Chamber and committees

I am going to try to make some progress.

We have about 22 sitting days left in this parliamentary session. Do members really believe that there is enough time to sufficiently address that concern and the many other flaws that have been highlighted in the bill? I am clear that we cannot dismiss the comments from women involved in prostitution who are “terrified” of the proposals. That should make us all pause.

Ahead of today’s debate, members received many briefings that highlight the risks, but I appreciate that opinion is divided on the issue.

I am not taking interventions at this stage, as I have a lot to get through.

For example, one briefing said that the bill would

“make life more dangerous and difficult for those selling sex, by driving the industry underground”.

In the open letter to MSPs that I mentioned—well, I was going to mention it in my opening speech, but I did not get the chance—the 126 signatories said:

“for us this means our working conditions worsening, and the rate of violence we experience rising. We ask that you vote against the bill.”

We have heard the consensus, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the next parliamentary session. A commission that can examine and consider the many issues that have been aired today and act quickly in the next session is the way forward ahead of legislation that the Parliament can scrutinise and amend, knowing that it has the time and, importantly, that the proposals have been developed with those who are involved in prostitution. Women have clearly stated that, as drafted, the bill would put them at an increased risk of violence. I do not think that the bill can be amended sufficiently in six short weeks to allay those concerns and the other flaws in the bill.

I have noted that. I was addressing some of the comments from other members, not all comments. I do apologise. It was not meant for that member.

In my opening speech, I was going to mention operation begonia and a Crimestoppers campaign on commercial sexual exploitation that will be launched on 23 February. We have also funded the development of a resource to support police training that will be introduced this year. During its committee evidence, Police Scotland highlighted the importance of local support and how it will go hand in hand with its work. The new resource will build on the work that we have been undertaking with Police Scotland to strengthen the connections between police and local support services.

Next month, as part of our wider work to improve support, we will also launch an employability and training guide for women who are looking to exit prostitution. As I said earlier, there is £400,000 in our draft budget to provide support in this area, with a further £65,000 being provided to the women’s support project to support women exiting prostitution.

I commend Ash Regan for ensuring that the Parliament has recognised the need to change the legislation around prostitution and the majority agrees with the fundamental principle of criminalising the purchase of sex. However, we have also heard about significant concerns with the bill that would take time to address. Time is not available in this parliamentary session.

I will come to that. I do not believe that we can move forward with it, as we have only six weeks left. One of the issues is support. [Interruption.] There is no detail on support in the bill, and we would like to consult, especially with women who are currently in prostitution, on what support they would like. We would not have time to do that in the next couple of weeks, let alone months.

Those who provided evidence to the committee, and indeed the committee itself, have pointed to concerns that some women who are involved in prostitution say that their safety would be at risk. Without the necessary time to consult and to develop proposals to ensure their safety, we cannot support the bill as drafted. [Interruption.]

The committee’s report clearly outlines the differing—

I ask members if I can please make a bit of progress—[Interruption.]

I will take interventions, but there are people screaming from the back, and I think that we should show a little bit of respect.

Members: Oh!

—which did not exist when the Nordic model was first introduced, can be addressed.

I am sorry—I do not have any time for interventions.

I am sorry, but I do not think that that is at all an accurate reflection from Ms Regan—absolutely not. [Interruption.]

As I have said throughout, the bill has reinforced the clear and unequivocal position that prostitution is violence against women and girls. [Interruption.] It is the Scottish Government’s view, as set out in our equally safe strategy, that men should not be able to purchase sex—quite simply, women are not for sale.

I thank the committee for its scrutiny, which has been thoughtful and considered. I am also grateful to all those who have provided evidence and those who have written to and met me. I recognise that sharing personal experiences can be hard, and I am grateful to them for doing so.

That has not been our argument whatsoever.

I support the committee’s recommendation to establish an independent commission on the issue, because, importantly, that will allow for further engagement with women who are currently involved in selling sex and offer an opportunity to hear from those with technical experience on how best to respond to online exploitation, specifically in relation to the support that women need. There is currently no detail in the bill on that and, if it were to progress, we would have no time to consult or engage with women in prostitution at the moment.

Further work is also clearly needed to ensure that future legislation is deliverable for the police. I am sure that many members will be aware of the concerns that Police Scotland raised yesterday about operational costs that could arise as a result of the bill. In relation to what Fergus Ewing said regarding yesterday’s announcement from Police Scotland, I highlight that that was the first time that I had seen those figures, but I am told that that was in response to a question that Ms Dowey from the Conservatives asked in the committee’s meeting on 5 November last year.

We have also heard about the issues with the bill as drafted relating to the definition of the criminal aspect in the bill and to enforcement. For example, in its briefing to MSPs, the Law Society of Scotland, which does not take a position on any of the bill’s policy intentions, states that it envisages that

“the behaviours excluded from the scope of the proposed offence may lead to confusion”,

and it agrees with the committee’s stage 1 recommendation that any new proposed offence should

“have a clear definition consistent with current legislation and the policy intentions of the Bill.”

I will reflect on some of the contributions from members. I appreciate that the issue is very emotive, but I feel that some members have been very disingenuous in relation to some of the facts that they have portrayed. Liam Kerr, you referred to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill as one of the reasons for having time for all these amendments—