driving around as Ms MacDonald describes—slowing down and shouting obscenities to people in the street—surely that is prosecutable as a breach of the peace, under common law. No new act would be needed.

I agree with David McLetchie. The issue came up at the expert group. The majority opinion was that, to send out a message, we have to have a specific law. I do not think that that is a reason for having a law at all, but it was the majority opinion.

The power on dispersal zones can be used to prevent certain individuals from being in a vicinity for a certain period. Given that most of the issues are site specific, has the use of a measure to prevent individuals from being in an area at certain times been considered?

We did not consider including such a power in the bill, but the draft guidance on street prostitution that was published alongside the bill considers whether measures such as acceptable behaviour contracts could be used against people who have been identified as kerb crawlers, to prevent them from entering areas that are known for prostitution.

Would a conviction be needed to establish that a person was kerb crawling?

I cannot answer that off the top of my head.

We are starting to get into issues of policy, which may be best addressed to the minister, but I have one final question. Members of the committee are unclear about exactly what somebody would have to do to commit an offence under the bill, particularly if they intended to purchase sexual services. In your discussions with the police, have they been clear about what the intended law is and what someone would have to do to be arrestable, or have they raised concerns about how they will implement the proposed law?

We held a joint meeting with the police—including some with day-to-day responsibility on the matter and members of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland—and the Crown Office to consider some of the issues. As I mentioned earlier, issues about evidencing arise. Ultimately, what is regarded as nuisance will be for the courts to decide, but we can reasonably assume that persistent disruptive behaviour will be considered to be causing a nuisance. As I said, the bill uses the phrase

"in such a manner or in such circumstances",

which gives a reasonably wide net for evidencing. However, we accept that issues arise about proving the purposes for which somebody was soliciting or loitering. Some of those issues are inherent to the nature of the activity. We have tried to create an offence that will be as effective as possible in providing a means of tackling those nuisance behaviours.

That brings us to the end of our questions at this stage. I thank Alison Douglas and Patrick Down for their evidence. Some of the questions were getting a bit intense, but they were probably on issues that we will want to raise with the minister.

We continue our consideration of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill by taking evidence from Margo MacDonald, who, up until this point, has been a visiting member, but whom we now welcome as our final witness today. We have invited her to give evidence because she introduced a member's bill on prostitution and participated in the expert group. I should advise the committee that the chair of the expert group, Sandra Hood, was invited to attend as a witness, but she did not feel that, at this stage, she could represent the expert group's overall views on the bill, given that it has not met for some time.

Margo MacDonald is supported by her personal assistant, Mary Blackford, whom we welcome. I invite Margo to make some introductory remarks on the bill, which will be followed by questions and answers.

I think that the committee has already spotted the legal mistakes surrounding the Executive's desire to tackle prostitution. The notes that I have given the committee are brief because the introduction of the bill, which took place in the past few weeks, happened suddenly.

I feel that the bill and, to a greater extent, the policy memorandum depart from the spirit of what the expert group recommended, in that the group was conscious of the need to reconcile the duty of care that exists to two quite different groups—prostitutes and the general community. The general community has rights in that it should not have to put up with the nuisance that can be caused by prostitution, but prostitutes have rights as citizens in that they should not have to be put up with being abused and beaten up because they are prostitutes. I do not feel that the fact that the expert group tried to reconcile those two duties is reflected in the papers that accompany the bill.

Although the policy memorandum is not a legal document, it will be issued to local authorities and local agency partnerships on whom the Executive depends to implement the thrust of its strategy. I feel that it has not got it quite right in reconciling the two duties of care. Members of the committee may disagree, but I think that it is judgmental and punitive.

It is important to understand that two philosophies or ideologies operate in Scotland in relation to the treatment and care of prostitutes and the management of prostitution. Street prostitution exists only in the four main cities, but a different approach is adopted in each city. We are told that, in theory, there is a basic divide between a zero tolerance approach to prostitution and a more pragmatic view, the advocates of which argue that although they would like prostitution to end, until that comes about, they would like the same approach to be adopted to it as is adopted to drugs, which is that we should seek to reduce the harm that is done by the users of drugs and the effects that drug use has on the wider community.

My personal opinion—as I say, I cannot speak for the expert group—is that the Executive has been bedevilled by the attempt to recognise both those philosophical starting points. As a result, we have the sort of legal quagmire that the committee has highlighted. I hope that the main thrust of the expert group's recommendations become law. I leave it to the committee to decide whether the bill can be amended. There are amendments that I can imagine, but that is for the committee to decide having listened to the minister.

I want there to be a complaint-led procedure. The reason for that is more practical than philosophical. I will give an example. There are people who believe that the bill should send out a message that we disapprove of prostitution. If we want prostitution to be less intrusive on people's lives, we must consider how it would work if there was a non-complaint-led procedure. If that were the case, prostitutes would be able to ply their trade anywhere, as they would be treated by the law in exactly the same way as if they stood discreetly in a dark corner.

As the committee has shown, it is difficult to reconcile the one item of legal censure being used against prostitute and client; nevertheless, that is what the expert group tried to do. Without a complaint-led procedure, any prostitute standing anywhere could be arrested if the arresting officer decided that, if a member of the public had witnessed the prostitute simply standing there, that member of the public would have been alarmed, offended or have had a nuisance caused to them. That is what the bill says. That sends absolutely no message to the prostitute that she should be discreet about doing what she does.

If street prostitution is to continue, although we might not want it to continue, it requires to be managed in the interests of the wider community and the prostitutes themselves. However, the bill's provisions cannot dovetail with the way in which the four cities currently manage prostitution, by having acknowledged areas in which prostitution takes place. If the prostitute can be lifted anywhere, why would she go to a particular area? I see that as a disincentive to the better and safer management of prostitution.

I believe that street prostitution will continue residually for some time. You might ask why, as the evidence shows that, in Edinburgh and Dundee, the number of street prostitutes is falling and that, in Aberdeen, the number is either static or falling—it is only in Glasgow that the number of women on the streets appears to be increasing. I do not pretend to know all the reasons why there is street prostitution, but I am told that the anonymity and the thrill that are associated with it mean that there will continue to be a residue of street prostitution. If we do not have a recognised area in which those women work, and if we believe that there will be a residue of street prostitution, the women will find a place to hide in order to escape the new law. If they hide away, they are at much greater risk. There is also a much greater risk of add-on criminality associated with prostitution.

That is not theory; it has all been proved, and there is documentation of the tolerance zone in Edinburgh covering almost 20 years. We have only learned from that period; no one is seeking to recreate it. The tolerance zone sought to allow leeway within the existing law for a specific place and to suspend the law within that place. Managed zones, which the expert group recognised as having a great deal of merit, would not suspend the law at all; they would simply reflect the reality that there is street prostitution and it is easier to control and manage in everyone's interests if it takes place in a given area.

The issue is not just the nuisance to the general public, but the services that the Executive, in the policy memorandum, urges local authorities and local partnerships to supply. I am thinking of the provision of condoms, a needle exchange service if that is needed, and counselling. Those are services that we need to be able to take to where the women are, perhaps to persuade them, over a period of time, to exit prostitution. Everyone agrees that, unless we supply those services where the women are, we will not get to the women. If there are no recognised areas, how will we reach the women and take those services to them? If there are no recognised areas, how will the police have the sort of intelligence that they had in Edinburgh, that they have in Aberdeen and that they still did not have in Glasgow the last time we spoke to them? The situation is different in Dundee, as the number of women involved is so small.

The expert group saw the two aspects of the situation that are set out in the papers dovetailing. First, the change in the law would mean that both buyer and seller could be arrested and charged with an offence if, in the course of trying to buy and sell, they offended someone or caused a nuisance. However, if that procedure was not complaint led, no offence would be committed. A complaint-led system was the incentive to ensure that the activities were contained—but that has gone. Secondly, if there was an area inside which it was most unlikely that someone could commit the offence, that would make it much easier for the local partnership of the police, the health authority, the local council, voluntary organisations and so on to reach the prostitutes. The two aspects were meant to dovetail, but they do not dovetail in the bill and the policy memorandum that we now have. I sincerely hope that that can be changed and that the committee will be able to amend the bill.

Thanks for those remarks, Margo.

That was an interesting analysis of the situation. In advocating a complaint-led procedure, you made a comparison with the misuse of drugs. Both are criminal offences and the partners in any given area must work together to reduce the harm that is caused to the people who are engaged in those practices. If there is no complaint-led procedure, the situation is comparable to that of a drug dealer. He sells a drug to someone and that person goes away to use the drug, but if there is no complaint about that transaction, the police have no right to act. Surely you do not think that that is a good way of pursuing harm reduction.

No. The only parallel is in the need to accept that we cannot immediately eliminate the practice of prostitution. Therefore, for as long as it is with us, we must try to reduce the harm that is done by it.

You say that the police should not act until there is a complaint, but harm is being done where the transaction takes place.

That is where the importance of the policy memorandum comes in. If the behaviour takes place within a managed area, such as there is in Aberdeen, it is true that no offence is committed. The harm done to the public is not all that great. The health services can get to the women to help to prevent the transmission of diseases and so on. If you want to get to them, you have to get to them where they work. The add-on criminality is likely to be diminished because the police know where they are and they know who should not be there—drug dealers and so on. I hate to use the word "minimise", because that is too grand a word, but that is how the harmful effects of a trade that nobody likes but which has persisted for a very long time can be reduced.

But you are advocating a complaint-led procedure only in relation to prostitution. You used the analogy of harm reduction, which is comparable with harm reduction in relation to drugs, which is what I did not understand.

Nobody wants people to use drugs that abuse their body and destroy them, but neither does anybody expect drug use to end tomorrow, so there is a programme of harm reduction.

I just do not see the comparison.

Margo Macdonald talked about tolerance zones. In Glasgow there have been high-profile cases in which one girl lost her life and another was severely injured. What kind of message would we send out with tolerance zones? Are you saying that if a tolerance zone had operated in Glasgow, what happened to those young women would not have happened?

I would never make such a claim. However, there is some sort of record of the security offered by working inside a managed area—do not call it a tolerance zone—such as the one that is still operational in Aberdeen. You must look at what happens there. The word "tolerate" might suggest approval of or going soft on prostitution, but it has nothing to do with that; it is about trying to ensure that the harm that can be done is minimised and that we look to the security of the prostitutes and the comfort, security and privacy of the general public. That is not to send the message that we approve of prostitution, but to admit that prostitution is there and to work out a way of dealing with it.

In 10 or 12 years there were two murders in Edinburgh and, I think, eight in Glasgow. The people who murdered in Edinburgh were caught within 24 hours and at the time the police said that that was because of the intelligence that they had from managing street prostitution in a different way that suited them. Perhaps the Glasgow police manage street prostitution in Glasgow in the only way that it can be managed—I do not know and I would not dare to say. I do not think that the two cities should be compared, because their geography is so different that the policing and management of prostitution are different.

You would have said to the young woman who was tragically murdered, "You continue with this very dangerous practice and we will support and manage you." The word you used was "manage"; I will move away from saying "tolerate". Should we not have moved that young woman away from the practices that she was involved in to the Routes Out processes that have formed? That is not about the management of areas; it is about processes.

No—that is to assume that, by adopting the Routes Out programme, prostitution can be eliminated. It does not happen like that. For a start, women go in and out of prostitution. It is a long process. Secondly, it is not about saying to a woman that she should carry on with her lifestyle. In each city, women are told, "Come in and see us." They are shown the support group that will ensure that they go in for safer sex; that if they meet an overly abusive client, they can come to the group and report him, getting him on to the ugly mug scheme, which the Scottish prostitutes education project—SCOT-PEP—in Edinburgh ran; and that they get help in obtaining some educational qualifications.

The reality is that it is not Julia Roberts going into the drop-in centre; it will often be people with really sad personal histories, who are ill equipped to compete in today's labour market. That is what we are referring to when we talk about managing prostitution—this time, from the point of view of the prostitute. How can that be done if the services cannot be provided where the prostitutes are working? As you will remember, I said that the women do not simply stop working. It is a long process. We must be able to reach them.

I asked the previous panel about the parity of fine level between the seller and the buyer. Would you support the fine level being increased for the buyer, taking into account their different profiles?

The absolute truth is that I do not know. I have not given it all that much thought. I was worried that the bill had not managed to achieve what the expert group had wanted: an equalisation of the penalty for offending. We wanted it to be made as difficult as possible to commit the offence. We wanted to avoid people commencing the offence. Standing and watching somebody circling round Cadogan Street and Bothwell Street and that area involves a lot of police hours, and to what effect? Is that a good use of public resources? I was worried that the bill had not managed to capture what the expert group wanted in principle: an equalisation of treatment. If there is to be stigma, there should be equal stigma.

But should the level be different for the buyer?

As I said, I do not know. I will think about it, talk to folk about it and tell you sometime.

You accept that the respective profiles are very different, with the buyer normally having a higher economic profile. The economic and social profiles are different—albeit not on all occasions.

That is the trouble—we are trying to make law. I do not know how such qualitative judgments should be made.

I draw your attention to paragraph 18 of the policy memorandum, which says:

"Consideration was also given to the broad approach proposed in Margo MacDonald MSP's Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill … However, the Expert Group found little evidence that prostitution tolerance zones helped to protect women involved in prostitution, or that they protect communities from the nuisance associated with it."

Therefore, the Executive has adopted the approach in the bill. It is about reducing the demand for prostitution, keeping the offence for soliciting and loitering by the prostitute, but changing the whole approach so that we create a new offence to attempt to reduce the demand. My criticism of the bill is that it fails on the issue of motor cars that we considered, but do you not accept that the key to making progress is to reduce demand?

Once again, I am too impatient for that. I do not think that we would manage that by next week. Obviously we want to do that, but it involves a much wider process of education and changing public attitudes. That was gone into in great detail in the expert group's report, backed up by loads of research on the work that we would need to do.

Can I draw your attention to what the expert group actually said? It said:

"The management of street prostitution in the locality where it is occurring offers a number of advantages which are evidenced from Scottish and international experience. It:

• confines the public nuisance…to a specified area;

• allows the enforcement authorities to set up rules for operating in the location, particularly for those involved in prostitution, e.g. only to operate within specified hours;

• facilitates the exchange of intelligence between those involved in prostitution and the police e.g. through reports of incidents with clients involving violence or risk of harm;

• concentrates those involved in prostitution in a particular area where they can look out for each other, e.g. by noting descriptions of clients and their car numbers;

• discourages under-age girls from operating in an area, since they will be readily visible and will be discouraged or reported upon by adults involved in prostitution"—

that would now also include foreign people who come here illegally in one way or another.

The report continues to say that management

"• assists with the safety of women involved in prostitution by means of reducing the areas in which unobserved violence might take place;

• facilitates the provision of surveillance by C.C.T.V. and police patrols;

• protects the women involved in prostitution from a repeated cycle of arrest, prosecution, unpaid penalties, short sentences of imprisonment and re-offending;

• facilitates the provision of outreach services, such as needle exchange, condoms, health checks, drug services and advice, including assistance to exit prostitution, subject to resources".

Will I go on? There is more.

I have not got that material in front of me, but I have got the Executive's policy memorandum.

But it is wrong.

Are you saying that the Executive is wrong in its interpretation of the expert group's report?

The policy memorandum is wrong in that it makes the assumption and draws the conclusion that the expert group saw no advantages. I have just read you some of the advantages, and the report concludes that

"the designation of a particular area for management of street prostitution will act as a step towards significant reduction of levels of harm, and perhaps total numbers involved in prostitution, and thereby a diminution of need for such localities in the long term."

So the policy memorandum is wrong in saying that the expert group

"considered that the creation of tolerance zones would send out the wrong message about the acceptability of street prostitution more generally, and might be seen to run counter to the Executive's longer term objective of reducing and…eradicating street prostitution. On a practical level, it was thought that local authorities would be likely to have great difficulty in identifying suitable locations for tolerance zones."

No, that was said too. There is an argument and a counter-argument. I said that there were two ways of approaching the issue, and the memorandum tries to bridge the gap. The idea of tolerance zones has been overtaken by events. The proposed change in the law was for a tolerance zone—an area inside which illegality would be tolerated; a suspension of the law inside a specified geographical area—but that has been overtaken by events. Forget tolerance zones: that is why I said that it is important to think of managing prostitution.

The bill does not do that. As far as I can see, the purpose of the bill is to remove the demand for prostitution. If the bill is passed, do you believe that the Executive will be successful in reducing demand by focusing a new criminal offence on people who want to engage prostitutes?

I think that the demand for prostitutes' services may—I stress "may"—diminish, but I certainly do not think that there will be a speedy change in the sheer presence of prostitution in communities.

Since we started work on a bill, the whole business of prostitution has moved on apace and that is what worries me. The kind of prostitution to which the bill refers is only one small part of what is happening in prostitution—for example, there is much more indoor prostitution now. Since the discontinuation in Edinburgh of what was called the non-harassment or tolerance zone, which was different from what the bill seeks to establish, some women in Edinburgh have been working indoors. No one knows where they are doing so or under what conditions, or whether they are working for themselves. I believe that some are doing so, but others may not be and may be being exploited in a way in which they were not when they worked within the known parameters of the zone.

Reports and a lot of evidence from the women are available and they said themselves that once they were in the zone they did not need to have there the boyfriend, partner, minder, pimp or whatever you want to call him because rules had been agreed about how the zone would operate. Provided there was no add-on criminality—drug trafficking and so on—the women would probably not be lifted. The zone was a much safer environment.

I have a final point on what you just said. You firmly believe that prostitutes were not exploited when working in the zone. That is what you just said.

No, I did not say that.

You did. I wrote it down.

I think that some prostitutes are exploited—some may be exploited all the time. However, some of the prostitutes who are not found hanging around street corners are not exploited much, though some are.

The whole point is that prostitution involves exploitation.

Of course it does. I do not deny that. However, it is too simple to say that that is all prostitution is.

What are the implications of not needing a complaint to be made by a member of the public for it to be deemed that an offence has been committed?

I think that that puts police officers in a bad position because they must be judge and jury. In Aberdeen, the women stand around the closed-up factories and storage buildings in the docks area; I am not exaggerating when I say that only about six houses at the most can see anything of that area. It is remote from most of Aberdeen. Who are such women alarming or causing a nuisance or offence to, if nobody can see what they are doing? Who are the guys who go down there in cars alarming, offending or causing a nuisance to? It is really only prostitutes who are down there. It cannot be good law for a policeman to come along and say to them, "If somebody was here or if somebody saw you, they would be alarmed or offended." That is why I am saying that, rather than thinking theoretically, you should think in practical terms.

Glasgow is a bit different. The area that Paul Martin is particularly concerned about—his area—is overlooked by lots of houses.

Convener, can I just confirm for the record that it is Frank McAveety's area that is involved?

I was not blaming you.

I have a very small part of the area in question. I was going to call you Jim, there.

That is just because I get you mixed up with your father.

The situation is completely different in Glasgow because of the geography of the place. I described what the Aberdeen docks area is like and I did not exaggerate. In Aberdeen, there is now a drop-in centre, which is located as close as possible to the area. No matter what law the Parliament passes, Aberdeen will—very sensibly—carry on with what it is doing.

Margo MacDonald has hit the nail on the head. Unless there are very strict guidelines, how the law is enforced will depend on the police constable who is patrolling the area or the patrol car that is going round. The door will be left wide open to—God forbid—police harassment and so on.

That does not happen at the moment, because everyone knows what the rules are inside the area.

We are talking only about street prostitution, not about prostitution generally.

We think that under the bill there may also be scope for test cases for indoor prostitution. That was not meant to be the case, because indoor prostitution is a completely different scene.

Yes, but we are talking about counteracting street prostitution. By its nature, that activity is highly visible. We know who is committing the offence, where it is being committed and when it is being committed. From the evidence that you and others have given, the background papers and the policy memorandum, we know that 150 to 200 women in four areas in four cities may be involved in street prostitution. Why is an offence that is so highly visible not being eradicated under the present law?

As I tried to explain, the expert group considered that question. The majority view was that an offence of breach of the peace did not send out a sufficiently strong message. I disagreed with that line of reasoning. I thought—and still think—that it is more important for us to allow local authorities, together with health boards, the police and so on to decide how best to manage a potential problem. In Edinburgh, it has certainly proved to be a problem and a nuisance. For that reason, I did not object strongly to the creation of a specific offence.

I am talking about the present law. Section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 refers to soliciting, importuning and loitering for the purpose of prostitution. That is pretty clear. As I said, we know who is committing the offence, where it is being committed and when it is being committed. Why is the present law not enforced, so that the practice is eradicated?

The present law is enforced in different ways in the different cities. The committee will need to check this, but when the expert group met and took evidence, it discovered that the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen had decided that there would not be prosecutions for soliciting there, because the offence is subject to a fine and people are back out on the streets once they have paid it. The procurator fiscal in Aberdeen did not want to get back into that cycle. In Glasgow, there are prosecutions.

But not everyone who purchases street prostitution on a given night of the week is arrested.

No. Would you want them to be arrested every night of the week?

In the case of every other offence of which we express disapproval, if we knew who was perpetrating the offence, when it was being perpetrated and where it was being perpetrated, offenders would be arrested and locked up and the offence would be eradicated. I am suggesting that we do not enforce existing laws. In fact, we have always had a rather capricious form of tolerance, or management, which has basically been a combination of the police and the prosecution services generally turning a blind eye to prostitution but, occasionally, for the sake of public consumption, having a campaign to clean it up and arresting and prosecuting the whole lot. Would you agree that we have a capricious, tolerated system of street prostitution at the moment?

I object to the stigma and penalty being applied only to the prostitutes. Under the present law, the client is not stigmatised or prosecuted. It was not a blind eye. There were thought-out local strategies for dealing with the situation. When Edinburgh's de facto non-harassment zone or tolerance zone—whatever you want to call it—in Leith became impossible to operate because too many residents complained, the police decided arbitrarily to move the zone from Coburg Street, where it had been reasonably successful for a good number of years, to Salamander Street.

The police told me that if they were to take the same decision now, they would not do it in the same way. They did not consult the local people. There was such a to-do and so much opposition that the council just said, "Right, that's it. We want a legal basis from which to manage what we see as an Edinburgh problem." I introduced the bill for that reason. Aberdeen was ticking along fine; Dundee was fine; and Glasgow had a different way of going about it. To summarise briefly, Glasgow said that it diffused the services required by prostitutes through all its services for women in the city, whereas in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, services had been concentrated.

Where in Edinburgh does street prostitution happen?

It is difficult to say. SCOT-PEP had its funding cut when the women disappeared from the area in which it was located. SCOT-PEP is out only two nights a week for about four hours a night but, in the past year, it has contacted nearly 90 women. It estimates that about 100 women in Edinburgh are still involved in street prostitution. They will not all be out on the one night—they will be out on different nights.

In a variety of locations.

They are all over the place, so it is very much more dangerous. In statistics for the first year following the discontinuation of the tolerance zone, the reported gratuitous attacks—let us call them that—on women were up by about 1,000 per cent. That is because the women are scattered and the police and SCOT-PEP do not know where they are. There is a big danger in thinking that if we do not have an area that is acknowledged to be where prostitution is practised, we somehow disperse and minimise the problem. We do not—we probably spread the problem.

But if the police do not know where they are, how do the clients know where they are?

Mobile phones. That is what I am telling you—everything has moved on.

If someone can order a service by mobile phone, the old system will not apply anyway, will it?

It has changed. A lot of the women—remember the numbers I have just given you—congregated around Leith Links. They could run and hide if there was a problem with the police or residents—I think that is why they congregated there. If Mary Blackford or I were out and about in Edinburgh of an evening, we would go down to the Links to see how many women were there. There are very few women there; they are scattered. I have heard—

You said that contact is predominantly made by mobile phone. Such contact constitutes neither soliciting nor loitering.

Do not be difficult.

I am genuinely interested in what you are saying. If that is the case, there is no soliciting and loitering.

There is residual street prostitution, as we understand it, but the numbers are nothing like they used to be. Women can use their mobile phones to make arrangements with clients on their lists, so they do not need to stand in one spot. However, there are still the odd one or two women who use Leith Links and—as far as the residents are concerned—create a nuisance. I would not deny that the detritus associated with prostitution is a nuisance.

I agree.

Does Margo MacDonald support the bill's attempt to create equality of illegality for purchasers and sellers of sex? Is such an approach workable? On the basis of the evidence from Executive officials, do you think that the bill will achieve what it is trying to achieve? Will the stigma of purchasing sex ever be equivalent to the stigma of selling sex? Will the seller continue to be more likely than the purchaser to be criminalised?

Yes—to all your questions. The bill will treat the purchase and sale of sex equivalently, which I strongly support. However, your question-and-answer session with the officials who drafted the bill confirmed what policemen—from senior policemen to the guys and women on the beat—have told me. Most of the younger police officers do not want to have to apply an objective test on the spot. It was intended that the objective test should be applied by the procurator fiscal or by the court, not by the policeman.

Members have no more questions, so I thank you for giving up your time and contributing to the debate.

Thank you; it did not hurt a bit—well, McLetchie did.

Meeting continued in private until 17:18.