Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Bill.
Members should have before them the bill as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list containing all the amendments selected for debate; and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division this afternoon and the period of voting will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate and 30 seconds for all other divisions.
Section 1—Offences relating to prostitution
Group 1 is on offences involving the use of a motor vehicle. Amendment 1, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is grouped with amendment 3.
I hope that, this afternoon, we will make a welcome change to the law. At present, a prostitute can be a criminal but the man who uses the services is not. That double standard is hypocritical and wrong, and I am sure that we will vote to end it later this afternoon.
In the evidence that the Local Government and Transport Committee received at stage 1, the most compelling was from ladies who live in a community in Glasgow where, at all hours of the day, they are subjected to kerb-crawlers driving round their area seeking to purchase sex. The evidence of Jennifer McCarey was particularly compelling. She said:
"men—middle-class men, working-class men and upper-class men—come into our community looking for street sex. They think that that is acceptable behaviour … Our community group says that that is unacceptable … There is a whole layer of dangerous men who partake in that activity for their own reasons. The women and children in our community are more likely to be exposed to those dangerous men."
Jennifer McCarey then described what kerb crawling is like:
"It 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 4148-49.]
The purpose of the amendments is to introduce sanctions that would be an effective deterrent to the men in question. They would bring down the full force of the law on those men in order to tackle the behaviour, to reduce it and, as much as possible, to stamp it out.
The Scottish National Party believes that two particular measures should be taken. At stage 1, I raised them with many of the witnesses—members of the community, representatives of Glasgow City Council and senior representatives of the police—and almost every witness agreed. The first sanction is that a punter should face disqualification from holding a driving licence. Secondly, if a burglar's tools can be confiscated because they assist him in committing crime, I would argue that for persistent offenders—men who continually kerb crawl and abuse women in this way, often using violence—the sanction of confiscation of motor vehicle should also be applicable.
Will the member make it plain that the abuse to which he refers is not on the part of the kerb-crawler against women unconnected with selling sex? Is he confusing the prostitute with the passer-by?
Margo MacDonald is quite wrong. If she had heard the evidence that I read out, she would know that it was from a lady who is not a prostitute but who simply lives in a certain part of Glasgow. Like the rest of the women in that community, she has to put up with that behaviour. On the committee, members from all parties took the view that that was entirely wrong, so the measures of disqualification and confiscation are appropriate.
When I raised the matters in committee, the minister stated:
"we are considering seeking an order at Westminster that would make disqualification available to the Scottish courts. We are in active dialogue with Home Office officials about that."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 6 February 2007; c 4546.]
That does not constitute an assurance; it simply states that the matter is under consideration. Therefore, we have not had any clear assurance from the minister that the sanction of disqualification will be available to the courts to use as they think appropriate.
If the minister can provide a categoric assurance that disqualification will be available and if he can explain when it will be available and whether the Scottish courts will have the power to disqualify from driving punters who are convicted of the offences in the bill, I will consider whether to press the amendment. However, my first point is that the minister has not given us an unequivocal assurance, which I would welcome in his response.
My second and last point is that I would like the provision of forfeiture to be used where appropriate. It would be appropriate only for a repeat offender—someone who had not learned a lesson, having been convicted. I make that clear in case it was not made clear at the committee. I would welcome assurance from the minister that the sanction of forfeiture—of confiscation of a punter's car—will be available to the Scottish courts to tackle this appalling crime and to deter men from committing it.
I move amendment 1.
I appreciate that it is a great invasion of the privacy and well-being of a woman who is entirely unconnected with prostitution that someone who seeks to purchase sexual services should stalk or follow her in a car, but Mr Ewing referred to the violence that the car driver perpetrates. In intervening, I wanted to make it plain that few—if any—cases of violent attacks on such women have occurred.
I appreciate—and the expert group on prostitution, of which I was a member, appreciated—why we should do whatever we can to ensure that people who are unconnected with the sale of sex on the streets should not be offended or alarmed or have nuisance caused to them by it. However, I suggest that the unforeseen consequence of these amendments, which I have no doubt are well intentioned, would be to drive prostitution further underground and therefore put at risk vulnerable women. I am sure that he does not intend that. However, if he can show that in other places where his measure has been put into effect, prostitution has reduced, I may think again.
The Conservatives are sympathetic to amendment 1, which would increase the penalties that are attached to kerb crawling to encompass the possible loss of a driving licence, as Mr Ewing said. The Local Government and Transport Committee discussed such an amendment at stage 2, when the minister advised us that it was not competent to incorporate such a penalty in the bill, as disqualification is a matter for road traffic acts, which are reserved to Westminster. Mr Ewing knows that perfectly well, but he is never one to miss the opportunity to highlight a power that is not the Scottish Parliament's prerogative—Scottish National Party members are entitled to do that.
The minister undertook to consult the Home Office on the matter. I hope that, in the debate, he will give us further information on the progress of his discussions because, like Mr Ewing and his colleagues, the Conservatives would welcome modification of the road traffic legislation as it applies to Scotland to deal with the matter.
As for amendment 3, I understand from the minister's advice to the committee that a vehicle that is involved in kerb crawling may be the subject of forfeiture as the law stands. The amendment would require a prosecutor to give reasons for not seeking a forfeiture order in a particular case. By placing such a responsibility on prosecutors and thereby influencing their decisions, the amendment would make forfeiture the norm rather than the exception. That is unreasonable. If we believe as a matter of law that all cars that are involved in kerb crawling should be the subject of forfeiture, we should make that mandatory in law on the conviction for kerb crawling of the vehicle's owner or driver. However, if we do not make it mandatory, an application for forfeiture must remain at the discretion of the prosecutor in any case and set of circumstances. I do not believe that we should seek to fetter the discretion of prosecutors.
I agree with the legal points that the member makes. Does he agree that the unforeseen consequence of the power in amendment 1—should the Parliament decide to agree to it—could be to further endanger women, given that prostitution would be driven out of sight and out of the control of police forces?
I just want to conclude my points on amendment 1. I do not think that we should fetter the discretion of prosecutors in the manner that Mr Ewing proposes, which is why we will be voting against the amendment.
On Mrs MacDonald's point, we are here to deal with the narrow issue of street prostitution and the nuisance that it causes in communities. We need an effective set of laws to deal with that public order problem. Given the evidence that was presented to the Local Government and Transport Committee and the many representations that Mrs MacDonald has made on the subject, I acknowledge fully that there are much wider issues to do with street prostitution.
However, I do not believe that the way to tackle street prostitution is to allow it to be conducted in a controlled environment under police supervision. To my mind, that is institutionalising the problem, rather than solving it. I would much prefer us to find other strategies for dealing with the problem of street prostitution. We should concentrate first on dealing with the public nuisance aspect, then carry out a wider programme of work directed towards trying to assist women out of prostitution generally.
Members who did not participate in the committee proceedings might not be aware that the penalty for the offence has already been doubled from a maximum fine of £500 to a maximum fine of £1,000. I find myself agreeing with David McLetchie—which is amazing—
You will have to resign.
I hear calls for my resignation, but I will go on.
I agree that we are dealing with the nuisance that is caused by street prostitution. We are talking about the discretion of the prosecutor and the courts in relation to forfeiture of vehicles. The provisions in amendments 1 and 3, which Fergus Ewing wants us to agree to, would be totally out of proportion to the offence committed.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have finished.
I call Tricia Marwick.
I was going to intervene, but I think that Mr Rumbles has finished.
Mr Rumbles has sat down. I am sorry, but you missed the bell, Ms Marwick.
Amendment 1 seeks to empower courts to disqualify offenders from driving. Of course, as others have said, Mr Ewing lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. As I explained during the debate on that amendment, we support the principle of empowering courts to disqualify offenders from driving where they use a motor vehicle to engage in kerb crawling. We agree that the threat of such a sanction could have a deterrent effect on those who seek to purchase sex in public places. However, as I stated at the time, the authority for the court's power to disqualify offenders from driving comes from and forms part of the road traffic regime that is set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and, as such, is reserved to the Westminster Parliament—a point that I suspect is not lost on Mr Ewing.
Amendment 1 therefore falls outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and, as such, we cannot support it. However, I can confirm that, following stage 2, I wrote to Baroness Scotland at the Home Office to seek her view on whether United Kingdom ministers would support an order at Westminster that would provide Scottish courts with the power to disqualify those convicted of kerb-crawling offences from driving. I do not foresee difficulties in securing their agreement to bring the powers of the Scottish courts into line with those in England and Wales.
The minister stated that, after stage 1, which was a considerable time ago—[Interruption.] I meant stage 2—sorry. After stage 2, which was some time ago, he wrote to Baroness Scotland and asked whether Westminster will change the law so that disqualification can be imposed. Can he tell us what response he received from Baroness Scotland and whether she has agreed to do that?
First, I clarify that it was after stage 2 that I wrote the letter. We await Baroness Scotland's response. However, I reassure the Parliament that the officials who are in discussion with Westminster believe that we will secure its support. We do not envisage that there will be a difficulty with securing agreement to bring the powers of the Scottish courts into line with the powers of the courts in England and Wales. I hope that the Parliament will accept my assurance about that.
Mr Ewing asked me to confirm that the courts, on application from the prosecutor, already have the power to seize property that has been used to facilitate the commission of an offence, including vehicles used by kerb-crawlers. I am happy to put that on the record.
Will the minister give way?
Members should note that we are now very tight for time in group 1.
I ask the minister to state on the record exactly what the offence would entail. Would someone who was found driving slowly in a known red light area be supposed to have committed an offence, or must they make contact with a seller of sexual services? If the person is to lose their means of livelihood, it is important for us to work out exactly what they would be losing their livelihood for.
The offence of loitering within a vehicle will, of course, be an offence where the evidence would lead one to infer that the person was in the area for the purposes of procuring the services of someone who was involved in prostitution.
I will deal with the second part of Margo MacDonald's intervention in my comments on amendment 3. I hope that she will listen carefully.
Amendment 3 would require the prosecutor to state their reasons for not seeking a suspended forfeiture order under section 21 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 on each and every occasion on which they were entitled to do that but elected not to do so. That is the position that David McLetchie outlined in his comments.
We believe that such a provision would represent a substantial erosion and fettering of the independence and discretion of prosecutors. In no other situation is the prosecutor required by law to tell the court their reasons for a decision. It is for the prosecutor to determine—in the public interest—whether to apply for forfeiture in each case. It is the prosecutor who has the full range of information to allow them to decide whether the penalty is proportionate and, if so, whether to seek it from the court. Their decision is made independently of the court. Therefore, the Executive cannot support amendment 3.
Given the assurances that I have given the Parliament today, I ask Fergus Ewing to withdraw amendment 1.
We are considerably over our time limit for group 1, but I was anxious not to curtail the questioning, so I exercised my discretion under rule 9.8.4A(c) to extend the time limit.
I call Mr Ewing to wind up. You have no more than two minutes, Mr Ewing.
The purpose of these amendments is to deter men from going to prostitutes. Margo MacDonald says that the amendments would drive the problem underground, but is she really saying that we should not have effective sanctions, so that prostitution can just continue? That is an extremely odd argument, and not one that she put at stage 1, when she said:
"I agree with the analysis that if we can bring about a drop in demand, supply will drop off, too."—[Official Report, 31 October 2006; c 4184.]
How can we reduce demand if men are not sufficiently deterred by the sanctions from committing the crime in the first place?
Does the member think that a fine of £1,000 for the offence of causing nuisance is reasonable? Is a fine of £1,000 on every occasion not a deterrent?
That fine might not be imposed. I hope that it will be a deterrent, but I do not believe that it will be an effective one, particularly for well-heeled men who drive around in Jaguars or other expensive cars—[Interruption.] Members think that what I have said is funny, but the witnesses who came to the committee did not think that the matter was funny. We can see that the Liberal Democrats are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime.
In response to David McLetchie, I say that no attempt is being made to fetter the discretion of prosecutors. Agreeing to amendment 3 would simply mean that the procurator fiscal would have to make a statement in which he explained why he was not using a power. How would that fetter a prosecutor? Surely it is about time that our prosecutors gave more explanations to ensure that the public see that criminals get the sentences that they deserve. Such explanations are important.
Finally, the minister assured us that there have been discussions with officials. That is some assurance.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will proceed with the division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 24, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 24, Against 87, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
After section 2
Group 2 is on the use of drug treatment and testing orders. Amendment 4 is in the name of Tommy Sheridan.
First, I thank the clerks of the Local Government and Transport Committee for drafting amendment 4 at relatively short notice. I had hoped that the Executive parties would have lodged an amendment like this at stage 2 to take cognisance of the very persuasive evidence that the committee heard about the interconnectedness of drug abuse and addiction and prostitution. Ruth Morgan Thomas, the manager of SCOT-PEP in Edinburgh, made the point that there are
"major implications for women who are drug dependent—and we know that more than 95 per cent of women who are involved in street prostitution are drug dependent".
Anne Fallon of the Routes Out partnership in Glasgow said:
"The fundamental point is that women prostitute themselves in order to survive. For example, 90-odd per cent of the women involved in street prostitution in Glasgow do it to fund not only their own drug habit but the drug habits of their partners or other people."
During his oral evidence, Alan Beatson of Leith Links residents association said:
"We do not take a moral stance on this at all—far from it. We want to support the women because they are members of the community and we have obligations to them. It is in everyone's interests to sort out the problem, but we think that it ought to be done with proper policies to help people to get out of prostitution, particularly through drug support … Drugs are the central issue here. We think that a lot of resources ought to be put in to helping the women to get out of drugs."
When Senga Bethune, also of Leith Links residents association, was asked whether antisocial behaviour orders could deal effectively with street prostitution, she said:
"I do not think that such orders are a way of tackling the issue. I listened to what the experts said earlier and I think that it is about time that the whole business of street prostitution was treated as a drug problem. … Basically, women sell themselves to pay for either their drugs or someone else's drugs."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 24 October 2006; c 4122-53.]
Ann Hamilton, who is a principal policy officer for Glasgow City Council, said:
"One of the reasons for the establishment of management zones and tolerance zones was to provide services to the women. We all struggle with that because they are probably the most vulnerable of any group. They have the highest drug use of any group, certainly in Glasgow."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 31 October 2006; c 4182-83.]
When George Lyon gave evidence to the committee on behalf of the Executive, he told us:
"The issue is complex and very difficult. It involves very unfortunate females who are driven into prostitution through a need to feed their drug habits or raise money for partners or other individuals who have control over them because they are vulnerable adults. … We need to provide proper support to give those people an opportunity to find a way out of that life. I hope that that will be the committee's overriding concern."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 28 November 2006; c 4359.]
That is the overriding concern of amendment 4, which seeks to ensure that more resources will be committed to drug treatment, testing and rehabilitation. The committee was told frankly that not enough resources are dedicated to tackling the drug problem, which is integrally linked with street prostitution. Amendment 4 seeks to force extra resources into tackling street prostitution such that, for anyone who is convicted of street prostitution, drug treatment and rehabilitation and counselling must be made available. Sadly, with the way things are just now, far too many of those who are convicted of street prostitution have no access to such essential support, which is why I recommend that members support amendment 4.
I move amendment 4.
Four members have asked to speak. If I am to allow all of them to speak, they will need to keep their speeches to two minutes.
I seek clarification on whether drug treatment and testing orders can be handed down from a district court as well as a sheriff court. Under the current legislation on soliciting and loitering with intent, prostitutes can end up before a district court. If Parliament were to support amendment 4, would not that require a further change in the law? I think that only sheriff courts can hand out that sort of remedy. Perhaps Tommy Sheridan can respond to that question.
Mr Sheridan will have a chance to respond at the end of the debate.
From all the evidence that was presented to us in the committee, there is no doubt that drug abuse and drug addiction are among the major drivers of street prostitution, as Tommy Sheridan said. If we are to assist women out of prostitution, that process will inevitably involve dealing with the drug habit that leads them to prostitute themselves in the first instance. Accordingly, I can see the rationale behind and some merit in amendment 4, by which Tommy Sheridan seeks to require the courts to make drug treatment and testing orders in respect of persons who are convicted of prostitution.
It is worth noting in this context, however, that the extension of drug treatment and testing orders would need to be accompanied by a significant increase in drug rehabilitation facilities, without which there will be no routes out of addiction for prostitutes or anyone else whose criminal behaviour is driven by drugs. That is one reason why my party is committed to a significant investment in drug rehabilitation facilities throughout Scotland. I very much welcome the leadership that Annabel Goldie has shown in Parliament on that issue.
That said, it is fair to say that amendment 4 has come to us out of the blue today. The committee heard plenty of evidence about the link between prostitution and drugs at stage 1, as Tommy Sheridan mentioned, but his specific proposal about drug treatment and testing orders was not the subject of the evidence that we took or of detailed discussion.
Amendment 4 is well intentioned, but it would be wrong to incorporate the provisions into the bill at this late stage in our deliberations and without fuller analysis. The subject is well worthy of consideration, but that should be done as part of a wider strategy for assisting women out of prostitution. I trust that that will be taken on board by the Executive. For the reasons that I have given, the Conservatives will not support amendment 4.
It is relatively easy to agree with Tommy Sheridan's analysis and with the information that he has sought out and brought to the debate. Nonetheless, and for a number of reasons, I disagree with his conclusions.
I agree that the huge majority of prostitutes are in prostitution because of their drug habit or, as Tommy Sheridan said, the drug habit of someone else. First, amendment 4 does not address that "someone else". Secondly, the fact is that, overwhelmingly, addicts want to get clean—very few of them want to get on to methadone programmes or to reduce the harm. Thirdly, it is clear that no additional resources will be created under the provisions in the amendment. When I say "resources", I do not simply mean money. I am referring also to trained counsellors and nurses—we know that such trained people do not appear overnight.
The effect of agreeing to amendment 4 would be to transfer resources from people who go to their doctor or a clinic and say, "I want to get clean", to people who would come to such treatment through the criminal justice system. One thing we know about the people inside the system who are trying to get clean is that they have a lower success rate. If Scotland has a constant pool of resources and we put more people from the criminal justice system into treatment, we will reduce the number of people who will get clean of drugs.
I say to Tommy Sheridan that I have sympathy for the idea, but before the SNP would support amendment 4, a much more fundamental look at the issue would need to be taken.
I speak to oppose amendment 4. We know, because the figures and research are well documented, that the vast majority of women who are involved in street prostitution abuse drugs and/or alcohol. Section 43 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 criminalises soliciting and the effect of amendment 4 would be to encourage mandatory drug treatment and testing orders for women who are involved in prostitution and who are convicted under section 43. The effect of introducing mandatory drug rehab orders would criminalise more women.
Many women's groups are absolutely opposed to amendment 4. They oppose it because breach of a drug rehab and testing order would carry a heavier penalty than the original offence under section 43 of the 1982 act. No one is arguing that the women who are involved in street prostitution do not need access to services, including drug rehabilitation and many other services, but such services must be accessible voluntarily.
Yet again, in these stage 3 amendments, we are focusing on the behaviour of the women who are involved in prostitution. Tommy Sheridan said that the central problem is drugs. I say to him that the central problem is men. It is men who use the women who, in turn, are forced to take drugs and alcohol to blot out what they are involved in.
I am unclear about the thinking behind amendment 4. If it is that women should have mandatory drug treatment and testing orders in order to encourage them to come off drugs as a route out of prostitution, that view is very naive. Of course, a by-product of getting street prostitutes and other women who are involved in prostitution clean would be that men would be protected from infection with any one of a variety of diseases that they might expect. If Tommy Sheridan is serious about harm-reduction measures, he should be putting the spotlight on the men who use prostitutes, not on the lives and behaviour of the women who are involved in prostitution.
Before I call the minister, I intend to exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A(a) to extend the time limit for the debate to allow the minister to speak and Mr Sheridan to wind up. The extra time will need to be gained from the debate on the bill. I give the minister a tight three minutes.
Amendment 4 would, in effect, require courts to issue drug treatment and testing orders to sellers who were convicted of an offence under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, as long as certain conditions were met. The conditions are that the court is satisfied, based on a local authority report, that the offender
"is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, drugs"
and is likely to be susceptible to treatment and is a suitable person to be subject to such an order.
I am afraid that the Executive cannot support amendment 4 for two reasons. First, the amendment would interfere unduly with the independence of the courts to determine what sentence is appropriate in each case by requiring that they issue DTTOs. Secondly, a DTTO is a high-tariff penalty that is intended as an alternative to a custodial sentence and is therefore not appropriate for a section 46 offence. In addition, breach of a DTTO is a significant offence in itself and, as Frances Curran pointed out, can result in imprisonment. Members will agree that that would achieve little in relation to such offenders and it would not be appropriate.
I accept that in Mr Sheridan's motivation in lodging amendment 4 is to try to ensure that people who are trapped in prostitution receive the necessary support to address their underlying problems and, ultimately, to help them leave prostitution. A number of sentencing options are already available to the courts to facilitate that—all courts have the power to impose probation with a condition of drug treatment, for example. Courts may also defer sentence to allow work to be done on substance-misusing problems. Where appropriate, procurators fiscal may divert offenders away from the courts entirely.
A scheme has run in Edinburgh for some time that can divert from prosecution people who are charged with section 46 offences and instead give them an opportunity to address the underlying reasons for their involvement in street prostitution, whether the reasons are related to drugs or other problems. It is important that women in prostitution be given access at any time to support and assistance to help them leave, not only when they have been charged with or convicted of an offence. That is why the work of the Routes Out partnership in Glasgow, for example, is so important.
The Executive recognises that more needs to be done to support such vulnerable individuals. For that reason, we will make available an additional £1 million to prevent involvement in prostitution, to reduce demand, to reduce harm to those involved and to help individuals find a route out of prostitution. That is the correct approach to beef up services that are available to those who are trapped in prostitution, either through drug dependency or abusive partners. Such people must have the services that enable them to choose to find a way out of prostitution.
With the assurance that we will invest more in services, and for the reasons that I have given, I hope that Mr Sheridan will seek to withdraw his amendment.
The problem with the minister's comments, well intentioned and sincere though they are, is that all the witnesses from Routes Out in Glasgow and SCOT-PEP in Edinburgh from whom we took evidence told us that over the years of their existence—eight years in the case of Routes Out—the problem has been increasing, not decreasing. The problem is getting worse, not better. The evidence that we heard from those witnesses was that drug abuse is at the heart of the problem and that when people seek help to deal with their drug addiction, the resources are not available.
I think it was Stewart Stevenson who suggested that my proposal might shift the availability of drug treatment from general practitioners' offices to the criminal justice system. Stewart Stevenson knows that the reality is that many people are getting drug addiction treatment via the criminal justice system. When people seek assistance in the first instance, no places are available and there are not enough resources in rehabilitation.
David McLetchie said that my proposal in amendment 4 is a good idea, but that it had come "out of the blue". He knows, however, that it has not come out of the blue because he heard the evidence in committee. If it is a good idea, his having just heard it does not mean that it is not worthy of support.
Frances Curran said that we should shine the spotlight on the men who use the services of prostitutes, but that is what the bill proposes. Parliament should be very proud that for the first time it is shining the light on the users of prostitutes and proposing to criminalise them. If Frances Curran had attended the Local Government and Transport Committee's meetings, she would know that I and others wanted the fines for men who are found using prostitutes to be double what was originally proposed in the bill.
You should be finishing now, Mr Sheridan.
I know that we must shine the spotlight on the men, but the problem is that there are many women who simply cannot get access to the necessary resources. I think that the Executive opposes amendment 4 because it is a resource-laden suggestion. Rather than just lead to commitments that might not be forthcoming, it would make more investment mandatory. I will press amendment 4.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (Sol)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 100, Abstentions 8.
Amendment disagreed to.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When you used your discretion to extend the debate on group 2, you indicated that you would take the time back from the debate on the motion to pass the bill. I hope that you will consider taking the time from the following debate, which is on organic farming, because legislating is the most important thing that Parliament does and we should not curtail debates on the passing of bills when there are other items of business from which time could be recovered.
I will do what Presiding Officers normally do—I will look at matters over the piece. I am sure that everyone who wishes to be called will be called.