Chamber and committees

If Mr Ewing will bear with me, I will take his intervention if I have time at the end.

Our overriding concern is the evidence that we heard about the impact of the proposed offence as drafted on the safety of women. Supporters of the bill told us that there is no reliable evidence that the model proposed would make women more unsafe; however, we heard concerns that criminalising the buyer might drive prostitution underground and make it less safe for those selling it.

I thank Michelle Thomson for her intervention.

My position is that it is important that I set out the position of the committee. I am happy to take interventions at the end of my contribution. If I may therefore proceed.

Taking into account all the evidence that we received, some committee members were content to recommend that the bill should progress to stage 2. Others considered that there is insufficient time to undertake the necessary detailed consultation and engagement to properly address the issue of women’s safety and to make other necessary changes. Therefore, they do not consider that the bill should proceed beyond stage 1. However, we are all agreed that prostitution is a form of violence against women and girls, that its prevalence must be reduced and that further action is necessary as a matter of priority.

We were all of the view that, if passed at stage 1, significant amendments to the bill will be required to address the concerns that we have identified. If the bill is not to succeed, we set out some views on what should happen next, including the establishment of an independent commission. I note that the Scottish Government’s response to our stage 1 report sets out a commitment to a commission that would identify options for the next Government to consider.

If I have time, I will now take interventions.

The Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025 required a review of the operation of the reduction of the automatic early release point to be published by this time next year. That is a really important part of post-legislative scrutiny. Will the cabinet secretary today commit to a review of the change that is being proposed this afternoon?

May I just conclude my remarks, Presiding Officer?

To conclude, I extend our thanks again to everyone who supported the committee’s scrutiny, and I look forward to hearing members’ contributions.

Will Michelle Thomson take an intervention?

On Michelle Thomson’s point about the balance of evidence, I would point out—this has been reflected already in the debate—that we engaged, or attempted to engage, in a balanced way. On the point about evidence from the Women’s Support Project, I note that it was our aspiration for all engagement to be trauma informed and, on that particular issue, we were advised strongly not to engage directly with lived-experience witnesses.

I am very pleased to open on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee. At the outset, I advise members that I have limited time to set out some of the key details from our stage 1 report; I will therefore take interventions at the end, if there is time.

First, I thank our excellent clerking team for the support that we have come to expect over the years, and the Scottish Parliament information centre and participation and communities team colleagues who supported us through the complexities of trauma-informed engagement with witnesses with lived and living experience. Although I have a deep personal interest in tackling gender-based abuse in Scotland, I speak today as convener of, and on behalf of, the whole committee.

The committee approached our scrutiny in a constructive and collegiate manner, and there were many areas of common agreement. The committee is grateful to all who gave evidence, particularly those with lived and living experience. We appreciate the bravery and honesty with which they shared their experiences and insight.

In addition to our oral evidence sessions, the committee received a substantial volume of written evidence, which set out strongly held views across both sides of the debate. Our aim has been, within the time available, to allow individuals on both sides of the debate to set out their positions.

In considering the evidence, it cannot be overstated that our overriding collective objective is to reduce the harm that is associated with prostitution. The committee took a great deal of time to agree and prepare our conclusions and recommendations, and I will highlight the main findings in our stage 1 report.

The most controversial proposal in the bill is a new offence to criminalise the purchase of a sexual act. The challenge that we faced in our scrutiny was to determine the likely impact of that proposed new offence and whether, as drafted, it could achieve its stated aims. In the time that was available to the committee, we considered the impact of the proposed offence on demand and on related activities such as human trafficking and, importantly, the implications for policing, the prosecution of offences and the safety of women.

Much of the evidence in that policy area is highly contested, which made reaching conclusions very difficult. However, after careful consideration of the evidence, the committee reached some unanimous conclusions: first, prostitution causes untold harm and misery for many of those who are involved; and secondly, we are fully supportive of the overall goal of the member in charge of the bill to reform the laws on prostitution in order to reduce the demand for and prevalence of prostitution in Scotland.

However, we identified concerns with the bill as it was drafted. A key concern is whether a new criminal offence could be enforced in such a way as to reduce the amount of prostitution in Scotland, as stated in the policy memorandum.

Police Scotland stated:

“We would need to find a model that allows us to be satisfied that the crime of the purchase of sex is complete.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 5 November 2025; c 9.]

The Crown Office stressed the importance of managing expectations with regard to the evidential difficulties in proving the offence.

It is an offence that would invariably take place in private, that might be arranged online, and that could involve highly vulnerable individuals who might be reluctant to give evidence to secure a conviction.

We also heard concerns about the definition of a sexual act, including that behaviours excluded from the definition could be confusing.

I will come back to Ms Maguire if I have time.

We consider that there is more to be done to properly engage with and address the genuine concerns expressed that the offence would compromise women’s safety.

On the other proposals in the bill, we believe that there is merit in the proposal to repeal the offence of soliciting. That was widely supported by witnesses, although the Scottish Government’s view is that it would require further consultation. On the proposal to quash convictions for soliciting, we understand the policy intention, but we heard evidence that an alternative approach, based on pardons, would be preferable.

We agree with the general policy intention in the bill that individuals who are or have been in prostitution should receive assistance and support. However, we have concerns about the adequacy of the funding levels that are proposed in the bill.

A very good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2026 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies.

Our first item of business is a decision on whether to take item 5 in private. Do we agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next item of business is consideration of a negative Scottish statutory instrument. I refer members to paper 1, which sets out the purpose of the instrument.

I note that we have seen a number of such orders for the firefighters’ pension scheme in which the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee have picked up on issues relating to the drafting of the instrument. I very much hope that the Scottish Government is taking note of that.

As members do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the negative instrument, do we agree that we are content for it to come into force?

Members indicated agreement.