Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5334, in the name of Tom McCabe, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill.
In 2003, the Scottish Executive established an expert group to consider the issues surrounding prostitution in Scotland. By December 2004, that group had published its first report, which dealt specifically with street prostitution involving women with a strong recognition that the issues are complex and that the criminal law alone cannot solve them. The report recommended a change to the criminal law to provide an offence that would apply equally to purchasers and sellers and would focus on tackling the alarm, offence and nuisance that street prostitution causes to communities.
Following consultation, the Executive published its response in November 2005. We acknowledged that street prostitution is indeed a form of violence against women. We also offered two key commitments that were broadly supported by stakeholders. First, we committed to accept the expert group's recommendation on the need to replace the existing, imbalanced legislation on prostitution, which focuses only on the seller, with a new offence that for the first time will tackle both the buyer and the seller.
Our second, equally important commitment was to produce guidance for local authorities and their community planning partners on tackling street prostitution. The expert group expressed the view, which was echoed by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, that, on its own, the criminal law will not deal with street prostitution. That is why we need local, multi-agency strategies to address all aspects of the problem.
I agree with the minister's last point but wonder whether the Executive has identified any particular funding streams for those strategies.
A number of groups already receive Executive funding. The guidance that has been produced will be useful in providing the parameters within which those groups can work. The guidance offers advice on how to prevent individuals from getting involved in prostitution in the first place. That is very important. It also covers how to reduce the harm that is experienced by individuals who are involved in prostitution and it focuses on assisting them to leave that activity. It also talks about the need to protect communities that find themselves affected by prostitution.
Although we and others explicitly recognise that, on its own, the criminal law cannot solve the problem, it has an important role in tackling the nuisance that street prostitution causes. It signals the kind of behaviour that society regards as unacceptable and it can help to deter that behaviour. The key principle of the bill is to correct the imbalance in the current legislation. At present, only those who sell sex in public places can be prosecuted for soliciting or loitering. By contrast, no statutory offence applies to the purchasers who create the demand. They can be prosecuted only where their behaviour amounts to a breach of the peace.
The minister might have just reached the point in his speech that I was going to ask him about. He said that there is no statutory offence that can deal with the buyer's infringement of the law. Does breach of the peace legislation not take care of that?
Clearly, it is the view of the Executive and the expert group that that does not deal with the problem adequately and that the current imbalance in the law has existed for far too long. That is why the bill will criminalise kerb crawling for the first time. For the first time, it will be an offence to try to purchase sex on our streets. We believe that that will be well regarded by communities the length and breadth of Scotland. We believe that it is only by tackling demand that we can hope to minimise harm to prostitutes and reduce nuisance to communities.
Having worked closely with the Local Government and Transport Committee during stage 1, we are pleased that the committee is supportive of the broad intention of the bill, but we recognise that it has a number of concerns about how the bill will work in practice. The committee has made it clear that its support for the general principles of the bill is conditional on the Executive undertaking to amend the bill to address those concerns.
Does the minister accept that, in the course of examining the bill, the committee arrived at the conclusion that, without a significant increase in the number of drug treatment and rehabilitation places throughout Scotland, the chances of tackling the problem and providing routes out of prostitution are very slim? Does he accept that we need an increase in the number of such places?
I accept that the committee expressed a view on that, but the Executive has never said that the bill will cure every problem that exists around prostitution. We have said that the bill will tackle the existing imbalance whereby the law focuses only on the seller and allows the purchaser a far different legal regime. We want to bring that to an end.
Under the bill as drafted, kerb-crawlers would commit an offence when they approached someone to solicit them. That approach is broadly equivalent to the kerb-crawling legislation in England and Wales.
The committee heard evidence that those who drive slowly around an area can—even if they do not solicit—cause considerable nuisance to the public. Therefore, the committee wanted the bill to go further by criminalising those people who, in effect, loiter within a car. Framing an offence of loitering in a car presents legal challenges, given the need to uphold enforcement without compromising the presumption of innocence. However, we believe that we have identified an approach that would enable a person, whether on foot or in a vehicle, to be charged with a loitering offence if, given all the circumstances, it would be reasonable to infer that the person was loitering for prostitution-related purposes. In the interests of fairness and to ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights, the defendant will be entitled to lead evidence to challenge the proposition that he was loitering for the purpose of prostitution. We will lodge an amendment on that basis.
The committee also considered that the bill should be amended so that it applies only to purchasers and that the existing offence should be retained to deal with sellers—
Will the minister take an intervention?
I need to make some progress, as I have already taken three interventions.
Focusing the new legislation on kerb-crawlers will send a clearer message about the unacceptability of that behaviour. Tackling the demand for street prostitution in that way will—I repeat—minimise the harm to prostitutes and reduce the nuisance to communities. Again, we will lodge an amendment at stage 2 to apply the new offences to purchasers only.
I am sure that the Parliament will agree that, on the ground of fairness and to avoid unnecessarily complicating enforcement, we should consider that the basis of the offences should be the same. The offence provisions in the bill currently aim to make it an offence to solicit or loiter in such a manner or in such circumstances as would be likely to cause alarm, offence or nuisance to a reasonable person. The offence provisions in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, on the other hand, make it an offence for a prostitute to solicit or loiter per se. Therefore, we will seek to amend the bill to remove references to alarm, offence or nuisance. That will make soliciting and loitering for the purposes of prostitution an offence for both purchaser and seller. There will be no need to prove that the activities of either would be likely to cause alarm, offence or nuisance.
The committee also asked the Executive to consider the introduction of stronger maximum penalties for purchasers. If the new offences apply only to purchasers, it will be more straightforward to introduce differential penalties. We will therefore seek to amend the bill to increase the maximum fine to level 3 on the standard scale. We will also examine the possibility of replicating the powers to disqualify offenders from driving that are currently in operation in other parts of the United Kingdom. As members will know, that is a reserved matter and, as such, would require an order at Westminster once the bill has been passed.
The committee also asked the Executive to consider whether it would be appropriate to provide the court with powers to seize the vehicles of those who engage in kerb crawling. We see that recommendation as a reflection of the committee's desire for effective use of existing powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to confiscate property that was used in the commission of an offence. When the court considers it appropriate, those powers could be used to confiscate kerb-crawlers' vehicles.
The committee wishes to ensure that the new offence applies throughout Scotland. It expressed concern about the operation of informal management zones whereby the police do not enforce the law at certain times in certain places. The committee has sought reassurance that the legislation on street prostitution will be enforced throughout Scotland. We are clear that the bill will apply throughout Scotland. There is no location or zone in which it will not apply.
I confirm that the Scottish Executive, ACPOS and the Crown Office consider it essential that enforcement policy is monitored to ensure that it continues to serve the public interest, with particular regard to the safety of the women who are involved, how the policy helps to direct services towards those women and the effect of prostitution on our communities.
Of course, enforcement is a matter for the police in consultation with the Procurator Fiscal Service. The police have a general duty to enforce the law, although they have a measure of discretion as to how that is done. It would be inappropriate for the Executive or the Parliament to interfere with operational policing decisions or with the independence of the prosecution service.
The only operating management zone is in Aberdeen. Grampian police and Aberdeen City Council have told the committee that they will review its operation in the light of the bill. We expect procurators fiscal, the police and local authorities to take into consideration the Parliament's views in considering the public interest.
The Executive remains committed to addressing the problems that are caused by street prostitution and in particular to tackling kerb-crawlers. We have said that we intend to address the committee's concerns by lodging stage 2 amendments. I urge the Parliament to support the bill. In doing so, for the first time we will tackle the utterly unacceptable practice of kerb crawling using the force of law.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill.
I apologise to members for not being here at the beginning of the debate, which was brought forward by 10 minutes. I could not be here at that time.
Every woman who has to turn to prostitution does so as a last resort. I suggest that every such case involves an individual human tragedy. Every prostitute faces a life of constant exposure to danger and to the ever-present risk of physical attack and abuse.
We all know that what often drives women to prostitution is an addiction to drugs. We acknowledge that that is an extremely serious problem and that the bill, which the Scottish National Party will support, does not address the problems of trying to find an exit strategy for those women directly. However, the bill is absolutely necessary, as I believe all parties recognised during the work that Local Government and Transport Committee members undertook. That work was fairly successful, as the assurances that we received from the minister yesterday evening tell us that the bill will now be something that I hope we can all support.
Originally, the bill sought to tackle loitering and created two new offences of soliciting and loitering. It sought to tackle kerb crawling. The committee heard powerful evidence, particularly from ladies from Glasgow. I will quote briefly Jennifer McCarey from the Calton area of Glasgow, who told us about her direct experience of exposure to kerb crawling. She said that kerb crawling
"is a car slowly following you and creeping along beside you. Often you are the only person in the street. The car stops until you catch up, then it drives slowly beside you and stops. It is tremendously intimidating behaviour, which does not involve rolling down a window and talking to you."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 24 October 2006; c 4149.]
Those witnesses also described the task of explaining to their young daughters what those men are doing. It is fair to say that the evidence that we heard from them was extremely powerful and persuasive, as was all the other evidence that the committee received. However, the problem that many members found was that, although we all wanted to tackle kerb crawling—the problem that was so graphically and effectively described—the bill appeared to offer an absolute defence to it. Section 1(6) states:
"No offence … is committed… if B"—
that is, the person who is seeking to buy sex—
"is in a motor vehicle which is not public transport."
The bill says that it would be a defence to prove that somebody was driving round in a car, which seemed to me to mean that it was not so much the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill as the kerb crawling (enabling) (Scotland) bill, and I said so in committee. However, the work that all parties on the committee carried out culminated in persuading the Scottish Executive that the initial approach was flawed.
I will deal with one point of principle that I raised in committee and which I am delighted, if somewhat surprised, that the Executive appears to have accepted—perhaps it reread my evidence from the course of the committee's inquiry.
Perhaps not.
That is also a possibility.
Paragraph 2 of the policy memorandum, under "Policy Objectives", states:
"The current law in Scotland is focused on those (predominately women) who sell sex on the street and not on those (predominately men) who purchase. There is a need to redress this balance in order to protect communities from the nuisance, alarm or offence arising from street prostitution-related activities in or near public places, whether caused by seller or purchaser."
It is necessary to redress the balance—why is it that the women are prosecuted by the full force of the law and the men escape scot free? However, the reason why it is necessary to redress the balance is not that nuisance is caused. The nuisance is a consequence of kerb crawling and the behaviour of the men. The need to prevent kerb crawling and make it a crime is a need to redress the balance between men and women full stop. I am therefore delighted that the minister has said that he will lodge amendments at stage 2 to remove the reference to nuisance and the requirement that, for an offence to be committed, a nuisance must be caused.
Does Fergus Ewing accept that if the references to nuisance, alarm and offence are removed from the bill, it becomes a morality bill?
No. I thought that Margo MacDonald would raise that point and I looked at the paperwork again in preparation for answering it. The expert group specifically said that it was not its aim to criminalise people on the basis of morality, but I do not view prostitution simply as a moral issue. It is a moral issue but, as the witnesses from Glasgow City Council said, it is mainly about violence to women. For that reason, we must ensure that the men are prosecuted, are turned into criminals and face the full force of the law. We must ensure that men who persistently and repeatedly offend face the possibility of their driving licences being removed and of forfeiting their motor cars.
It is time to target the men. I say to Margo MacDonald that we must do that not simply for morality but to protect the women who are involved. Therefore, I am delighted to be in the position of warmly congratulating the Scottish Executive—which is somewhat unusual for me—on its most welcome U-turn. A man of Mr McCabe's abilities, with Mr Lyon assisting, is well able to execute a U-turn in such a way that no one really notices and, in a spirit of generosity, I am delighted to welcome the U-turn that he has carried out so adroitly today. Accordingly, the Scottish National Party will support the bill at decision time.
When that self-proclaimed expert mathematician otherwise known as the First Minister of Scotland appointed Mr George Lyon to help Mr Tom McCabe to count the Scottish Executive's beans as Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business, Mr Lyon may have anticipated some testing times in the chamber and in committee on the subject of the Scottish Executive's budget, but he could not have expected to be landed with responsibility for a bill dealing with street prostitution. The fact that the bill has ended up on the desk of Mr Lyon and with the Local Government and Transport Committee is a reflection on the volume of bills relating to justice and home affairs, with which even two parliamentary justice committees are struggling to cope.
Be that as it may, the minister is to be commended for his willingness to engage with the committee in its consideration of the bill and to lodge substantial amendments in the light of the evidence that was given to the committee and of the recommendations in the committee's report. Those changes, as Fergus Ewing said, are wholesale and fundamental. Given the criticisms in the committee's report, some might say that the Scottish Executive has just executed the greatest climbdown since Hillary's descent from Everest, but that would be uncharitable. It would be fairer and more generous to welcome the positive engagement through which the Executive has committed itself to lodging those important amendments at stage 2.
The committee was framing its report against the backcloth of the murders of prostitutes in Ipswich. The Lord Advocate referred to that in her letter of 16 January to the committee on the subject of management zones. Those murders attracted worldwide attention because of the number of victims and the frequency of the murders, which were seen as the work of a serial killer. A wider examination of how street prostitution was policed in Ipswich and of what lessons that teaches us as regards the safety of women who are engaged in prostitution should await the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. However, one common denominator that could not fail to escape our attention is that all the young women who were murdered were working as street prostitutes in order to feed a drug habit. Breaking that addiction is surely a key element in helping women out of prostitution. Tommy Sheridan was quite right to raise that point when he intervened on the minister.
Street prostitution is a public nuisance and it is a blight on the communities that are affected by it. No one who heard the evidence given to the committee by the representatives of the Leith Links residents association in Edinburgh or the Calton for all group in Glasgow could be in any doubt about that. Fergus Ewing referred to their evidence that the presence of street prostitutes and their clients, who were invariably kerb-crawlers in cars, was offensive, intimidating and dangerous to residents, particularly women and young girls.
The test that I applied to the measures that were proposed in the bill was whether they would enable us to tackle that nuisance more effectively. On the basis of the evidence that was given, the answer to that question was indisputably no, for two reasons. First, despite its aim of tackling the purchase of sexual services on the street, the bill did not make it an offence to loiter in a car; it merely made it an offence to solicit from a car, although all the evidence indicated that soliciting from a car was relatively rare and that soliciting was invariably undertaken by the seller, not the buyer. Accordingly, the bill as introduced did not effectively tackle the nuisance of kerb crawling which, as we heard, is undertaken not only by men who wish to buy sex from prostitutes but by others who cruise the streets for voyeuristic purposes or to abuse and harass women who are engaged in prostitution.
Does Mr McLetchie accept that the offence that was initially presented in the bill was based on the English and Welsh offence of soliciting from a motor vehicle and that around 800 convictions were secured on the basis of that offence down south? The Executive has accepted the criticism that we needed to go further here and we have responded by going further to tackle the offence of loitering in a vehicle as well. I would welcome Mr McLetchie's recognition that that is the spirit in which we have tried to respond to the concerns that the committee has raised.
I am happy to do that and I welcome the amendment that the minister has undertaken to lodge at stage 2 to deal with that issue. Fergus Ewing welcomed that undertaking as well.
A point that came out in evidence—in particular, in the evidence of Assistant Chief Constable John Neilson of Strathclyde police—is that the bill as introduced would have made it more difficult to convict prostitutes than it is under the present law, as set out in section 4 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Under the present law, we have the concept of a known prostitute soliciting or loitering for the purposes of prostitution in a public place; under the bill as introduced, it would not have been sufficient for the prostitute merely to solicit or loiter—she or he would have had to do so in such a way or in such circumstances as would be likely to cause alarm, offence or nuisance to a reasonable person. In other words, the law as proposed set the bar at a higher level for police and prosecutors than is the case at present. From the standpoint of dealing with sellers, the bill was therefore likely to prove less rather than more effective. That was a nonsensical state of affairs and I am glad that it is to be corrected.
I am delighted that the Scottish Executive has revised its views and will recast the bill along the lines that the Local Government and Transport Committee recommended in its report. The changes will enable us to tackle the nuisance of street prostitution. I trust that the law, as amended, will be properly enforced throughout Scotland. That is not to ignore the wider issues surrounding prostitution in general. However, we cannot and should not have, as a starting point for policy, the proposition that the law of the land is not to be applied or enforced. I support the bill.
The bill that is before us has a deliberately narrow focus. It is not about tackling the whole issue of prostitution, and it is not about making prostitution illegal—although there are one or two MSPs in the chamber who I am sure would like to do just that. No; the bill is about trying to remove the demand for street prostitution by making kerb crawling an illegal activity.
I welcome the Scottish Executive's approach. This is a long-overdue reform of our law. Indeed, many people throughout Scotland will be surprised to learn that kerb crawling is not already specified as an illegal activity.
As has been mentioned, the Local Government and Transport Committee, when taking evidence on the bill, heard from residents groups about the fear and distress that are created by motorists slowly circling residential areas looking for prostitutes. That is precisely the activity that the bill is designed to address.
Do we take it that the bill is designed to address the fear, annoyance and alarm, and not the business of prostitution?
The bill is not designed to address the business of prostitution per se; it is designed to take away the demand by making kerb crawling an offence. That is what the bill focuses on.
The Local Government and Transport Committee's unanimous view was that the bill, as drafted, would not have succeeded in its main aim. Why? Because, as we all know, section 1(6) exempts motor vehicles from the scope of the bill. I am glad that Scottish Executive ministers have listened to the committee's concerns. As we have just heard, ministers have agreed that the Executive will lodge amendments at stage 2 that will alter the bill radically so that it will indeed tackle the issues that it is supposed to tackle, and will do so effectively.
The minister said that the Executive has agreed to focus the new offence entirely on the purchasers of sex. The Executive has agreed to include as an offence loitering in a car for the purposes of obtaining the services of someone engaged in prostitution; it has agreed to remove the extra burden of proof about causing alarm, offence or nuisance— proof that would be required if the bill were to be left as drafted; and it has agreed to retain the existing offence under section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 in relation to the sellers of sex. The Executive has also agreed with the committee on the doubling of the maximum penalty for kerb crawling to £1,000.
On that last point, I am not personally convinced of the need to increase the penalty. I do not think that it will make any difference whatever to the offender whether the maximum fine is £500 or £1,000. However, the majority of committee members believed that the maximum should be increased and the Executive has listened. That is the important point. Indeed, as far as the issue of penalties for offenders is concerned, the Executive has agreed to seek an order at Westminster. Tom McCabe said that the Executive would do that in order to provide the courts with the power to disqualify from driving people who are convicted of kerb-crawling offences.
The only other real point of controversy concerns the so-called prostitution management zones. Originally, my view was that the zones represented an anomaly in that the law of the land was not being enforced across the country and the police and local councils were co-operating in managing an illegal activity. However, recent events in Ipswich have shown dramatically the way in which lives are put at risk and how dangerous the activity is to those who are engaged in it. Of course, prostitution is an illegal activity, but I am now not convinced that simply banning management zones is the right way forward. It is only right that, in a letter to the Local Government and Transport Committee, the Lord Advocate gave the undertaking that, in light of the new offence, new guidance would be given on the operation of management zones, such as the one in Aberdeen.
Given the number of undertakings from the Executive to alter radically the bill at stage 2, the Parliament should approve the general principles of the bill this afternoon. The bill should be allowed to proceed to stage 2, at which time the Executive can amend it in the way that the minister outlined. If the bill becomes an act, we will have on the statute book an effective law that focuses on the removal of the demand for street prostitution.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. The member is almost finished.
If that happens, it must represent a step in the right direction.
I call Bristow Muldoon to open for the Labour Party.
I think, Presiding Officer, that I am speaking on behalf of the committee, and not opening for the Labour Party.
The Parliament has debated the issue of street prostitution a number of times, quite often as the result of the attention that Margo MacDonald has brought to the issue over the past few years. She did that first through the bill that she introduced to Parliament and then through her involvement in the Executive's expert group on prostitution in Scotland, which Sandra Hood chaired.
The bill that is before the chamber today is not a comprehensive attempt at introducing a complete solution to the problems that are associated with prostitution. It would no doubt be naive to believe that any single piece of legislation could eradicate prostitution from our society. Changing attitudes, primarily among men, is far more important in reducing the prevalence of prostitution.
Although the bill is limited in scope, it aims to make a significant change in the law. For the first time, people who seek to procure sexual services from street prostitutes will face being charged with a criminal offence. I hope that that sends out a strong message on the Parliament's view of street prostitution and on the view that we take with regard to men. Obviously, it is predominantly men who are involved in kerb crawling and purchasing sexual services from prostitutes.
I appreciate that the bill has a narrow focus, but why should the people who attempt to sell or buy sexual services on the street be made subject to the criminal law when the people who sell sexual services through the internet or use mobile phones to conduct their business are not being made subject to the same law?
Two points arise from Margo MacDonald's intervention. First, there is a need for the Executive to review all the law that applies to forms of prostitution other than street prostitution. Secondly, associated with street prostitution are the problems that the activity causes to communities. In particular, women in our communities can be targeted by kerb crawlers who seek to purchase the services of a prostitute. At some point in the very near future, the Executive needs to review all the legislation in this area.
Will the member give way?
I need to make progress. I do not have much time in which to make my speech.
The bill will introduce a criminal offence, the aim of which is to deal with the men who are involved in kerb crawling and purchasing sexual services from street prostitutes. In addition to sending out that message, I hope that the bill will have a strong deterrent effect.
I make the general observation, which Mr McLetchie and Mr Sheridan also made, that as well as changing the law the Executive must work further with local government, the health service and voluntary organisations that work with women who are involved in prostitution, to develop more services that offer women support and opportunities to break out of prostitution. It should be acknowledged that for a high percentage of those women, high levels of drug use and other chaotic elements in their lives have led to their becoming involved or trapped in prostitution.
Did the committee discuss how services can be delivered to women who are scattered because they are hiding from the police?
In parts of the country in which there are no tolerance or management zones, voluntary groups and local authority workers manage to identify women who are involved in prostitution and to make services available to them. I would expect the police to be able to refer women to such services, too.
The bill had a rough ride through the committee and was criticised in a number of ways. However, in framing our report, I think that no member of the committee disagreed with the Executive's aims. The issue was whether the offences as drafted would have the impact that the Executive intended them to have.
A number of members mentioned the fact that the offence of loitering would not apply to people in private cars. The approach seemed odd to the committee, given that the intention was genuinely to tackle the men who cause most of the nuisance in communities that are affected by prostitution. Therefore, I welcome the Executive's intention to lodge amendments to remove that exemption and to create an offence of loitering in a car for the purposes of procuring prostitution.
The increase in penalties for purchasers has been mentioned. The committee considered the measure to be appropriate because we thought that there have been heavier penalties on prostitutes than on purchasers and that a higher fine would have a greater deterrent effect. Given that many offences are committed from private motor vehicles, we also thought that consideration should be given to the power to seize vehicles. The minister has said that such powers already exist; we should consider how they might be used in response to the offence that we are considering.
Time is short, so my final comment is on the creation of comparable offences for women and men who engage in prostitution. It is right in principle that there should be a comparable test of whether an offence is being committed and I welcome the Executive's proposals in that regard.
The bill as drafted had major problems, but it can be improved at stage 2. I welcome the reassurances in Mr Lyon's letter and in Mr McCabe's speech and I recommend that the bill's general principles be agreed to.
Mr Muldoon was, of course, opening on behalf of the Local Government and Transport Committee. We move to the open debate.
We are dealing with the bill at stage 1, so we are considering its general principles. To that extent, we are more than happy to support the bill, as Fergus Ewing said. It is clear that there have been problems to do with the drafting of the bill, as Bristow Muldoon and others said, but we accept that the approach is now heading in the right general direction.
We have a great deal of sympathy for the Executive. The issue is problematic and it is extremely difficult to legislate on matters that impinge on morality as well as criminality. The issue divides society and is often not simply black and white—there are shades of grey, as other members will no doubt say. I accept Bristow Muldoon's argument that the bill is not meant to be all encompassing but is intended to deal with a particular aspect of prostitution. In future, the Parliament might need to consider other aspects, but the bill that we are considering addresses the particular problem of street prostitution.
It is important from the outset to kill the myth that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world and at worst can be regarded simply as a base capitalist transaction between willing sellers and purchasers—madames and their reputable clientele. I do not believe that it is any such thing; street prostitution is certainly not any such thing. As I was a defence agent in the city of Edinburgh for 20 years, I am well aware that street prostitution is almost universally conducted by heroin addicts who are victims of abuse and who, in many instances, were victims of abuse as children. Sadly, women are now trafficked into Scotland from foreign lands. They think that they are coming to work in pubs or clubs, but instead find themselves abused in a country where they hoped to find economic and social advancement. We must kill the myth that prostitution is somehow legitimate; it is the exploitation of women and it must be treated in that way.
I am glad that the member has set the debate in that context and has acknowledged that women are victims. If it is accepted that women are victims, why are women still criminalised?
As I was going to say, I much prefer the situation that exists in Sweden. We are heading in that direction by dealing with kerb-crawlers. However, situations could arise in which somebody, perhaps because of their heroin addiction, persists in doing something, in Horse Wynd or anywhere else, that we feel to be morally unacceptable. That simply cannot be allowed. The number 1 aim should be to target anybody who drives round seeking to exploit women, but instances may arise in which we simply cannot allow something to happen. The issue is one of pragmatic enforcement. As I said, the emphasis should not be on criminalising women, but I would not support anyone who argued that we should decriminalise prostitution. The issue is about how the prosecution service and the police should address prostitution.
If we decriminalised prostitution, instances could arise in which somebody, who could be misguided, sought to abuse the situation, for whatever reason. We should not allow that to happen. Decriminalisation would also open up an opportunity for the pimps and organised criminals who exploit women. They would know that they could make ill-gotten gains, but there would be no punishment. We see that in other aspects of society, such as the use of youngsters as drug mules because of their age and the likelihood that they will not be prosecuted. We cannot decriminalise prostitution. The bill goes in the correct direction, which is criminalising those who set out to exploit women, in whatever form.
Will the member give way?
Sorry; I am running short of time.
That takes me to the issue of tolerance zones, which we must accept are not all sweetness and light. There may be circumstances in the city of Aberdeen that I do not know about, but the zone in Edinburgh was certainly not acceptable for those who had to live in the area. One of the issues may have been societal change—housing changed and people moved into areas that had previously been brownfield or undeveloped sites. However, for all the people who lived in the area, not simply women or young women, life was often intolerable. That situation simply could not be allowed to continue. For that reason, I believe that the bill is correct in going down the route of targeting those who seek to exploit and being sympathetic to those who are exploited. That is a change from the present approach to the problem, in which we tend to punish those who are to be pitied, rather than those who seek to abuse their financial muscle.
I do not suggest that the bill is a final solution to the matter, but it is certainly a welcome step in the correct direction.
I confess that the bill is a great disappointment to me. Although elements of the suggested balanced approach to the management and, quite possibly, the minimisation of street prostitution that was the outcome of the work by Sandra Hood's expert group have been retained in the bill and in the proposed guidance to local authorities, the bill fails to achieve the means of exercising duties of care towards sex workers, who have the right not to be beaten and injured, and towards people in the general community, who have every right not to be alarmed or annoyed by the activities that surround prostitution. Instead, the bill simply introduces an anti-kerb-crawling measure to deter purchasers of sexual services. Although supporters of the bill claim that the legislation in England has resulted in more than 800 men being charged, they cannot point to proof that that caused those men to stop buying sex. If that was the case, far fewer women would be selling sex on the streets.
The bill might give respite to people, such as the residents of Leith Links, who have been caused nuisance because of the proximity of their home or business to a red light zone. I say "might", because in English cities the kerb-crawling legislation has meant that red light zones now move about cities, playing hide and seek with police and residents. I think I am correct in saying that Liverpool intends formally to move its red light zones around. To anyone who is mistaken enough to believe that that deterrent to buyers will shrink the market for prostitution, I suggest that assignations will be made by phone or by internet. Members can look up the internet for themselves and they will find Scottishescorts.co.uk. If they look in the reference bible, McCoy's, they will see that sexual services can be found in Stirling or in the kingdom of Fife. I imagine that few members will want to take me up on that offer because they will not want to be seen reading the book. However, I have done my homework, so I know that the market will not shrink as intended by this simple measure.
As Margo MacDonald knows, I signed her original bill proposal that allowed the debate to begin. It was hard to kick-start such a debate in the Parliament. However, in what way does she think that tolerance zones would have shrunk the market for prostitution? Does she agree that—as outlined in "Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography"—tolerance zones, by their very nature and name, simply lead to tolerance of violence and abuse? I, too, have done some homework.
In the first place, tolerance refers to the fact that the law of the land was put on hold inside a geographical area, which was not satisfactory for anyone. It was not violence that was tolerated; having a management zone, non-harassment zone or tolerance zone was meant to prevent violence. If Elaine Smith has read that book, she will realise that the author advocates a safer zone—a management zone—so that violence can be minimised. That is one of my main concerns about the bill and it was one of the twin aims of Sandra Hood's committee. Incidentally, we should thank Sandra Hood for the amount and quality of work that went into producing the report.
Another aspect of the kerb-crawling legislation as it stands concerns me—I know that it concerns the minister, too. If the same pattern that exists in English cities is repeated, say in Glasgow, it will be much more difficult for the support services, which help women to exit prostitution when they are ready to do so, to reach the women. We know from experience and from the work that has been undertaken by Neil McKeganey that the support services have to build a relationship with women. Bristow Muldoon suggested that the police could direct the women to services—that is not enough. The person who arrests someone is not the person to build up a relationship with them that is sufficient to convince them that they could muster the self-confidence to undertake the sort of job training that is offered by SCOT-PEP in Edinburgh to get women out of prostitution. The confines of the kerb-crawling legislation concern me greatly.
I admit that the problem of intrusive and alarming kerb crawling presents a real difficulty in Glasgow. There was no such problem in Edinburgh during the operation of the original tolerance zone. Kenny MacAskill is right that there were occasions when the zone did not run smoothly, but I am talking about kerb crawling in particular. That is the case in Aberdeen, where the red light or management zone is located in the docks—which are not part of a residential area—at night, when business premises are shut.
I regret that I do not have more time, because I would like to reply to some of the things that have been said and which are wrong. I asked Fergus Ewing whether he would take an intervention because I wanted to find out whether his attitude to legislation applied to all sex workers. I think that it should. Why should it apply to just the women in the street? Mike Rumbles thought that the market might shrink. I have referred to that. If the market had shrunk, we would be seeing fewer prostitutes. We should remember that there are fewer street prostitutes in Edinburgh and that the level is stable in Aberdeen, whereas in Glasgow the number of prostitutes has risen. Bristow Muldoon said that the police would refer the prostitutes to services.
If we are talking about street prostitution, we are talking about only four cities, and there is no problem in Dundee. In Aberdeen, a potential problem for the general community is managed. That arrangement appears to operate reasonably successfully from the Aberdeen citizen's point of view.
I very much regret having to say that I will not support the bill. I will abstain, because I hope that amendments will be made to bring the bill closer to the principles that were outlined by Sandra Hood and to what I know to be good practice.
I recognise the work of the Executive and the expert group in tackling this complex and difficult issue that affects women. There can be no one who has been following the national news who was not shocked by the recent tragic events in Ipswich, where women were murdered because of their involvement in prostitution. Some of the media references to those women as prostitutes first, rather than women, angered me somewhat.
Street prostitution is not a real choice for women.
Will the member give way?
I should have already declared my interest as a member of the—
Will the member give way?
I ask Rosemary Byrne to let me finish my declaration—if I could have two seconds. I declare my interest as a member of the Routes Out of Prostitution board. Rosemary will need to be brief, as I have quite a bit to say.
Pauline McNeill mentioned the situation in Ipswich. Would it not have been a better move by the Parliament to consider a pilot scheme for heroin on prescription so as to bring these women off the streets? For many of them, the cause of their situation is that they are addicted to heroin.
May I deal with that later? I have a section of my speech in which I will address that very point—which I have done three times in the chamber in previous debates.
Street prostitution is not a real choice for women. It is harmful to women; it exploits them; it puts them in danger; it is violence against women. As we know, 90 per cent of the women have serious drug problems and are exploited not just by men who buy sex, but by the sick men who send them out on the streets in the first place.
The current position of women in Scots law is shocking, and it is not equality proofed. The current offence under section 46(1) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 discriminates against women because there is currently no corresponding offence that criminalises men in the same way. Let me elaborate. The police will issue two cautions to a woman to establish her involvement in prostitution, and her name is held on the police computer. After that, her involvement in prostitution is referred to as that of a common prostitute. On the third occasion, she is charged with soliciting and is taken to court, where she is again referred to as a common prostitute. Many commentators think that that in itself is discrimination in our law, as there is no equivalent offence under which people can be brought before the court and referred to in a similar way—as a common thief and so on.
Women are sent to prison not for soliciting, but for their failure to pay a fine. Soliciting is a sexual offence. Although it is not a registrable sex offence, it is not exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 when women apply for a job. We still have to address that issue. It is an obstacle for many women attempting to exit prostitution.
The law as it stands makes men invisible. It makes them immune from prosecution whereas women have been punished for centuries by taking part in the same act. The current offence of breach of the peace, a common-law offence, is not an equivalent to what women have endured under our criminal justice system. I very much welcome the attempt the Executive has made to make good law, as well as the Local Government and Transport Committee's report and the Executive's response, which gives the bill the prospect of becoming good law.
The bill as introduced is puzzling to me, though. We say that we will legislate on kerb crawling, yet we exclude it under section 1(6). There is no doubt that prostitution is a nuisance to communities. Anderston, in my constituency, is a well-known red-light area, but it is changing because of regeneration, which means that any tolerance, unofficial or otherwise, is not really possible any longer.
I am alarmed at the tone of the policy memorandum, which does not make any reference to the harm done to women. It relates only to antisocial behaviour. In redressing that balance at stage 2, I would like the Executive to emphasise the other purpose of the bill—I know that that is its commitment. There is consensus that the buyer should be criminalised. We should have an offence that is easily provable in law, and we should retain the provision in the 1982 act to which I referred and use it as a model. If it has been possible to say that women are persistent offenders because of soliciting, we can model a new law to say that men who are persistent kerb-crawlers can also be criminalised. That would seem to be the way to gender balance the law.
To be honest, I am surprised that the member is in favour of retaining the old law on soliciting and loitering. Does that not again tip the balance against the women—the seller—because it will be very much easier to prove that?
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that if women have been referred to as a common prostitute when they have been regarded as having past behaviour on two occasions, the same approach should also apply to men. There is no reason why we cannot model a law that also applies to men. Given what I have said about the discrimination that has existed under the 1982 act, we should ensure that the provision in the 1982 act clearly criminalises men and not women in all sorts of ways.
Inevitably, legislating on the issue does not deal wholly with it. I was happy that Tom McCabe said in his opening speech that we must deal with many other aspects of prostitution. We know that the cycle of women becoming involved in prostitution will not end because we legislate. Our approach must still be about social inclusion. We must recognise that, for many women, the problem is drug addiction.
I will deal with the issue that Tommy Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne have raised. I have asked three times in the chamber why district courts have not been given powers to apply drug treatment and testing orders, given that most of the women end up in this situation because of drug use. If we are serious about the matter, it seems sensible to give the courts the right powers to deal with the women so that we can take them out of prostitution.
The purpose of the bill is worthy: to deter and discourage street prostitution.
The bill is necessary for several reasons. First, as has been said, there is the danger to the prostitutes themselves. Frankly, they are entitled to exactly the same level of protection as any other member of society. The fact that we may think that an Ipswich situation could not happen in Glasgow or Edinburgh is scant comfort when we realise that six prostitutes have been murdered in Glasgow over the past 12 years and there has been only one conviction. There has also been a series of serious assaults.
It is not my intention to have a go personally at the member, but I make a plea to members to stop referring to the women as prostitutes first and women second. These are women who are victims and are in prostitution. Please stop describing them only as prostitutes.
I made the point that they are entitled to the same protection as everyone else; I thought that that was a fairly inclusive gesture.
There is also the problem of nuisance. The fact is that we have seen a complete change in cities such as Glasgow, which has enabled the sex trade to move out of the lower area of the city centre into residential areas. Another issue is that shift patterns and work patterns have changed, so when women leave call centres, for example, after an evening's work, they find themselves caught up in the hubris that is part of Glasgow city centre at night. Another issue is that it detracts from city centre amenity. There is a real problem when that nuisance is transferred to residential areas.
The removal of the sex trade to parts of the east end of Glasgow round about the Calton area has rightly caused great concern to local residents. Women who are going in and out of their homes at night are approached by people in cars, and women who are prostitutes patrol around the area, which is offensive to people who are bringing up children and attempting to live a reasonably normal life. Action is therefore necessary.
Action could have been taken much earlier. I have to say, contrary to the comments made by Mr McCabe, that the conduct of kerb crawling is clearly a breach of the peace: in Glasgow, there have been successful prosecutions for a number of years.
Fergus Ewing highlighted some of the evidence that came before the committee. Kerb crawling is a classic breach of the peace: people are being annoyed and feel that they are threatened. Alarm is caused. As Fergus Ewing, who is a solicitor, will know, those are the classic ingredients of a charge of breach of the peace. I feel that action could have been taken much earlier if we had gone down that route.
The member is correct. Does he accept that one of the purposes of introducing this new offence is to make it easier to secure prosecutions in the circumstances that have been described?
Yes, but I feel that the common-law position was fairly robust and that, if the Executive, the police and the prosecuting authorities had gone down the route I have described, the matter could have been resolved.
We cannot escape the main difficulty that faces us, which is the fact that prostitution is a by-product of a drug situation in Scotland that is becoming untenable. When I sat in court, the offender in at least 95 per cent of the cases of prostitution that I dealt with was an injecting drug abuser.
Our approach to the problem is bound to fail unless additional resources are invested in assisting women who find themselves in the situation that we are discussing and, as Pauline McNeill rightly says, district courts are given the power to impose drug treatment and testing orders.
Mr Lyon must be a relieved man today. He must be exceptionally grateful to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which has certainly pulled his chestnuts out of the fire. If the bill had gone through without the amendments the Executive now proposes, it would have been facile, to say the least. As Fergus Ewing said, it would have been an enabling procedure for the sort of conduct that we are all anxious to prohibit.
I have to say to Mr Lyon and Mr McCabe that sloppy draftsmanship of that type is unacceptable. To bring a bill before Parliament in the state that this bill was in before yesterday's letter arrived shows a degree of something that is almost neglect of duty. It is, quite frankly, appalling. We shall be able to support this bill today, but only after the last-minute change of heart on the part of ministers, who owe a degree of gratitude to the committee.
I would like to begin by recognising the work of the Scottish Executive and the Local Government and Transport Committee as well as the work of the working group and our colleague, Margo MacDonald, over many years.
Recent events, to which many colleagues have referred, have reminded us of the real dangers that women working in the sex industry face and the need for all of us to do all that we can to protect them from all forms of violence associated with that trade as well as to give them routes out of prostitution.
As we have heard, the bill has a narrow focus and will not, of itself, solve all—or even many—of the problems that are associated with prostitution. However, I congratulate the Executive on introducing legislation to try to redress the current, long-standing, imbalance, which has resulted in the system being skewed against the sellers rather than the purchasers of sex.
The Local Government and Transport Committee is to be congratulated on its report, which highlights difficulties with the practical application of the bill as originally drafted. I am pleased that the Executive has accepted many of the points the committee raised, particularly in relation to kerb crawling, which is of great concern to affected communities. The bill as originally drafted would not have included loitering in a car, yet the evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and others made it clear that two thirds of incidents of kerb crawling involve private cars rather than the number 23 bus.
I support the committee's suggestion, which the minister has accepted, that the bill should be amended to include loitering in private cars. Clearly, given European convention on human rights concerns, there will need to be evidence that the accused intended to solicit, but I am reassured that the Crown Office believes that the legislation can be drafted appropriately to take account of that. The Executive's agreement to remove the extra burden of proof about causing alarm, nuisance or offence should also assist prosecutors.
I also welcome the Executive's acceptance of the committee's request that the bill be limited to the purchaser and that the seller should continue to be prosecuted under section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. That will send a clear message to those who seek to purchase sex. It will make it clear that, whether in the narrow context of offences or the wider context, prostitution must not and cannot be seen as just a women's issue. Prostitution is a trade in which women—usually the poorest, and often those who are gripped by addiction—sell their bodies to men. Until now, those men have been ignored or to some extent protected by the law, but they fuel the demand for poor, addicted women to sell their bodies on the streets of our country. That is why I support the suggestion that the maximum fine for the new offence should be increased from £500 to £1,000 and welcome the fact that the Executive will seek powers to disqualify kerb-crawlers from driving or to take their vehicles.
I also welcome the committee's interest in alternative rehabilitation projects for those who are engaged in the sex trade. Constantly fining women for selling their bodies simply sends them back out on to the streets to raise more money—in the same way—to pay their fines. Alternatively, they end up in our prisons.
I thank the member for her kind remarks. Would she consider the bill a success if it led to a great number of prosecutions but there was no diminution in the number of women who prostitute themselves?
If I make some progress, I may come to that. The bill is one step along the road, but it does not contain all the answers.
I supported Margo MacDonald's bill. As a former Edinburgh councillor, I believed that the zone that operated in Edinburgh for many years had to some extent protected women from assault, allowed relevant services to make contact with street women and contained activities in a particular area. After its demise, I spoke to senior police officers whom I knew well. They told me that the women who were involved in street prostitution were at greater risk than they had been and that underage girls, who had not been involved before to any great extent, were now involved in locations throughout the city. Prostitution did not disappear; it was just dispersed to other areas, where non-working women were more likely to be harassed and intimidated and prostitutes had less protection. Whatever we do, we must never lose sight of the knock-on impact of our actions.
I support the Executive's position that it is for chief constables and prosecutors to make decisions about how the new offences will be enforced. I welcome the comments of the Lord Advocate, who stated in her letter of 16 January:
"I will ensure that police officers and prosecutors across Scotland review enforcement policy and practice, including the operation of any managed zones … in light of any new offence passed … by the Scottish Parliament."
Enforcement by the police must be appropriate to the communities in which they operate.
Given the narrow focus of the bill, I hope that, in time, the Parliament will evaluate its impact and the Parliament's committees, including the Equal Opportunities Committee, will consider what more can be done to improve the lives of those who, through poverty, debt and addiction, are forced into a life of prostitution. I hope that, in time, we will consider whether further legislation is required to tackle other forms of prostitution.
I agree with a lot of the points that have been made about the narrow scope of the bill. The most important point is that, if the bill progresses with the concessions that the Executive has made, in no way can it be said that the issue of prostitution has been dealt with. We must come back to the issue. In that context, I am happy to support the general principles of the bill, but I do so only on the basis that it represents a tiny pebble in the water of what needs to be done.
The most progressive thing that the Executive has done is acknowledge that prostitution, whatever form it takes and wherever it happens, is violence against women. Violence against women is set within a continuum of sexism and misogyny, but there is general and pervasive sexism in society at large. That sexism, which is endemic, ingrained and widespread, allows prostitution and violence against women to continue without being confronted, understood or challenged.
I challenge the contention that all prostitution is violence against women because such a contention is gender specific, which prostitution is not.
Secondly, Carolyn Leckie may or may not know women who have chosen to escort. There is a fine line between doing extras after an escorting job and openly advertising oneself on the internet.
Margo MacDonald has got to the nub of the issue. Prostitution—whether the prostitute is a young man or a young woman; prostitutes are mainly women—is abuse. That takes us to the central discourse and the challenge of passing legislation that will have an effect. Understanding is the key to getting legislation that will change society's attitudes and have an effect.
What choices are involved? How many women are in a position to choose? Many are poor, addicted to drugs and without access to rehabilitation and so on. They are victims of a sexist society that objectifies women and says that it is all right for men to buy women's orifices. Doing so is not all right. That view must be challenged.
I do not have enough time to make all the points that I wanted to make, but I will mention the general discourse. I agree with Pauline McNeill. I am sick to the back teeth of the focus always being on the lifestyles and situations of women and of there being very little focus on men's demand to buy women's orifices—that is the predominant demand. If we accept that prostitution predominantly means women being the victims of men, why should we criminalise women? We must return to that matter.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions.
I return to what Kenny MacAskill said. I am not in favour of decriminalising prostitution; rather, I am in favour of ensuring that the victims of prostitution are protected and the perpetrators of prostitution are criminalised.
The bill has a narrow scope in focusing on street prostitution. In that context, I agree with Margo MacDonald—indeed, I often agree with her arguments and disagree with her conclusions. That said, I pay tribute to the work that she and many organisations and individual women on the cross-party group on men's violence against women and children have done.
Abuse of women on or off the street is abuse, and it is not on. Whether abuse takes place in a sauna, a house or a hotel room does not matter—it is still abuse. We must challenge the demand to conduct such abuse wherever it arises. I accept that a genuine consciousness issue is involved and that men who are involved do not necessarily believe that they have abused women. In that respect, the bill will play a small part in raising consciousness and questioning beliefs.
The research on men's demand for prostitution is limited, but it often includes reports by men that they have sought the services of women who are abused by prostitution as an act of aggression after they have had a row with their partner. Men often talk in language that dissociates them from the act. Sometimes they have even thought that they have done women a favour; indeed, men have even described the act as an act of charity, as the women have received money for the transaction. In that case, why do they have to purchase women's orifices? If the act is such an act of charity, they should simply hand over the money.
The violence is not only on the streets; it is everywhere—and we do not legitimise it by tolerating it. There is a global context and the phenomenon of the tolerance debate, but where does that come from? There is a multibillion-pound industry that depends on the objectification of women, the proliferation of the abuse of women and the legitimising of prostitution—and it makes billions of pounds. We must be very careful about adopting measures that encourage the proliferation of prostitution, which is exactly what has happened in Victoria, in Australia, and in Amsterdam, in Holland. It is time to look more fundamentally at international examples such as that of Sweden. I do not think that the committee considered enough evidence that countered some of the assertions that were made about the example of Sweden. It is time that we spoke directly to the Minister for Justice in Sweden. This is only the beginning.
I speak as the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee. We acknowledge the fact that the committee has come late to the issue, but we have been prompted by serious concerns about the policy behind the bill. The Equal Opportunities Committee feels that it should have had a role as the secondary committee on this important legislation. Nevertheless, we welcome the change in culture, the acceptance of the problem and the fact that the Executive has produced a bill on the issue.
We support the work of the Local Government and Transport Committee and the recommendations it has made, but we feel strongly that this is only a small part of a wider issue and that there may be a missed opportunity to tackle the issue as part of a strategic agenda on violence against women, thus building on the Executive's excellent track record through its violence against women strategy. The committee feels that the Parliament must not ignore linked issues such as support services, keeping women safe and drug rehabilitation. We must acknowledge that the scope of the bill is narrow. Elaine Smith will raise some of those issues in a few minutes' time.
We feel that the Executive has not really considered alternative methods of tackling prostitution. We have heard, for instance, how prostitution is tackled in other countries. Nevertheless, we welcome the Executive's acknowledgement of the issues and its commitment to make the changes to the bill that were proposed by the Local Government and Transport Committee to ensure that it is improved.
As Margaret Smith said, the Equal Opportunities Committee will maintain a close interest in the bill and will recommend to its successor committee that it does likewise in relation to the wider issues surrounding prostitution. We will urge the committee, at that stage, to consider how it can take those issues forward.
The Equal Opportunities Committee urges support for the bill at this stage.
I welcome the fact that the issue of prostitution is being addressed. I also echo other members' observations on the purpose of the bill. The Executive's policy memorandum states that the purpose of the bill is
"to protect our communities from antisocial activity associated with prostitution in public places."
Prostitution is violence against women. It is harmful to women, it is harmful to children and it is harmful to communities. Although I appreciate that this is a large and complex issue, I am disappointed by the narrow scope of the proposed legislation. I hope that it will be the first step in the right direction towards achieving the objectives that were identified by the expert group on prostitution. I remind members that the expert group had four objectives and that the bill's aim is just one of them. I hope that further legislation will be introduced to achieve the other three objectives, which have not yet been addressed.
I welcome the Executive's commitment to amend the bill in response to the concerns that have been expressed not just by the Local Government and Transport Committee, but by the various agencies that have given evidence to the committee. I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the bill, and I thank the many people who contributed evidence towards that. I was a member of the Local Government Committee when Margo MacDonald's bill was introduced, and I agreed with some—but not all—of what she and others had to say. I am therefore pleased that the issue has returned to the committee and I look forward to debating the Executive's bill at stage 2.
I commend the Executive for agreeing to make robust and serious amendments to the bill, and I welcome the commitment to use the bill to target the other areas that I have mentioned—the other three objectives that were identified by the expert group. One of the good features of the proposed legislation is the criminalisation of the buyer. That is a sensible provision, and I welcome that aspect of the bill.
I turn to the area in Glasgow that other members have mentioned—I am sure that more members will mention it. Of the women whom we know to be involved in street prostitution in Glasgow, 95 per cent are drug users and have other very serious issues that need to be addressed. Unlike the buyers, those people do not have a choice; in many cases, prostitution is the only way they can survive. It is a sad state of affairs that exposes one of the failings of the bill, in that it does not back up action to help and support those very vulnerable women. The Executive should have focused on the need to promote ways out of the terrible trap, rather than introducing legislation that could, in some cases, make things more dangerous for the women involved.
Glasgow saw the effects of that approach when prostitution was forced out of the city centre and Glasgow Green, when residential areas were sprouting up around the harbour and waterfront in a way that is similar to what happened in the Leith area. At the time, many prostitutes simply moved to the Calton area, and we have heard evidence about how communities had to deal with that. The witnesses from that area who spoke to the committee demonstrated the terrible effect that prostitution had on their community, and it is terrible that people have to put up with it. I am reminded of one of the people from the Leith area who gave evidence about that area being designated as a tolerance zone. A woman who was walking to her house one night was knocked down by a car because she would not turn round to speak to the man in the car. Her leg was broken and he just drove away. Because the area was marked as a tolerance zone, he assumed that anyone—young women as well as older people—walking there would be fair game. That cannot be tolerated.
When we consider the legislation, we have to be careful not to repeat some of the mistakes that have been made in Edinburgh and thereby drive prostitution further underground. Prostitution is not as it was shown in the movie "Pretty Woman". That should be made very clear to some in the media who discuss the issues around prostitution.
I do not believe that Margo MacDonald's tolerance or management zones—call them what we will—are the answer. We need to enable women to escape from a never-ending cycle of violence, and tolerance or management zones are not the answer.
A management zone means not only that a potential problem for the general community is managed, but that the services that must be directed at the prostitutes or sex workers can be delivered. We know from experience—all the evidence points the same way—that we have to be able to reach prostitutes where they are working.
I was just going to come on to that. I do not agree with Margo MacDonald at all, although I welcome the establishment of the 218 centre in Glasgow and the various other agencies that women who are reduced to prostitution through no fault of their own and who are suffering violence can be told about, without the need for a management or tolerance zone. I am speaking about Glasgow because that is the area I know about.
The Executive should make a real commitment to the re-education of men and women so that they accept that prostitution is not acceptable: it is violence against women, regardless of what the media say.
I would like the other objectives proposed by the expert group to be looked into as soon as possible. The bill is a step in the right direction, but we have to enable the women to get help for their drug addiction, and to educate women and men that prostitution is wrong and is violence against women, no matter what is said about it.
The debate must be put in context. It must be recognised that prostitution, pornography and other forms of commercial sex are all part of a burgeoning industry that makes millions of pounds out of human misery. That industry is also undoubtedly part of a wider web of organised crime. It promotes alcohol and drug problems as necessary tools of its trade, and it makes rich men out of a minority of predators while simultaneously ruining the lives of thousands of women and children.
Any legislation that the Parliament passes on the buying and selling of human bodies must be predicated on an understanding of the fundamental underlying truth that prostitution in any form is predominantly male violence against women and children. Indeed, the expert group concluded that dealing with prostitution and its effects should be an issue as much of social policy as of criminal law. Therefore, most of the group's recommendations related to the need for local strategies, interagency responsibilities and services, and changes in public attitudes. I make a plea to the minister for further funding commitments and strategies to take that work forward.
The bill is an historic piece of legislation. I commend Margo MacDonald for the work that she has done on the issue over the years, but I am sorry that she cannot support the bill at this stage.
As gender reporter for the Equal Opportunities Committee, I have previously taken evidence on prostitution. Over the years, our committee has also flagged up numerous concerns and recommendations on the matter. Given that the issue is so manifestly gender biased, and given that the Equal Opportunities Committee has been addressing the issue since its inception, it makes no sense—indeed, it amounts to a missed opportunity—that our committee was passed over when the decision was made about taking evidence at stage 1. I agree with what Cathy Peattie said on that.
However, I am not dissatisfied with the Local Government and Transport Committee's report. On the contrary, I think that the report represents a thorough and determined investigation by committee members. I am pleased that the minister has indicated that he is willing to act on the committee's concerns. In particular, I align myself with the committee's recommendation that the new offences should be restricted solely to purchasers. We must lift the cloak of invisibility from men who use women so that the social harm of their behaviour is no longer hidden from their partners, relatives, friends and work colleagues. It must be made clear that such behaviour is socially unacceptable and the committee's suggestion on fine levels might help to achieve that.
Will those provisions apply to escorts and women who work indoors?
In my book, all prostitution and abuse of women is violence. We will need to consider what further steps can be taken after the bill is passed. With the bill, we are taking a small but historic and important step.
The provision of alternative disposals and rehabilitation for purchasers is also important. Purchasers must be made to recognise the harm and human misery that they cause. Ultimately, rehabilitation must have the aim of stopping the abusive behaviour. We also need to think about the women involved. It is clear that they enter prostitution for socioeconomic, not aspirational, reasons. Prostitution is not a career choice. However, our society ensures that, once they have entered that situation, women cannot easily escape because we make it an identity. Once a woman has taken money for sex, she is a prostitute. She is then trapped by, and burdened with, that tag for the rest of her life. That is completely wrong. I am heartened that the Local Government and Transport Committee recognised that the bill's provisions had the potential to stigmatise women who have escaped prostitution and I hope that an answer to that problem can be found at stage 2.
Legislation must make it clear that prostitution is not a lifestyle choice or a simple business transaction but violence, exploitation and abuse. We cannot say that often enough. The vast majority of women who are caught up in prostitution sell their bodies because of factors such as previous abuse, current drug dependency, poverty or violent coercion. Furthermore, they might have become caught in the trap of using drugs to try to cope with what is happening to them. We must remember that. Those issues are firmly within the social justice agenda and are not simply issues of criminal justice.
I recognise that the Scottish Executive is progressing work in other areas, as the minister outlined at the beginning of the debate. The bill must be considered as a small piece of a much bigger picture, but we cannot legislate in a vacuum. Any legal change must be based on a desire to find an appropriate societal response to violence against women and children. Any change should certainly not make the situation worse for victims or fail to target the users and abusers. I trust that the bill will be sufficiently amended at stage 2 to ensure that those aims are adequately addressed.
By legislating in the way that the Local Government and Transport Committee recommended in its report, which the Executive has now accepted, I believe that we can take an important step towards influencing attitudinal change and send a clear message to men and to society that women and children are simply not for sale.
On 24 October last year, the Local Government and Transport Committee heard from ordinary citizens on behalf of their communities. We heard from Alan Beatson of Leith Links residents association, who described some of the problems that are associated with prostitution in his residential area. He said:
"Some of our members' daughters have been stalked—that is the best way to describe what has happened—by kerb-crawlers."
When I asked the representatives of Calton for all, Amanda Bell and Jennifer McCarey, whether they had similar experiences, Amanda Bell said:
"My daughter has been followed",
and Jennifer McCarey said:
"It is a big issue for women in our community. There is almost no journey that you can make in any direction on the main streets that does not involve you being tracked by a vehicle, especially at quieter times. Men will congregate in the area, stop their cars and wait with their engines revving. People who live in the area know about and see that behaviour. The behaviour is odd and there is no other reason for it. When someone stops their car and opens their window, that is frightening or alarming, especially for young people."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 24 October 2006; c 4158.]
That evidence sends a message to citizens throughout Scotland. It was important because, at that stage in our consideration of the bill, the behaviour that was described was not going to be legislated against and was going to be ignored—the bill was not to contain an offence of loitering in a private vehicle. In other words, the evidence from citizens who represented the Leith Links residents association and Calton for all led to a proposed change to the bill. In a small way, that shows the importance of the committee system to the Parliament. We can listen to citizens in Scotland give their opinions on bills, and that can result in changes to legislation. Those changes are vital, because if the Executive had not said that it would lodge amendments on kerb crawling, I make it clear that the Local Government and Transport Committee would have recommended opposing the bill.
However, it has been said and should be repeated that the bill is narrow. It does not tackle the real problem of prostitution in society as a whole. We accept that it does not set out to do that, but I draw members' attention to the evidence that we heard from Cath Smith, who represented Glasgow's Routes Out. When I asked her whether, in the six years that Routes Out has operated, there was evidence of a decline in the number of women that Routes Out works with and in the number of women who are involved in prostitution, she said:
"There is no evidence that street prostitution has reduced. I am more than happy to provide the committee with the figures that I have for Glasgow."
The number of prostitutes in Aberdeen, which employs a different management method, has stabilised, and the number in Edinburgh has fallen.
Like many other members, I have the greatest of respect for Margo MacDonald and for the work that she has done on the matter. However, I quote Ruth Morgan Thomas of SCOT-PEP in Edinburgh, who said:
"In Edinburgh, 50 per cent of the individuals in the sex industry each year are new to prostitution that year. That figure is not declining. Each year, 50 per cent move on, because prostitution is not an easy job—it is not easy work or easy money … Regrettably, Government policies are not having an impact on that."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 24 October 2006; c 4131-32.]
That demonstrates the real issue that the Local Government and Transport Committee should address. It is unfortunate that Bristow Muldoon did not take an intervention, because I wanted to ask him to repeat the point, which he made as convener of the committee, that he would call on the Executive to put real resources into drug treatment and rehabilitation places. That is what we must do if we are to provide real routes out of prostitution for the overwhelming majority of women—and some of the men—who are not only introduced to prostitution via their drug addiction but imprisoned in it because of that addiction.
If we are serious about tackling that problem, we need the resources to provide real, tangible assistance that allows genuine routes out of prostitution. The figures show clearly that we are failing women throughout Scotland who are involved in prostitution because we do not have the requisite number of drug treatment and rehabilitation places. I hope that the minister will provide real, new resources for drug treatment and rehabilitation.
If the debate has proved one thing, it is that prostitution is an enormously complex issue. We are faced with the simultaneous difficulties of acknowledging the exploitation that goes with sex work and trying to protect sex workers. We can see and have heard about some of the dilemmas in that balance: more official disapproval of sex work may end up driving that work underground and endangering sex workers but, equally, measures that are intended to protect sex workers may lead to more women becoming involved in sex work and, in turn, lead to more exploitation.
There is a strong local dimension to the debate. In Edinburgh, we have had a discussion about tolerance zones for years. It is clear that prostitution tolerance zones make sex workers safer and that they make it easier to protect and support sex workers and to counsel them out of prostitution; it is also clear that they are favoured by sex workers but are massively unpopular with many local residents. As Elaine Smith demonstrated, many people argue strongly that such toleration creates a situation in which we appear to approve of street prostitution.
Prostitution is an enormously complicated issue and we must measure that complexity against what the bill does. Like Margo MacDonald, I am disappointed by the bill. The expert group on prostitution did a lot of good work on street prostitution and came up with a wide-ranging vision of what we have to do. It talked of the need for a strategic framework and for corporate and multi-agency responsibility; it talked of the need to influence and educate public opinion; and, yes, it talked about the law. However, given the amendments that the minister has suggested, it looks like we will be left with a bill that tackles kerb crawling. I have no doubt—especially when I hear Kenny MacAskill's and Tommy Sheridan's discussions of the evidence that they heard in committee—that intrusive, alarming kerb crawling is a massive problem for those people who suffer it and a massive public nuisance problem for people who live in communities that are affected by it, such as Leith Links. However, will tackling kerb crawling, which is about protecting communities, do anything about the demand for prostitution, or will it shift the demand into other ways of contacting women—or men, to make the point non-gender biased—who are involved in the sex industry?
The Parliament has ducked the issue of whether selling and buying sex is illegal or whether we can tolerate the trade as long as it happens in a way that does not cause public nuisance—whether through the telephone or the internet.
Is Mark Ballard saying that we should do nothing at all? That seems to be his conclusion.
No. I think that we need to talk about prostitution. As a society and as a Parliament, we need to talk properly about the issue and about our response to it. Kerb crawling is a minor issue in the whole gamut of issues around sex trafficking and drug addiction, and we are not tackling those issues with the bill. Bill Aitken made some valid points about whether we need a new bit of law, given that it is possible to use breach of the peace to cover these offences, and valid points were made in evidence to the committee about whether a new law could ever be meaningfully enforced and whether the police will be able to use it for anything.
The bill will be dramatically amended at stage 2, so the Greens will abstain in today's vote because we think that the debate is missing the point. We should be talking about prostitution, and a prostitution bill should not deal only with such a narrow issue.
Will Mr Ballard give way?
I am sorry, Mr Lyon, but Mr Ballard has finished his speech.
Fergus Ewing and Bill Aitken referred to the Executive's so-called U-turn. On many occasions in this chamber, members have criticised the Executive for lodging amendments at stage 3 rather than much earlier, so I welcome the fact that ministers are willing to make amendments to the bill at stage 2. Many commentators have expressed concern that ministers do not show humility, but I do not see it as a weakness that ministers intend to amend the bill in this instance. I see it as a strength. Their commitment at this early stage will allow the debate to continue.
The clear purpose of the bill is to tackle something that I believe is unacceptable in our communities: the behaviour of kerb-crawlers. Many members have referred to the evidence that we heard from residents of Calton and other communities in Scotland that are concerned about such activity. We heard about the fear of kerb-crawlers that many communities experience, and about the effect that it has on local women.
Will Mr Martin give way?
I will let Margo MacDonald in if she will just give me a minute.
Which other communities?
I will come to that shortly.
I also welcome the fact that we will increase the sentencing tariff for purchasers of sex, because the parity that currently exists is unacceptable. Our sending out the message that we will not tolerate the behaviour of kerb-crawlers and that we will increase the sentencing tariffs that are available to sheriffs is a step in the right direction. We made that clear during stage 1.
As I said on a number of occasions during the stage 1 evidence-taking sessions, if we want to deal with kerb-crawlers, we must ensure that a legal remedy is in place. I do not want to go back to the residents of Calton—or the residents of any other community in Scotland, for that matter—to advise them that we have introduced legislation, only to have heard, as we often hear from police authorities throughout Scotland, that the legislation is difficult to enforce. I want to ensure that we get the sections that deal with kerb-crawlers right at stages 2 and 3 of the bill, that we ensure that procurators fiscal and authorities throughout the country recognise that and that we ensure that we deliver what we want to deliver.
Mr Martin has attempted to demonstrate that the problem of kerb crawling is widespread. There is no kerb-crawling problem associated with Aberdeen. Even in Edinburgh, there is now no problem because the sex workers have moved to another area.
As with any other crime, there is unreported crime. Despite the statistics that I am sure will be available, kerb crawling will take place. If we cannot ensure that legislation is available to deal with kerb-crawlers, many women will not feel the need to report the crime in the first place. The symbolism of ensuring that we have legislation available to deal with kerb crawling is a step in the right direction.
I pay tribute to the hard work of Margo MacDonald on management zones. She has made her case in an effective and constructive manner. I have experienced her charm offensive on a number of occasions, although she keeps calling me "Michael". However, despite the charm offensive, we will have to agree to disagree. That would be said by almost every member of the Local Government and Transport Committee and almost every member of Parliament.
The test for me is in considering the issues as a parent. Many of us here today are parents and we have shared the anguish of the parents of women who are involved in prostitution and of women who have been murdered in various parts of the United Kingdom, including the women who were murdered in Glasgow, to whom Bill Aitken referred. As a parent, I wonder what other parents want us to do as their elected representatives. Do they want us to promote management zones that would result in their daughters continuing to be involved in such activities, or would they support our examining ways of ensuring that their daughters' lifestyles were diverted and that they became involved in more constructive activities?
I am a parent of two daughters and I support the Routes Out approach. Parents should not find themselves in anguish; many parents are not even aware that their children are involved in such activities, which is why I believe in the Routes Out approach. I agree with a point that was constructively made by Tommy Sheridan: there is a need to consider more effective means of ensuring that resources are available for organisations such as Routes Out. It has made interventions for many women, but has done so at later stages, so we must consider how we can intervene much earlier.
However, that is not the purpose of the bill, and it would be wrong to go off in that direction. For the moment, it is right for us to say that we do not accept the antisocial behaviour of kerb-crawlers and that we want to ensure that legislation to deal with them is enforced. We have to be able to go to the residents of Calton and other parts of Scotland that are affected by such behaviour and say that we will enforce legislation against kerb-crawlers. I will support the bill.
Presiding Officer, I apologise for the state of my throat and voice.
I congratulate the Local Government and Transport Committee on its excellent job. I used to be a member of that committee, so I very much appreciate the work that the current members have done. Without their work, I suspect that members of my party would not be as sympathetic as we are to the bill's passage through stage 1. The committee's work was based on the evidence that it took, so credit must be given to those who gave evidence.
As Mark Ballard said, this is a difficult and complex subject. Members have dealt with the subject thoroughly by pointing out the complexities of prostitution in general and considering what the bill can achieve in particular. I welcome Tom McCabe's approach. Fairly obviously, the bill as introduced was, to say the least, inadequate; it did not deal with the issues that I think the Executive intended it to deal with.
It is a pity that the bill deals with only one of the four recommendations that were made by the expert group—members from different parties have spoken about the narrowness of the bill. However, it is a start and I prefer to have started doing something to just letting things slide.
Tom McCabe made an important point about the balance of blame between the purchaser and the seller; in the past, that balance has been unfair. As other members did, Mr McCabe referred to the Aberdeen tolerance zone. When zones were proposed, the comments that I heard from councillors were simple. They said, "Well, if the Executive is going to decide that we should have tolerance zones, the Executive will have to come and tell our residents that the zones will be where they live." Such comments were pertinent and came from across the parties in Aberdeen City Council.
The management zone in Aberdeen is a police policy; it was drawn up by Grampian police. The zone is in the docks area, where all the industries shut at night and—I think—only three houses overlook the zone.
I have simply repeated what others have said to me. They made the comments. I did not go out and ask them for them.
Quite correctly, Fergus Ewing and others spoke about exit strategies. We have to ask why people stay in the profession—as it is called—and why they are there in the first place. We in Parliament need to do more to discover why people become involved. As David McLetchie rightly said, much of the need is based on feeding drug habits, but multiple complex issues are involved. We need to understand why people turn to prostitution.
Everyone agrees that too much violence is used against women in society. In addition to speaking about kerb crawling and the nuisance and threat that kerb crawling poses to women in our communities, David McLetchie spoke about the Soham murders and the terrible things that went on there. Other members echoed that, including Mike Rumbles, who also referred to the Ipswich murders. There is certainly concern in Aberdeen about kerb crawling around the university area and around the hospital area, which are not in a management zone. Kerb crawling scares people to death; it affects the lives of people in our communities.
Mike Rumbles also suggested that the aim of the bill is to reduce demand for street prostitution but, in fairness, I think that is all the bill seeks to do at this stage. Kenny MacAskill spoke about criminalising those who set out to exploit women. Again, he echoed comments that were made earlier on the non-acceptability of tolerance zones in residential areas.
I acknowledge absolutely the work—and its consistency—that Margo MacDonald has undertaken in this area over the years. The point that she made about there being no duty of care for sex workers is valid. That is part and parcel of the issues that other members addressed in terms of exit strategies, social services support and drug treatment and rehabilitation.
Pauline McNeill gave a very technical speech. She was right that the first draft of the bill was rather puzzling and that the tone of the policy memorandum demonstrated a bias against women.
With his wonderful court experience, Bill Aitken chose to defend the common law and its application in this regard. He asked whether the bill is necessary. As he and other members said, resources will be needed to help the women who are involved. The district courts should be given the power to apply drug treatment and testing orders but—as Tommy Sheridan rightly said—we need facilities if we are to do that. There is not much point in such orders if we do not follow through by putting in place the necessary resources.
Elaine Smith gave quite a stimulating speech on the stigmatisation of women. As I said earlier, Mark Ballard spoke about the complexity of the issue. Paul Martin set out his support for the diversionary tactics that are being used in Glasgow under the Routes Out approach. The Executive needs to consider whether the bill should not only criminalise a couple of activities but provide for the exit strategies and support that are required if street prostitutes—male or female—are to be helped out of prostitution. The Conservatives will support the motion on the general principles of the bill at decision time.
I thank the committee clerks for their work in keeping track of the changes that the committee wanted to make. I also thank the many people who gave evidence in helping the committee to make its response to the bill as introduced. The debate has been a good one that has not been conducted along party lines. I welcome the changes that the minister announced.
The key purpose of the bill is to tackle the problems that street prostitution causes to communities. As Fergus Ewing said, the women from the Calton area of Glasgow gave the committee powerful evidence in that regard. The committee soon came to realise that the bill would not achieve its stated intention. Right up to our last meeting on it, there was a great chance that we would recommend that the bill be thrown out. I am delighted that we managed to extort the significant changes that the Executive has made to the bill.
In my speech, I want to highlight three key areas, all of which have come to the fore in the debate today. First, as so many members have stated clearly, any buying of sexual services is violence. As Elaine Smith so powerfully said, those who are involved—predominantly women—are the subject of violence, sexual exploitation and abuse. Parliament is out to change such attitudes. People who buy sexual services are the perpetrators of violence that will no longer be tolerated in Scotland. It is anathema that women who solicit on our streets are prosecuted and end up in overcrowded prisons for fine defaulting—and are subsequently stigmatised, as Pauline McNeill rightly said—while the buyers of sexual services are not even identified.
The bill's focus is narrow. I regret that the Scottish Executive chose to tackle prostitution in such a piecemeal way, so I have sympathy with Margo MacDonald, Mark Ballard and other members in that regard. We owe it to the Scottish public to make it clear that violence against women in so-called saunas and massage parlours and in other places is equally unacceptable. Of course, we need action to tackle the drug habits and sexual health of the women on our streets and to address the lack of ways out of prostitution, so that sex workers can secure alternative sources of income. We also need to tackle sex trafficking and we need to deal with people who procure the services of sex workers for others. However, like David Davidson, I have come to the conclusion that we should be thankful that the bill makes a start on the issue.
I am a member for North East Scotland, so I was particularly interested in the minister's views on the management zone in Aberdeen. I was recently out with the police in Aberdeen all night and paid particular attention to the policing of the zone. Our patrol visited the zone several times during the evening, as well as dealing with all the drunkenness and attacks that go on in Aberdeen of a Saturday night—I am sure that other patrols also visited the zone several times. The area is well covered by closed-circuit television cameras. The minister seemed to indicate that it is for local authorities and the police to work out how to deal with street prostitution. I welcome that approach, which in no way condones prostitution but offers a way of dealing with the problem. When the trial of the person who has been charged with the Ipswich murders takes place, we might well find that the fact that the town has an identifiable red-light district, in which the women look out for one another, helped to ensure that the perpetrator was quickly caught.
I want to associate myself with Ms Watt's remarks and to thank the minister for being sensitive to the work that local authorities have done.
I am pleased that the Executive has made a commitment to seeking an order at Westminster, after the bill has been passed, to give the courts the power to disqualify from driving people who are convicted of kerb crawling, if appropriate.
I hope that the message that Parliament sends today is that violence towards, and degradation of, women by men who want to purchase sexual services is unacceptable in present-day Scotland. As Margaret Smith said, the balance of criminality is shifting to the purchasers of sex. A person who loiters in a car will not just have their card marked; they will have their car marked. I welcome the bill and hope that its general principles are agreed to, so that we can move forward and produce a bill that will achieve those aims.
I thank the members of all parties who have spoken in the debate, which has been constructive and serious, as befits the issue that we are considering. The debate has highlighted that the matter is not a simple one, with simple answers and solutions. From whatever angle we approach the problem, there are no easy off-the-shelf ways in which to resolve the problems and concerns that have been highlighted during the debate.
I welcome the support that members have expressed for the bill's key aim of creating new powers to tackle those who purchase sex on our streets, particularly those who cause nuisance to communities by kerb crawling. I appreciate Fergus Ewing's warm endorsement, although it made me stop and reflect on whether we are taking the right approach. Nevertheless, I accept his support for our actions.
Will the minister advise us whether he will seek further information from the Home Office about the extent to which disqualification from driving has been used as a punishment for kerb-crawlers and about the use of forfeiture of vehicles, which apparently has not been used? Does he agree that it would be extremely useful to find that out, as there appears to be no information at all from the Home Office on the issue, perhaps because that department is not fit for purpose?
I will not respond to that final remark, but I can reassure the member that we have been in discussion with the Home Office. The use of disqualification as a sanction has been encouraged down south, although seizure of vehicles has not. I am happy to provide detailed information on that to the committee at stage 2.
For some time, the police and others have expressed frustration that, although they have statutory powers to deal with those who sell sex, they have no specific tool to deal with the purchasers, who create the demand in the first place. The bill is an important step forward in providing that tool. It will right the wrong, which many members have highlighted, that men have until now been invisible in relation to the offences. They will no longer be invisible if the Parliament endorses the general principles of the bill and passes it at stage 3.
During the evidence session at stage 1, I was aware that the Local Government and Transport Committee had concerns about some details in the bill and wanted us to strengthen it. I gave an undertaking to reflect on the concerns that were raised and, on three occasions, I sent letters to the committee to outline our thinking on the issue and how we would address the concerns. As the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform outlined in his opening speech, not only have we listened to those who raised concerns, but we will respond actively to the concerns by lodging amendments at stage 2. The issue is not about U-turns and whether the Executive is right or wrong; we have listened to the committee's concerns and will build on the basic principles. The committee agreed that those principles are correct but argued that they need to be strengthened if we are to tackle the problem properly.
Some members might ask why we did not introduce a strengthened bill in the first place. The bill as introduced to Parliament is based closely on the recommendations of the expert group on prostitution, which considered the issues in depth before producing its report. When we put the proposals out to consultation in 2005, they received a broadly favourable response, including from the police. The offence as drawn up was based on the work of the Scottish Law Commission. Therefore, if criticism of how the bill is drafted is to be handed out, as Mr Aitken sought to do, perhaps it should be directed at the Scottish Law Commission, whose recommendations we adopted in drawing up the bill.
As I said in evidence to the committee, the approach to the problem of kerb crawling in the bill as drafted is similar to that in the English and Welsh legislation, in which the offence is soliciting from a motor vehicle or in the vicinity of a motor vehicle. There were more than 800 convictions for that offence in each of the two most recent years for which figures are available. However, my colleague Mr McCabe and I acknowledge that the committee asked us to go further than the offence in England and Wales in tackling kerb crawling. We have identified an approach that should enable us to do that and we will introduce amendments on that basis.
The essential purpose of the bill is to provide the police with specific powers to tackle those who purchase sex on our streets—that remains unchanged. I am pleased that that has commanded members' support in the debate.
The committee expressed concern about the existence of so-called informal management zones. It sought reassurance that there will be no areas in which the bill will not be enforced. Enforcement is a matter for the police, in conjunction with the Procurator Fiscal Service. The police have a general duty to enforce the law, although they have a degree of discretion in how they do so. We do not think that it would be appropriate to constrain that discretion, either in relation to this offence or more generally. However, I welcome—and hope that members welcome—the Lord Advocate's indication that there will be a review of enforcement policy and practice, including the operation of any managed zones, in light of any new offence that is created by the Parliament. It is vital that enforcement policy takes account of the safety of women who are involved in prostitution—that issue was raised by many during the debate. It must also take account of how it helps to direct services towards those women and the effect of prostitution on communities.
I made it clear on a number of occasions in the committee that our approach to tackling street prostitution cannot rely on the criminal law alone. The women who are involved have complex needs and problems. Many members have alluded to the fact that the vast majority of the women suffer from drug addiction. Many have problems with homelessness and mental health or have experience of domestic violence or sexual abuse. That is why the guidance that we have produced for local authorities focuses on the work that they and their partner agencies, such as health boards and voluntary organisations, should do to support and assist those women in addressing the underlying problems and to help them find a route out of prostitution. That is the first step in tackling prostitution. A number of members mentioned indoor prostitution and trafficking. Those issues are for further down the line. By introducing the bill, and through the work that we have done to produce guidance for local authorities, we are taking the first step in tackling street prostitution. Further work needs to be done to take the matter forward.
I appreciate that members have not had a great deal of time to consider the Executive's proposals to amend the bill at stage 2. However, we have been able to respond positively to the concerns that were expressed by the committee. I welcome the support from committee and other members for our proposed amendments. I hope that those amendments have assured members that the bill will provide the police with a practical and workable means to take action against those who purchase sex on our streets and especially those who kerb crawl.
I hope that all members will support the legislation. Although it may be a small step, it is nevertheless an important and historic step forward. By agreeing to the legislation, Parliament will send a strong and powerful message that we consider the behaviour of those who purchase sex on our streets to be unacceptable. For the first time, we will have an offence that targets those individuals, whether they are soliciting or are loitering with intent to do so. That offence will be backed by strong sanctions. I therefore urge all members to support the bill at decision time tonight.