Chamber and committees

I have visited a number of fire stations, and it is quite clear that in some of them it would be practically impossible for there to be safe systems of work due to a lack of showering facilities, for example. I appreciate that there may be cultural points, but perhaps you could address some of the resource issues, and then we can go on to the cultural issues.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that this is yet another failure by the management, rather than the workforce, at Ferguson Marine? In her role as finance secretary, will she say more about what is being done to provide support to those who are suffering as a result of the situation—the islanders on Arran and the community in Ardrossan—and what financial support she is putting in place?

Only 2 per cent of this year’s budget for justice and home affairs is assigned to community justice, and only 10 per cent of that community justice budget is to be spent on front-line services, which is a real-terms cut of 2 per cent. Local government has also faced cuts to its budget of about 50 per cent since 2010 and is unable to provide a range of services. The cabinet secretary and I have been in correspondence about this, but she must surely accept that we cannot have real-terms cuts to community justice in this year’s budget.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

Ash Regan has spoken about a number of attempts to get legislation on this issue through Parliament. Given the Scottish Government’s previous commitments, it is disappointing that it has not brought forward its own such legislation in this session or engaged meaningfully with the member’s bill. I agree with Fergus Ewing that this Parliament needs to show courage.

We all know that prostitution involves abuse and violence. Michelle Thomson spoke about that in graphic detail and about the importance of evidence that comes from lived experience. We also know that most buyers of sex are men, most sellers of sex are women, and that, in Scots law, the women are criminalised and the men’s behaviour is deemed lawful. We also know that there is a global, multibillion-pound sex trade that profits from the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable in society, and that it is closely connected with human trafficking and organised crime.

One study found that, in the United Kingdom, around two thirds of those involved in prostitution and sex work had been assaulted by clients. As Pauline McNeill said, survivors of prostitution have described experiencing long-term trauma, hypervigilance and symptoms consistent with complex PTSD. In 2015, potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation composed a third of all referrals to the national referral mechanism, the UK’s support system for victims of modern slavery. The status quo is unacceptable.

That is why we welcome Ash Regan having introduced the bill and thank her for her considerable work on it. We also appreciate that there is a lack of support for members taking forward bills of this nature.

We consider that it is a good use of the Parliament’s time to consider the legal framework in Scots law. We appreciate that the debate is polarised, with strong views on different sides, and we have listened carefully to the arguments.

We note the lack of men who have been involved in giving evidence to the committee, and the obvious lack of direct lobbying from those who profit from this highly lucrative sector. It seems that those who profit from the sex trade did not think that it was a good use of their time to attempt to influence the evidence that was given to us directly. We are also aware that the debate is happening after the release of another tranche of the Epstein files. It is clear from the evidence that the committee received that men from all walks of life buy sex.

We are very aware that the bill contains four measures and that section 1 tends to dominate the debate. Section 1 proposes the criminalisation of the purchase of sex, but there are three other measures in the bill, on the legalisation of soliciting, the quashing of convictions for soliciting and the creation of a legal right to support to exit prostitution. We believe that all four need proper consideration.

There has been legislative change in many other countries in recent decades, with the so-called Nordic model being introduced in some countries and decriminalisation being introduced in others. We appreciate that the evidence is highly contested, but there is evidence that the Nordic model has had the effect of reducing the size of the market—the number of men buying sex—and reducing human trafficking, and that, in countries where there has been decriminalisation, the size of the market has increased.

There is some evidence that the approach results in fewer men buying sex. As Ash Regan pointed out, in Sweden, in 2008, 8 per cent of men reported paying for sexual services, compared with 13 per cent before the legislation was brought in there. We accept that there is a great deal of dispute about the evidence, but we are also clear that many survivors in Scotland are saying clearly to us that they believe that the framework in the bill needs consideration. The Parliament also needs to consider the wider impact of the status quo on society as a whole—on girls and women, and on boys and men. That point was made to me by one of the survivors of the sex trade.

We have looked at the bill in detail and believe that there is a need to amend each of the four measures in it. We have proposals regarding how the bill could be amended, and I know that Ash Regan intends to lodge amendments. We believe that the bill can be amended but, most of all, we believe that the debate is too important for the Scottish Parliament to curtail scrutiny of the bill that is before us. Therefore, we will support the general principles of the bill when it comes to a division.

17:43

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that this is yet another failure by the management, rather than the workforce, at Ferguson Marine? In her role as finance secretary, will she say more about what is being done to provide support to those who are suffering as a result of the situation—the islanders on Arran and the community in Ardrossan—and what financial support she is putting in place?

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

Ash Regan has spoken about a number of attempts to get legislation on this issue through Parliament. Given the Scottish Government’s previous commitments, it is disappointing that it has not brought forward its own such legislation in this session or engaged meaningfully with the member’s bill. I agree with Fergus Ewing that this Parliament needs to show courage.

We all know that prostitution involves abuse and violence. Michelle Thomson spoke about that in graphic detail and about the importance of evidence that comes from lived experience. We also know that most buyers of sex are men, most sellers of sex are women, and that, in Scots law, the women are criminalised and the men’s behaviour is deemed lawful. We also know that there is a global, multibillion-pound sex trade that profits from the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable in society, and that it is closely connected with human trafficking and organised crime.

One study found that, in the United Kingdom, around two thirds of those involved in prostitution and sex work had been assaulted by clients. As Pauline McNeill said, survivors of prostitution have described experiencing long-term trauma, hypervigilance and symptoms consistent with complex PTSD. In 2015, potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation composed a third of all referrals to the national referral mechanism, the UK’s support system for victims of modern slavery. The status quo is unacceptable.

That is why we welcome Ash Regan having introduced the bill and thank her for her considerable work on it. We also appreciate that there is a lack of support for members taking forward bills of this nature.

We consider that it is a good use of the Parliament’s time to consider the legal framework in Scots law. We appreciate that the debate is polarised, with strong views on different sides, and we have listened carefully to the arguments.

We note the lack of men who have been involved in giving evidence to the committee, and the obvious lack of direct lobbying from those who profit from this highly lucrative sector. It seems that those who profit from the sex trade did not think that it was a good use of their time to attempt to influence the evidence that was given to us directly. We are also aware that the debate is happening after the release of another tranche of the Epstein files. It is clear from the evidence that the committee received that men from all walks of life buy sex.

We are very aware that the bill contains four measures and that section 1 tends to dominate the debate. Section 1 proposes the criminalisation of the purchase of sex, but there are three other measures in the bill, on the legalisation of soliciting, the quashing of convictions for soliciting and the creation of a legal right to support to exit prostitution. We believe that all four need proper consideration.

There has been legislative change in many other countries in recent decades, with the so-called Nordic model being introduced in some countries and decriminalisation being introduced in others. We appreciate that the evidence is highly contested, but there is evidence that the Nordic model has had the effect of reducing the size of the market—the number of men buying sex—and reducing human trafficking, and that, in countries where there has been decriminalisation, the size of the market has increased.

There is some evidence that the approach results in fewer men buying sex. As Ash Regan pointed out, in Sweden, in 2008, 8 per cent of men reported paying for sexual services, compared with 13 per cent before the legislation was brought in there. We accept that there is a great deal of dispute about the evidence, but we are also clear that many survivors in Scotland are saying clearly to us that they believe that the framework in the bill needs consideration. The Parliament also needs to consider the wider impact of the status quo on society as a whole—on girls and women, and on boys and men. That point was made to me by one of the survivors of the sex trade.

We have looked at the bill in detail and believe that there is a need to amend each of the four measures in it. We have proposals regarding how the bill could be amended, and I know that Ash Regan intends to lodge amendments. We believe that the bill can be amended but, most of all, we believe that the debate is too important for the Scottish Parliament to curtail scrutiny of the bill that is before us. Therefore, we will support the general principles of the bill when it comes to a division.

17:43

Only 2 per cent of this year’s budget for justice and home affairs is assigned to community justice, and only 10 per cent of that community justice budget is to be spent on front-line services, which is a real-terms cut of 2 per cent. Local government has also faced cuts to its budget of about 50 per cent since 2010 and is unable to provide a range of services. The cabinet secretary and I have been in correspondence about this, but she must surely accept that we cannot have real-terms cuts to community justice in this year’s budget.

Only 2 per cent of the total funding that has been allocated for justice and home affairs has been assigned to community justice. Out of that, only 10 per cent has been allocated to third-sector organisations that deliver front-line services. Local authorities provide a significant proportion of community justice. However, their budgets have been cut by about 50 per cent in real terms since 2010, and they say that they are not able to provide the range of services that are needed. Does the cabinet secretary believe that such levels of funding can deliver the shift to community justice that is needed across Scotland to reduce reoffending and tackle the root causes of crime?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Information Commissioner taking legal action against it in relation to its missing deadlines to produce documents regarding James Hamilton’s investigation into alleged breaches of the ministerial code. (S6T-02866)

The freedom of information request was made in October 2024. Following both a review and an investigation, the Information Commissioner ruled that the Scottish Government had wrongfully withheld information and that that information should be released by 15 January. Ministers failed to comply with the 15 January deadline and then failed to comply with another deadline on 22 January—only notifying the Information Commissioner of that decision just minutes before the deadline.

The Information Commissioner is clear that he is asking the Scottish Government not to break the law but to comply with it. Does the minister believe that the Scottish Government’s actions so far have been in compliance with freedom of information law?