To give evidence on the policing issues that the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill raises I introduce Inspector Elizabeth McLean and Assistant Chief Constable John McLean—no relation—from Strathclyde police. There are a lot of McLeans over there. I also introduce Deputy Chief Constable Tom Wood of Lothian and Borders police.
It is worth noting that no offence of kerb-crawling exists in Scotland. The offence that a male who solicits a prostitute commits might amount to a breach of the peace, but no specific offence exists, unlike in England. Other offences might be committed in connection with a prostitution tolerance zone. For the record, I do not think that a tolerance zone would work in Glasgow.
Of course, a wide variety of offences are associated with prostitution, including drug offences in particular and other serious criminal offences. The bill sets out to consider the main aspects of prostitution as defined at the moment, so it was probably right to concentrate on section 46 of the 1982 act. For law enforcement, it would be important that the creation of a tolerance zone did not act as a green light to those who work in the tolerance zone to commit other offences, such as drug offences. It is important to highlight that.
I am trying to get at what relevance the bill would have. Are you saying that under the cloak of a prostitute-tolerant zone, other criminals would be able to move in and commit offences that the police might find difficult to discover?
Any subsequent act would have to make it clear that that was not the case. We would have to make sure that no safe haven—as it were—was created for other criminal activity.
It is worth noting that the majority of street prostitutes in Glasgow are intravenous drugs users. They are mainly addicted to heroin. A lot of drug dealing, using and trafficking is associated with the prostitution scene in Glasgow.
I appreciate that distinct views are being expressed here.
There would have to be a fall-back and the scheme would have to operate under a set of rules that are clear to all parties. If that includes drawing a line around which activities are permissible, and that line is drawn around soliciting as opposed to loitering, that would be fair enough.
So the bill might not need to be amended but the definition should be clear. Is that correct? The bill does not define anything.
For the committee's information, the bill seeks to replace the relevant section in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which mentions loitering, soliciting and importuning for the purposes of prostitution. Therefore, any illegal behaviour would be derogated inside a designated zone.
So soliciting would be permitted.
Yes, it would be.
Is Mr Wood saying that he would not seek to have the bill amended, and that guidelines based on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 would be negotiated by all parties?
Yes, as long as those guidelines were clear. The bottom line is that they must be clear to all parties.
Does Mr McLean have a different view?
Our view is that the proposals are perfectly adequate, if tolerance zones are created. However, I do not think that a tolerance zone is appropriate or workable in the context of the west of Scotland and Glasgow.
That is another question. Is it satisfactory to import the guidelines and so on from the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982?
Yes, that would be satisfactory. The challenge relates to operating the system to ensure that no associated criminality occurs in the zone. That would be difficult.
Is your view the same, Inspector McLean?
Yes.
It was mentioned that kerb-crawling is dealt with as a breach of the peace in Scotland although it is a specific offence south of the border. Do the witnesses agree that there is a parallel with stalking? Previously, it was dealt with as a breach of the peace, but now there is a separate offence relating to the stalking of women. Would there be an advantage in having a separate offence of kerb-crawling?
The creation of a separate offence is worthy of consideration. It seems inequitable to criminalise a female but not a male when both have been involved in the same act. The difficulty is in finding evidence relating to those matters. As the Parliament or the Executive would discover if they investigated the issue, there are questions about whether the creation of a separate offence might create more problems than it would be worth, but as a general principle, the idea seems reasonable.
If we put in place a tolerance zone, would there be difficulties for females who are not prostitutes who pass through the area? Would their civil liberties be affected? Surely we would be saying that any woman in the area was a prostitute because the area would be zoned for the purpose of prostitution. What if a woman entered the area without knowing that it was a tolerance zone?
Will you deal only with the policing issues, as the matter of the designation of the zone is a matter for the Local Government Committee. Would there be policing problems?
Yes, I believe that there would be problems relating to the issues of associated criminality that I talked about.
I am trying to contain the discussion to the policing of a tolerance zone—if such a zone were set up—and the problems that might arise. I do not think that we should discuss the current approach, which would be different from what the bill proposes.
I am simply trying to be helpful, as the approach to dealing with prostitution in Glasgow may offer an alternative to what has been proposed.
I do not want to go down that route, but it might be helpful if you describe what happens in areas that are well known for prostitution where there is not an informal zone such as the one that Edinburgh operated. You must know how such areas are policed and it would be helpful if you could explain. What would happen if an innocent foreign woman wandered into a prostitution zone and did not know that it was one?
The area in question, in the city centre, has mainly office blocks, and prostitution activity is often confined to late evenings and the early hours of the morning, so innocent members of the public who are going about their business do not present a great problem. Street liaison teams are in place that make it their business to be in the area, to know who the prostitutes and customers are and to link in with social work agencies such as Base 75. There are also strong links with the Routes Out of Prostitution social inclusion partnership.
That matter is different from the one that we are discussing. We are discussing how you police a zone that is known to be for prostitution. If the bill is enacted, prostitutes would legitimately be entitled to pursue certain activities in a zone. I want to keep to the policing issues that would arise from that situation.
May I ask a question?
Yes, but I would like to ask Tom Wood a question first. Will he tell the committee about his experience of policing issues in informal containment areas?
Of course there have been policing difficulties. There must be a robust policing plan and a planned patrol profile. There should not be too high a patrol profile, but a reassuring presence should be maintained.
I was going to ask John McLean what difference it would make to his policing of the area to which I think he now refers as a safer zone—
Do you mean the city centre?
Yes—I mean Waterloo Street and the area around it. The question is peculiar, because the legislation would only be enabling legislation, and if Glasgow's police, the council and the health authorities decided that the proposals did not suit them—as you have said that they would not—they would not need to implement them.
The difference is that, so far this year, 325 prostitutes—I think that that is the figure—could tell the committee that they were arrested for soliciting in the city centre of Glasgow whereas the figure for the east end of Glasgow so far this year is 577. It is a question of priorities. The policing of prostitution is a priority, but, because of the nature of the area, it is a much higher priority in the east end of Glasgow.
People are beginning to complain.
I cannot see that they will be happy for long.
Who pays for the CCTV?
The CCTV system is owned by Streetwatch Glasgow, which is an independent charity of which I am a director. The police and Glasgow City Council, among others, contribute to paying for the CCTV.
I am conscious that some of our questions are overlapping. Donald Gorrie will have to forgive me if that is the case.
To some extent, the issues that I wanted to explore have been covered, but I would be interested to hear about the different experiences in Edinburgh and Glasgow. How does the policing of prostitution in tolerance zones work in practice compared with the policing of areas that are not so designated? Deputy Chief Constable Wood's paper, which I read at great speed, sets out very well the background and history of the Leith zone and indicates the key areas that the zone improved for a while.
I should make it clear that the zone was by no means a perfect solution. Constant difficulties resulted from the fact that the zone was balanced on a tightrope of legality. We were never under the illusion that, just because the zone worked in Leith, the approach was a one-size-fits-all remedy that would work elsewhere. Many people who came to see the Leith project when it was in operation carried ideas away and implemented them. Some have been successful and others have not. I agree with my colleague that what worked in Leith would not necessarily work in Glasgow.
In your view, is it possible to have the sort of liaison and co-operation that is desirable without having a designated area?
We are working on that just now. As you may know, in 2001 our non-harassment zone disintegrated because the nature of the area changed in the same way as we just heard is happening in the city centre of Glasgow. High-amenity housing was built and local protest drove the zone to extinction. Since 2001, we have tried to keep our systems of communication together in what is now a fragmented scene. It is extremely difficult and not wholly successful—certainly not as successful as it was before.
I have one more question about Edinburgh. Is the system of licensed saunas an alternative to street prostitution, or is it just another way of doing things?
No, it is not really an alternative. Regardless of what is going on in the saunas and massage parlours, there will always be a street prostitution scene. There will always be a demand for the services of street prostitutes; therefore, there will be a supply. Even if we did all we could to encourage an indoor sex industry, there would always be an outdoor sex industry. That is not just my view; it is the conclusion of many law enforcement agencies across the world.
Mr McLean has already covered well the nature of the things that he has done and does. I wonder whether he has anything to add about how he runs his arrangements, which he has not yet told us.
I agree with much of what Tom Wood has said. In the Glasgow area, we have tried to achieve without establishing a toleration zone the same benefits that he achieved through a toleration zone. There is much multi-agency working between the police service, the social work department and the health board, although we are still enforcing the law on the street, as that is what the public demand of us.
Do you accept the statement by your colleague Mr Wood that street prostitution will always be with us?
I would hope that it would not always be with us.
We would all agree that prostitution is violence against women and that we would want women out of prostitution. However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether we accept that street prostitution, which has been around for centuries, will continue. If so, how should we deal with it in the best interests of society, the prostitutes and their clients? That is why I asked the question.
The other issue is that prostitution is violence against women. Should that be condoned?
We accept that prostitution is violence against women. I do not think that condoning prostitution is what is at issue. I am asking whether you accept that, in practical terms, street prostitution will continue to exist for the duration of this generation's lifetime and for that of the next generation, in spite of all the efforts that are being made.
In practical terms, it is very likely that street prostitution will continue. However, it is important that we work with the other agencies to reduce it as much as we can.
Absolutely. I do not think that those contentions are contradictory.
We say that street prostitution will continue. The public perception might be that there will always be people who drink and drive. However, does that mean that we should consider a way of tolerating drink driving? There might always be people who are stupid enough to drive their car while under the influence of alcohol. Does that mean that we should consider ways of tolerating those people, because sometimes there are reasons why they drink and drive? Although that is probably not the most appropriate analogy to use, my point is that there will always be people who are stupid enough to carry out a number of offences. If we acknowledge that such women will always be victims, is that the same as saying that, because there will always be people who are addicted to drugs, we should just look at ways of tolerating the situation? Are we saying that we must tolerate street prostitution?
I do not agree that we must tolerate it. I was not asked about that. The dual-track approach is important. If prostitution is unlawful and the Parliament decides that it is unlawful, we will enforce that law. We must also look at prostitutes as victims and must look after their personal safety.
I think that we have explored that line, unless you have a question, Margo.
John McLean said that he felt that the fact that such a high percentage of Glasgow prostitutes were on drugs meant that they would not know whether they were on the Planet Zog. The clear implication was that a strictly designated tolerance zone would not work because the prostitutes would not know whether or not they were inside it. Why would Glasgow be different from Aberdeen, where roughly the same percentage of women who work the streets take drugs? I have seen the tolerance zone in Aberdeen in action. The women know on exactly which streets soliciting is tolerated or understood and on which streets it is not. There are even time limits for streets, which mean that the women can start working different streets at different times. Why do you think that Glasgow would be different from Aberdeen, for example?
I will pass you over to my colleague, who is much more learned in such matters and who deals with the street prostitutes. I do not have any experience of the Aberdeen situation.
I asked because the percentage of the prostitutes who are intravenous drug users is about the same in Aberdeen as it is in Glasgow.
In Glasgow, we have two recognised areas, which have been there since time immemorial. Neither of those areas would be suitable to be designated as a tolerance zone. Therefore, we would have to direct the women away from their familiar areas. I believe that the area in which the street girls in Aberdeen work has been the recognised area for years.
I would like to put a point of information on the record. The reason for the Aberdeen location was that business owners in the area of Aberdeen that has many hotels complained that women were soliciting near the hotels. It was therefore agreed that the tolerance zone would move back down to the traditional area. That was how the Aberdeen zone came to be where it is.
Let us move on. We have tried to restrict our discussion to policing, although it is relevant to consider police practice and where the two police forces are coming from philosophically. Maureen, will you concentrate your comments on particular crimes?
Yes. Although our bottom line is that we want women to feel as safe as possible, I am aware that the committee's remit is to examine policing. I want to know how the police would deal with a situation in which some of the activities associated with street prostitution might take place in the tolerance zone but others do not. What happens when the prostitute and client make contact within the zone, but the prostitute is dropped off from the client's car just outside the zone and perhaps carries on her trade just 100yd too far to the left?
We will take the first instance, from when the prostitute is dropped off, before an offence has been committed outside the zone.
If a prostitute is dropped off, she is not committing an offence. The offence is soliciting. If that occurs within the tolerance zone, that is the end of the matter. There is no offence of being with a prostitute or a prostitute being with a client. Where a tolerance zone is created, it is fine for the prostitute to be picked up there. Prostitutes are rarely attacked, assaulted and murdered—as, sadly, happens in Glasgow—in the tolerance zone. Such offences against prostitutes happen in the darkened alley, car park or remote area where they go with clients. The point is that tolerance zones do not significantly increase the safety of prostitutes.
The point about the impact on areas around any designated tolerance zones is important and would have to be carefully considered before any zone was designated. The reality is that women are picked up in the zone but then go outwith it, which can have a serious impact on people who live and have businesses in the peripheral areas. That is where the practical issues of identifying the zone are incredibly difficult. As my colleague John McLean said, the practical issues are the ones about which we are really concerned.
What about the supplementary question, to which John McLean said that tolerance zones do not make things safer for prostitutes because the assaults occur outside them?
My experience does not concur with that. In the early 1980s, before there was a non-harassment zone in Leith, we had considerable difficulty with serious crime against prostitutes and the customers who use them. The non-harassment zone allowed much safer practice. It also allowed us to build up an intelligence picture and gave women the advantage of being able to assess what customers they went with—for instance, how many people were in a car or the demeanour of the occupant of the car.
Are you saying that because the women did not feel that they had to do things quickly—to jump into cars before policemen arrested them—they were able to take the time to assess dangers? Are you saying that, because they had good relations with the police, they were willing to give the police information about other crimes and criminals?
Yes. If a regular client was causing concern or behaving aggressively or violently, that information could be made available to us through the organisation SCOTPEP. That enabled us to take proactive measures to ensure that no serious offences were committed. There was a line of communication and an element of trust. As far back as the early 1990s—about 1993—we appointed a prostitute liaison officer. That person was charged with establishing the line of communication and trust to which I have referred, so that we could make the situation safer, if not safe.
Although there is no tolerance zone in Glasgow, we have similar structures in place. There are street liaison teams in both the east end and the centre of Glasgow, which build relationships with prostitutes in those areas and with the social workers who work with them. We have a steady feed of intelligence directly from the prostitutes and from the people who are working with them at Base 75. Tom Wood is arguing that in Edinburgh such provision was linked to the tolerance zone. I am saying that it can exist without a zone.
I would like to ask a quick question.
You must make it very quick, as many other members would like to ask questions.
My question is about the cautioning or charging of women. Are there streets in Glasgow where women know they are less likely to be cautioned or charged?
Not to my knowledge.
Not to my knowledge.
That takes me back to the point that I made earlier. In the east end of Glasgow, we enforce the law vigorously and rigorously. If in the centre of Glasgow we have to deal with a massive procession or a couple of thousand youngsters leaving a nightclub, prostitutes will not be a priority. However, the figures that I have shown the committee indicate that we take prostitution seriously in all areas.
How many prostitutes are cautioned in Cadogan Street, as compared with St Vincent Street?
I think that there are more prostitutes in Cadogan Street than in St Vincent Street.
I think so, too.
We defer to the expert knowledge that both of you have on the issue. For some of us, this is a journey of discovery.
Two of the three questions that I wanted to ask have been answered. My remaining question relates to resources. Both Tom Wood and John McLean would require significant resources to implement the bill. Continual back-up would be required to ensure that zoning was a success. As John McLean knows, people in my constituency and other parts of the Strathclyde police area regularly say that they want to see police in their local community, but there is no continuity of provision. People may ask the police to deal with youth disorder, murders and attacks in their area. How can you resource tolerance zones when there are so many other demands on your resources?
That is a real challenge. How would we police prostitution tolerance zones? By creating such zones, would we be guaranteeing prostitutes' safety? Would we be guaranteeing to the public that prostitutes would not operate outwith those areas? The resource implications of creating tolerance zones could be significant. How would we deliver and how would we be held to account if we failed to deliver?
The policing of a zone would have significant costs. There would also be significant local authority costs, because there would have to be effective lighting, CCTV, litter collection and so on. That all comes at a cost. On policing costs, if you start from the supposition, as I do, that street prostitution and the sex industry will exist—and we have known for generations that serious criminal activity always comes with prostitution—you must ask whether it is worth the investment to try to minimise the risk and harm and to cut off the worst excesses of criminal activity before it becomes established. In my experience of what happened in Leith over a long number of years, the policy was worth the investment.
The public will ask why police officers should be directed from the streets of Springburn, for example, to go into the city centre to create a safe haven for criminal activity. The people of Springburn feel that they never see a police officer in their area. I appreciate that we have to ensure that women are protected, but that applies equally to women who are going about their daily business in Springburn. Can you ensure that the resources will be provided consistently? The point that is raised with our communities is that they cannot be given a constant stream of additional officers.
We are asking whether we will require additional police officers or whether we can use the resources that we already have.
Communities are regularly advised that back-up police officers cannot be provided and that police officers must be delegated to where they are required. The point is that you will have to get additional police officers on the beat to deal with a specific issue.
You are right. That is a dilemma. The same dilemma arises when people ask why beat officers are not on the streets of their housing scheme when the officers are policing a football match, a large public demonstration or, in the case of Edinburgh, the hogmanay street party. The business that Mr McLean and I are in is similar to being a juggler. We try to juggle scarce resources to satisfy as many demands as possible. We must set priorities. Paul Martin is right.
The question was whether, apart from juggling resources, increased resources would be required. The financial memorandum to the bill states:
I know Mr Martin's views on community policing. I share his concern about the need for more police officers out on the street to reassure the public when they are going about their business rather than to police what is otherwise a criminal activity. However, as for finances, it could be argued that a tolerance zone would mean that police officers were not tied up arresting people for prostitution and cases were not going through the courts. There could be a saving in that respect. Set against that are the resources that would be required to police a tolerance zone. We have not endeavoured to quantify what resources would be required, because that is currently in the too-hard-to-do box.
I can tell you from my own experience that it is more resource intensive to police a street prostitution scene without a designated area than it is to police one with a designated area. Since our non-harassment zone failed in 2001, the street problem has spread, which has attracted complaints from numerous residents and has led to public demonstrations. The problem is taking up many more resources than it did in 2001.
So it is not the case that, as the memorandum says,
No. We did not make savings. I am saying that we handled the problem with fewer resources when we had the non-harassment zone than we do now.
You said that local authorities would have to bring forward additional lighting proposals, for example, and that investment would be required. Are you saying that the police do not require additional resources, but the local authorities do?
That depends. We are in great danger of assuming that one size fits all. The problems are different. Street prostitution in Edinburgh is different from that in Glasgow and I have no doubt that it is different from what happens in Aberdeen, Dundee and everywhere else. It is impossible for me to comment on what you suggest and it would be improper for me to do so. What I can say is that, if you were to create a non-harassment zone, local authorities would necessarily incur expenses.
That is a question for local authorities. All that we are concerned with in talking to you are police resources. I am trying to understand. You are saying that, from your experience, once a tolerance zone is up and running, you use fewer resources to manage it.
I am going to be very clear about what I am saying. I am saying that, here and now, more resources are needed to police a disparate street prostitution scene than were required with the non-harassment zone. The disparate scene attracts a higher level of complaint and public demonstration, because the street prostitutes, who no longer have a zone, are moving into new areas where the residents, naturally, resist and complain about their presence. That means that we have higher policing activity.
That clarifies the situation. It is not fair to ask you such questions, because we do not know what the implications would be for you.
For what it is worth, I understand that in Edinburgh there may be 20 prostitutes in the area in a night. There are 1,600 known prostitutes in Glasgow. On the average night in the city centre, about 80 report to Base 75, which is the social work drop-in centre. That is probably only a fraction of the number of those who are out on the street. We are talking about a significantly large area.
Margo, do you want to come in on that or are you content?
I think that Tom Woods has cleared the matter up. It is costing more now without the tolerance zone than it did before in terms of police resource. The Grampian force has assured me that it has incurred no additional expense in policing its tolerance zone.
We may need to ask the force about that—you are not giving evidence to us, Margo.
No, I say that for your information.
Thank you for that. I appreciate that the question is difficult for Strathclyde, given that there are no comparators. I wanted to check whether the financial memorandum is right.
Section 6 of the bill would allow the police to apply to the local authority to modify or suspend a tolerance zone. I notice from its evidence that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has expressed some concerns about that provision and its interpretation, in that the police could become the focus, as opposed to the local authority, which technically would still have the responsibility to designate a zone. If a tolerance zone had been established, what circumstances would have to arise for you to seek to modify or suspend it?
That is one of those if-if questions. If a tolerance zone was created, there would be two significant circumstances in which we would raise some sort of objection. The first would be if it became clear that serious criminality was on-going in the area—for instance, if organised gangs started to run prostitutes in the area or significant drug dealing was taking place, which, as I said, is often associated with prostitution. One reason for raising an objection, therefore, would be if the tolerance zone gave rise to concerns about criminality. The other reason, which is more likely, would be if concerns were raised by people who worked or lived in or around the area.
I agree entirely. I saw the provision as being like the emergency cord on a train, which the chief constable must always have in the interests of public safety. If something is going disastrously wrong—such as the things that John McLean has described or that have been experienced in some cities in the north of England—and there is considerable public demonstration and disorder, the chief of police in the area would have to have the provision to pull that emergency cord and stop the process. That is wise.
I am not too sure if the provision is an emergency cord, because the chief constable has to apply to the local authority and it is the local authority that decides whether to modify or suspend the zone. Are you saying that you would prefer the chief constable to have the authority to suspend or modify a zone without having recourse to the local authority?
No. I see the situation as being very much like what happens with the Public Order Act 1994. For example, where something is apt to go seriously wrong with a march or demonstration and the chief constable takes the view that public safety would be jeopardised, the chief officer of police has the right to say, "For public safety reasons, no." I do not see a difficulty with going through the local authority for that.
The bill does not specify the circumstances that could lead to requesting suspension or modification. Hypothetically, should the bill offer guidance on that point or should that be left to the discretion of the force involved?
I believe that, if the bill tried to prescribe all the circumstances that could lead to suspension or modification, as soon as the bill became law, a force would face a situation that fell outside that prescription. Therefore, I would not want the bill to be too prescriptive.
The difficulty is that, if the bill lists issues that give reason for police objection, those must be proven to a certain standard. If it is accepted that the police can object, that would be a simpler way of dealing with the situation.
Section 6 provides for the chief officer of police to make an application, on receipt of which the local authority may do certain things. There is no time scale within which the local authority must act. Should there be a time scale?
The measure would apply only in emergency circumstances, in which the response would have to be to a short time scale.
Should such a provision be included in the bill? Section 6(2)(a) merely states that the authority may "suspend the operation". It does not give a time scale between the application, the local authority's decision and the implementation of that decision. Should the bill include the words "within a reasonable time" or "within 14 days"? Is that the time scale that the police force envisages when senior officers make an application?
The time scale should be fairly short.
That is interesting.
If the chief officer of police had to take such steps, that would be because he was dealing with a matter of urgency.
I am reading into that that there should perhaps be guidelines about time scales in the bill. That has just occurred to me, but the member in charge of the bill might wish to consider it.
This question has been answered in part. What impact would a prostitution tolerance zone have on levels of criminal activity, which although not necessarily part of street prostitution may sometimes be associated with it? An example is the supply of drugs. The question has been answered more or less; the deputy chief constable said that he received more intelligence when the tolerance zones were established.
It is interesting that, in areas where prostitutes operate in the centre of Glasgow, there is a low level of criminality because the police are present and active. However, in a tolerance zone, do we tolerate the activity or do we police it? Is there a difference? Does policing the area scare away customers who would come to use the prostitutes? There are many what-if questions.
From your experience, is tolerating the zone the same as policing the zone?
Yes. We have to have a robust policing plan that is finely balanced between being not too heavy handed, but firm enough to prevent the incursion of drug dealing, pimping and other serious criminal activity. If we do not have such a plan in place, we lose the main advantage of the zone. When we started out on this road a long time ago, we had fears about the zone acting as a vacuum into which all kinds of criminal activity would be drawn. In fact, that did not happen, and we were in a better position to intervene than we had been before or, indeed, are now.
In the last page of your document, you say:
On your first question on whether the change was due to the redevelopment of Leith, the answer is yes. The previous non-harassment zone was in an area of old bonded warehouses, which were redeveloped into high-amenity flats. On your second question, from my memory, the council's response to the questionnaire issued with the bill was that it would have to have a firm legal basis for considering the re-establishment of any zone—it would have to be sure that it would be legally protected. On your third question, the answer is that it is incredibly difficult to transplant a zone to another locality, which is a practical issue faced by the bill. Where is an ideal zone? Where will nobody complain? Where is a zone that is in nobody's backyard. It will be incredibly difficult to answer those questions.
For 20 years, Edinburgh had a tolerance zone, which was removed largely as a result of complaints. If it were decided several years later to re-establish a zone, would there not be major opposition from a considerable section of the population who had since moved in to the area?
Yes, I am sure that there would be.
The bill proposes that considerable consultation should take place before an area is designated. If such consultation had taken place when the new area in Salamander Street was designated, and if the City of Edinburgh Council had felt legally secure enough to institute a system of night cleansing and had given the permission necessary for a tow-away van and the installation of temporary toilets at night for example, would there have been the same level of opposition from the residents? I am not trying to whitewash the situation; I am asking about the level of opposition that there would have been if there had been time for the consultation process and other elements of the policy to be put in place.
There might have been the same level of opposition. Some consultation took place, but we were under extreme pressure to move the zone from its previous location. The council, understandably, had no legal basis on which to operate and, as we know, we live in a litigious world. Therefore, I cannot answer yes or no to Ms MacDonald's question. The zone could have had a better chance of survival, but the right elements were not present. Members might recall that we were faced with legal threats of huge bills for compensation for the reduction in the value of property, for example.
I thank you both for your interesting evidence, which the committee will consider. We are the secondary committee for the bill, so we will simply report on the policing and prosecution issues that have been raised. We tried to keep to that narrow remit, but we went into other issues because it is almost impossible not to do so.
It is clear from the bill's terms that it would strike at soliciting by prostitutes. However, it might also be worth clarifying that prostitution is not a criminal offence in Scotland. The crimes that are associated with prostitution involve public order and the exploitation that surrounds prostitution. Therefore, soliciting and importuning, which is an offence under section 46 of the 1982 act, is a public order offence that is committed by prostitutes when they solicit in the street.
It is late in the day but let me get this clear. If someone kerb-crawls within a prostitution tolerance zone, are they committing an offence?
No, not under the bill. The bill would make it an offence only for the prostitute to solicit. Obviously, there are issues there—
Not within the tolerance zone, though.
I beg your pardon?
It will not be an offence if the prostitute solicits within the tolerance zone.
Sorry. Did I mix it up?
Yes.
I meant to say that the bill would excuse the soliciting offence only when the tolerance zone is in operation. The bill would decriminalise that activity of the prostitute.
Let me get this clear. A client cannot kerb-crawl within a tolerance zone, because they are just looking for a prostitute within an area where it is permitted. Is that correct?
Sorry. I do not think that I have followed your question.
If a man is cruising up and down within a prostitution tolerance zone, he cannot be charged with what we might call in common parlance kerb-crawling.
Technically, he could be charged in a toleration zone.
He could?
Yes.
That is what I am getting at.
Sorry.
I did not quite understand that.
Sorry. I am—
I thought that he was entitled to kerb-crawl in a tolerance zone.
No. The entitlement applies only to soliciting.
That is correct.
Therefore, the entitlement is just from the prostitute's point of view and not from the client's point of view. That is helpful because I was not clear about that.
On prosecutions that take place under section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, there is some suggestion that there might be variations throughout the country as to how that legislation is applied. Will you comment on that?
I do not have with me statistics on the prosecution of such offences throughout the country, but I can obtain them if the committee thinks that that will be useful.
You mentioned offences regarding activities other than soliciting relating to prostitution that people could be charged with. Would such offences be affected by tolerance zones? Can you comment on prosecutions that take place in relation to those types of offences?
I do not have with me any relevant statistics on such offences. There are a number of statutory offences in the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. I can give copies of a list of those offences to the committee after the meeting. Some of the offences are rather technical, which is why I thought that it might be easier to provide copies, rather than read them out.
Do you agree with the approach in the bill, which is to focus on the cases that are created in section 46 of the 1982 act?
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that because it is a policy matter.
What factors do you take into account when deciding whether a prostitute, client or some other person associated with the prostitute should be prosecuted for offences under section 46 or for other offences? You said that soliciting was routinely reported in Glasgow, so I assume that the fiscals in Glasgow must then routinely decide whether to prosecute. Does practice vary throughout the country?
The criteria—sufficiency of credible and reliable evidence and the public interest—that are applied to those offences and to any other offences in connection with prostitution are the same as those that would be applied to any criminal offence that was reported to the procurator fiscal. I know that offences relating to soliciting are routinely prosecuted in Glasgow and I will confirm that by getting some statistics, but I think that soliciting is much more likely to be reported in Glasgow than it is elsewhere.
Does the number of prosecutions in Glasgow reflect the number of reports that come from the police?
Yes.
You said that a non-statutory prostitution tolerance zone would not make any difference to the number of prosecutions. Can you expand on that? What happens if someone is found to be soliciting in a non-statutory tolerance zone?
As I said, the procurator fiscal will take action on reports that are submitted. Whether there is a statutory or a non-statutory policing zone, the procurator fiscal's actions will depend on how the police are policing it. The police will generate or not generate reports depending on how they police the zones. We can see from reading the material that accompanies the bill that there are differing approaches throughout the country.
Obviously, if there were a statutory toleration zone, there would be no prosecutions for soliciting but there would be prosecutions for any other crimes that were committed.
If there were a statutory toleration zone, in considering any report the fiscal would need to be careful to ensure that the offence that was reported did not come within the terms of the toleration zone.
If an offence were to happen, perhaps inadvertently, just outside the toleration zone, would that cause difficulties?
Such a factor might well be taken into account in considering a report. It is perhaps unhelpful to generalise but, as with all such things, one would need to consider all the facts and circumstances that surround a case before taking a decision.
What I infer from that is that the policy seems to allow the public interest to weigh more heavily in Glasgow than in Edinburgh.
I do not know that one could necessarily infer that from what I said.
You said that the percentage of incidents that are reported and charged in Glasgow is greater.
That is my understanding from anecdotal evidence, but the statistics—
I do not mean to catch you out, but it seems to me that a statutory tolerance zone would, within reason, provide uniformity about what is or is not prosecuted. At the moment, whether people get charged for working on the streets depends to an extent on which part of the country they are in. Is that one way of putting it?
Yes, that might be right.
The bill could provide certainty. Maureen Macmillan raised the issue of somebody who had inadvertently gone five, 10 or 15yd outside the zone—on balance it might not be in the public interest to prosecute such a case. That would be a matter for discretion, but the discretionary element would be removed for crimes that are exempted within the zone.
The discretionary element would be removed in the sense that it would not be possible to prosecute the crime in those areas. Then again, whether there is a toleration zone would depend on whether the local authority determined that that was appropriate.
Of course, but that is not the question. I am interested in what you said about the fact that whether the crime is prosecuted depends not only on the evidence, but on the public interest. Different fiscals from different areas take different views on what offences it is in the public interest to take to court.
That is right.
What impact might a prostitution tolerance zone have on levels of criminal activities that—although not necessarily a part of street prostitution—are sometimes associated with it? For example, what impact might such a zone have on the supply of controlled drugs?
I am not really in a position to comment on that question. The police have been able to give some information about those activities.
I will ask a question that I have also put to the police. Is there a parallel between kerb-crawling and stalking of women, in that both activities were previously prosecuted as breaches of the peace? A specific offence was introduced for stalking, so would it be helpful if there were a specific offence of kerb-crawling, as exists south of the border but not in Scotland?
My understanding is that an offence of stalking was not introduced north of the border, although the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 contains criminal offences that are associated with breaches of non-harassment orders. It is probably not appropriate for me to comment on whether there should be a specific legislative provision on kerb-crawling. However, I can say that such activity is struck at by the common law offence of breach of the peace.
Have you no strong view either way on whether there would be a public benefit in having a specific offence of kerb-crawling?
The matter is one of policy on which it is not appropriate for me to comment at this stage.
I thank Morag McLaughlin for staying throughout the meeting.
I do not know what happens in the Subordinate Legislation Committee, but our meeting today is pretty much par for the course.
We speak quickly in the Subordinate Legislation Committee or, rather, we do all the work before the meeting starts.
We do not hold in our database information on non-payment of fines.
Who would be able to give us that information?
I imagine that you could get it from the Scottish Court Service.
In judging the efficacy of the policy, it would be important to know that sort of information.
I think that we can get a breakdown of the figures from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. I am looking round the table at members because at some point we have been told the percentage of women who are in prison for the non-payment of fines.
We know anecdotally.
We were given the breakdown of figures for soliciting.
So, there are two different issues and two pieces of information to find out that would be helpful to the committee. First, are there any comparative data on the number of prosecutions in Edinburgh before and after the existence of a tolerance zone? I presume that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service could help with that. Secondly, via the clerks, we could ask the Prison Service directly for the number of women who are in Cornton Vale as a result of non-payment of fines associated with prosecutions under section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
I know that information anecdotally, but that is no good for the committee. You must find out where the record is. I am happy for the record to be known.
I would be obliged if you could point us in the appropriate direction to find the figure.
I will see you after the meeting, convener.
We are not proud. Let us move on.
I have a couple of final questions on the general theme of how the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will respond to the bill. Will it have any difficulties with the approach that is set out in the bill in respect of street prostitution?
If you are asking about the difficulties from a policy perspective, I cannot answer that question at present. From a practical perspective, the existence of a toleration zone would mean that we would not receive reports of street prostitution in that zone during the time in which it operates. The bill's effect would be neutral, from that point of view.
I have two technical questions. First, are there any technical changes that you would like to be made to the bill? Secondly, what would the cost implications be for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of the establishment of the toleration zones that are envisaged in the bill?
I shall answer your second question first. I do not imagine that the bill would have a significant resource implication for us, because we would receive fewer reports from areas that had become toleration zones—unless what the police have suggested in relation to increases in other crimes was borne out. We could not quantify it, but on paper I do not foresee a specific resource issue for us arising from the bill.
I am not asking you to comment on the policy of the bill, but on whether you want any technical changes.
No, there are no such changes.
That is fine. Thank you very much for your answers and for sitting with us in the twilight.
Meeting closed at 17:13.
Previous
Alternatives to Custody Inquiry