Chamber and committees

Thanks very much, convener, and good morning.

I have been watching with keen interest the evidence that the committee has gathered while scrutinising Ms Regan’s Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill. I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out the Scottish Government’s current position on the bill, considering that evidence, and I hope that you will allow me the time to do that.

While we have taken a neutral stance on the bill and await the committee’s final report on it, I want to put on record, for the first time, the fact that the Scottish Government strongly supports the principle of legislating to criminalise purchasers of sex. That position aligns with that of our equally safe strategy, which is that commercial sexual exploitation is a form of violence against women and girls.

However, I have significant concerns with the bill as it is currently drafted. If the bill were to become an act, it would create a criminal law, and it must therefore be clear and unambiguous and must have the confidence of Parliament.

Let me turn to those concerns. On the criminalisation of purchase, we are supportive in principle, as I have said. However, that must be achieved in a way that ensures that the safety of women is paramount. Concerns were expressed to the committee about forcing activity underground and the subsequent risks to women’s safety, and that remains an issue that is not adequately addressed by the bill. Similarly, the bill does not take sufficient account of the reality that the gateway for involvement in prostitution is increasingly online, or of the fact that there are strong links in many cases with serious and organised crime and human trafficking. The bill as drafted does not engage with those significant issues, and it would require amending before it could gain the confidence of the Parliament.

As I have said previously in correspondence, the right to support that is proposed under the bill is not well defined, it is not fully costed and it does not take account of the current provision of services. I again point to the need for clear legislation, particularly to allow for adequate financial memorandums. The bill as drafted does not allow for that, and there need to be amendments to outline what support is required, so that costs can be properly assessed.

I have already made clear why we do not support the quashing of convictions, and our view on that has not changed and will not change.

Given the points that I have outlined, I am extremely concerned that there are significant policy and operational challenges with the bill as drafted, and there is a need for substantial amendments to address them. I am also concerned that there may not be enough parliamentary time left to develop the amendments that would be needed to deliver competent, safe and workable legislation that we can all agree on and have confidence in.

The bill is not a Government bill, and it is for the committee and the member in charge to decide on how those concerns can be addressed. If it was a Government bill, in order to address the clear issues that we have identified with it, we would require, at the very minimum, significant consultation and engagement with the women who would be impacted by it, with justice partners including Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and with wider stakeholders, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the third sector organisations that currently provide support.

By way of example, committee members will be familiar with the time that was taken to develop the necessary amendments to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in order to address the concerns that were raised and the committee’s views. That bill was considerably broader than the one that is before us today, but that example highlights that, without that time to develop the policy behind the amendments, we would not have had a workable bill.

Anyone who has put forward a member’s bill knows that there is a lot of hard work behind it, and I thank Ms Regan for all the work that she has done thus far. This is an emotive, sensitive and complex issue, and it is important that we get it right. As elected representatives, we have an obligation to scrutinise all proposed legislation, whether members’ bills or Scottish Government bills, and to address concerns that are raised during the parliamentary scrutiny process. The issues that have been raised with the bill as drafted cannot be ignored. They must be addressed adequately by the member, so that we have a clear and workable bill to vote on as legislators. I am interested in the committee’s and Ms Regan’s views on how to address the issues that have been raised with the committee by the Government and stakeholders ahead of the stage 1 debate.

As has been reflected in much of the evidence available to the committee, legislation alone will not address the fundamental reasons why women turn to prostitution in the first place. The Government is also tackling those fundamental societal issues, within our powers, including the cost of living, addiction, inequality and poverty.

The Scottish Government will continue its work to tackle violence against women, to support women to exit prostitution and to support Police Scotland with its operation begonia approach, which recognises that those involved in prostitution are victims and signposts them to support to enable them to exit from prostitution should they wish to do so, while at the same time tackling kerb crawling and exploitation. We have been clear that this is not the end of our work around commercial sexual exploitation, and we will build on that work using what we have learned.

I am happy to take any questions.

Our equally safe strategy, which was launched in February last year, explicitly states that prostitution is violence against women and girls, and that has helped us with our strategic approach to challenging men’s demand.

The strategy aims to challenge men’s demand and to put in place support for people with experience of commercial sexual exploitation and help them to exit if they wish to do so. It also aims to raise public and professional awareness that women with experience of selling or exchanging sex are victims of exploitation. It highlights the importance of engagement with stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to inform future policy.

Our strategic approach aims to challenge and deter men’s demand for prostitution and improve access to support for women, from crisis support through to longer-term support. That reflects the complexities of the issues that are associated with prostitution and the need for a multifaceted approach.

On the ground, we are currently working with Police Scotland to support the implementation of operation begonia, its new national approach to prostitution, which is designed to route women with experience of commercial sexual exploitation to support services as opposed to their being charged, and involves police more evidently using the powers that are currently available to them to challenge men’s demand.

Operation begonia has been going on in Aberdeen for many years; it is now operating in Dundee and Edinburgh, and in Glasgow under another name. The latest update from Police Scotland on the operation states that there have been more than 114 patrols; that 171 males have been warned and 48 charged; and that there has been in excess of 250 intelligence logs. Importantly, where women consented, 79 men have been referred to support.

That should give you an idea of what is happening. There is a lot more work going on, but that is what we are currently doing with our strategic approach.

To me, women’s safety has to be paramount. In your evidence sessions, and in the discussions that I have had, I have heard women who are currently involved in prostitution expressing genuine fear that they would become more endangered as a result of the provisions in the bill. I do not think that their voices have been in the conversation thus far, and we must have them around the table as we consider this legislation, because it will impact them. If we are to legislate, we must work together on how to do so safely, so that we do not put any women in further danger.

We need more detail on support. If this was a Government bill, you would quite rightly be scrutinising the proposal and asking for detail on how long the support would be provided, whether we would be paying for rent, council tax and childcare, what would happen if the woman chose to go back into prostitution and returned to receive support in three months’ time, and what the timescales were expected to be. Those are the kind of questions that I would expect to be able to answer as a Government minister. If it is to be good legislation that we can vote on and have confidence in, MSPs would need to have detail on how much it would cost and what support would be in place. At this stage, we do not have that detail.

I had a briefing last week from Linda Thompson from the Women’s Support Project. She does a snapshot every year and she gave me a preview of last year’s snapshot, which looked at about 100 women across Scotland. It goes into the complex areas of poverty, drug addiction and mental health issues. It is a very good report, and I think that the committee would benefit from seeing it.

Based on our conversations with Police Scotland and the work that it is doing at the moment, I think that the police are not targeting the women; they are targeting the men.

I think that I have touched on that. I have concerns that they are not realistic. We need to have more detail, especially with regard to the support aspect of the bill. I do not know how much that would cost; I think that the suggestion is that the money would come from the funds for the equally safe strategy, which have already been allocated. The member in charge must supply more detail if we are to work out how much the bill will cost. We want legislation to be affordable and workable.

We need to consider the existing policies and legislation in the area of tackling exploitation, and the issue that you raise is one that has been highlighted in that regard. Sex for rent—indeed, any exchange of sex for accommodation—is exploitation. Local authorities have powers relating to housing and engagement with sexual exploitation, but these issues need more consideration and consultation. I know that officials are working with Police Scotland and the short-term accommodation sector on ways of raising awareness of sexual exploitation—I think that everyone is familiar with that work, which I know will continue into next year. Jeff Gibbons can elaborate on what is being done in that regard.

I cannot commit to it being done in the next parliamentary session—that would be up to the new Government. However, as I have said, we have never ruled out legislation. It is just about how we get it right. It might be quite traumatic for some of the women, whether they are for or against such legislation, to bravely give their evidence, but we need their voice at the table if we move forward with it, given all the complex issues, including how to deal with past convictions. That does not necessarily mean that they would have to give evidence in front of the public, on television and in front of committees—it could be in private sessions. I would want their voice at the table, because I want to hear from people with lived experience on how we can move forward with the best legislation. I hope that the process would not be as traumatic as having to give evidence to committees.

From what I have heard, they could potentially do that. You have heard evidence from women in that regard. I do not want to go into detail about the reasons why that is, because I am sure that you have heard such detail.