Chamber and committees

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.

We had a few meetings in the initial stages with Ms Regan, in which I raised quashing and the detail about support that I raised with you. Ms Regan thought it was up to the Scottish Government to provide that detail, but it is not; it is a member’s bill, so it is up to the member to provide the detail and for everyone to scrutinise it. As I said, if I proposed a Scottish Government bill, I would expect scrutiny, and people would be asking me questions on detail. We have gone forward with the evidence sessions, but I have not had any requests for a meeting recently.

I appreciate the different numbers of sections in the different bills. When I said that I had concerns about it, I was alluding to the fact that, when we have evidence sessions, it is up to the Government or to private members to come back and say how they will address that evidence. A lot of issues have been raised during the evidence sessions.

I do not agree that the Scottish Government will just put legislation through. We take our time and listen to members. I hope that the member in charge will do that as well with her private member’s bill.

I have genuine concerns about the parliamentary timetable. We are all aware of the number of members’ bills and Scottish Government bills that we are currently try to put through in the next 16 weeks—you said it was 18 weeks, but I counted 16.

Is it acceptable? We are doing everything that we can.

To me, the conclusions are unclear that it is not working internationally.

Yes—I am saying that the international examples, which the committee has heard about in evidence, show that that approach is not 100 per cent working and there are challenges with the implementation of such legislation internationally.

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.

I have concerns about the number of amendments that may be needed. On your point about putting the issue in the “too difficult” box for too long, we must acknowledge that, in 2025, we are living in a different world from the one which the Nordic model was introduced in Sweden in 1999, because of the online aspect. The bill does not currently take cognisance of the online factor, which is a growing trend that we need to consider how to tackle. Also, when we come to legislate in five or 10 years, there might be something that we are not even aware of at this stage.

No, that view is part of our equally safe strategy. We consider paying for sex to be a form of violence against women and girls. We have never opposed legislation on the matter, but we have focused on providing support and looking at how international models of legislation are working and how they are not working. That work is on-going. We are not opposed to legislation, but we want to do it right.