Chamber and committees

Please continue.

Good morning. I have a question for Amanda Jane Quick. One of the big differences between this panel of witnesses and the next panel is that one of the submissions we have received says that there is a “false assumption” about prostitution or sex work, according to which it

“is not driven by men’s demand for sex, it is driven by women’s need for an income.”

The submission goes on to discuss inequality and poverty. Are you able to respond to that?

The figures that the committee has seen refer to 4 per cent of men and show the age group and rough profile of those who are buying sex from women. Do you have figures on the prevalence of violence among that group?

The violence from that group of men. Amanda Jane Quick talked a lot about that, and other women experience it, too—for example, stealthing and strangulation. Strangulation has been a big issue for the Parliament, and we have talked about the need to legislate on such issues. Do you have any information at all on the levels or prevalence of violence?

Good morning. First, I say to Laura Baillie that I agree that the person she mentioned—I will not use his name—should be banned.

There is a commonality of view among the members of the committee and the witnesses about the importance of the safety of women. Whatever issues we might agree or disagree on, we have to wrestle with whether the legislation does what it sets out to do.

I want to continue on the issues of violence against women and girls and the wider harm that is done to women, which Katy Clark talked about. There have been many debates in this Parliament about the attitudes of men and boys and how we really have to tackle them. I would like to hear a bit more about how you feel that prostitution or sex work feeds into normal male attitudes that women are just available to buy sex from. How can we make the necessary distinction in our society? That is what concerns me more than anything when I am wrestling with the issue of how we keep women safe and what the right thing to do here is. Both panels of witnesses have made excellent cases, and what has been said has been very powerful. However, it is really important for me to hear what you have to say about the issue that I have just raised. I ask Lynsey Walton to respond first.

You talked quite a bit about the Irish model, which does not seem to have been effective compared with other models. Have you covered everything that you wanted to say about that?

I completely understand what you are saying. However, I clarify that my question was about the wider harm that male attitudes cause society, and I think that we are all probably agreed on that point.

I want to ask what is, for me, quite an important question for Niki Adams or Lynsey Walton about the men who organise sex workers. Do we call them pimps? I not know whether that is the right language. I sat on the Roots Out of Prostitution board many years ago, when I represented the Glasgow Kelvin constituency, which was quite different 20 years ago. Things were not so organised then, but I know that it has changed a lot. Anything that you can tell us about who organises things and who these men are—is it men?—would be really helpful.

Lawyers have said for some time that they are leaving the legal aid sector in significant numbers due to inadequate remuneration and an unsustainable working environment. In fact, many lawyers have said that the pendulum has swung so far that the lack of legal aid defence lawyers is creating a backlog that is impacting victims of sexual crime. As the minister will know, that is partly because those who are accused of sexual crimes must employ a lawyer.

I welcome the announcement of the training fund, but what other action is being taken and what progress is the Government making to stop lawyers leaving the sector that we so desperately need them to stay in?

I will speak to amendments 58, 59, 2 and 60 on virtual attendance. Amendment 58 would insert:

“(a) an official appointed by the court will be in attendance with the person who is to attend by electronic means,

(b) it is satisfied that the electronic means is of sufficient speed and quality to enable the person to both see and hear all of the other parties, the judge and (where applicable) the jury and any witness who is giving evidence”.

At stage 2, the cabinet secretary said that having a court official in attendance

“would place an unsustainable burden on court officers”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 June 2025; c 17.]

and would come with an unsustainable and “unquantifiable” cost. Therefore, I revised my amendment to say

“an official appointed by the court”.

Witnesses raised the point that giving evidence virtually should be equivalent to giving evidence in a courtroom. At stage 1, the sheriffs principal told us that

“virtual hearings are heavily dependent on the adequate resourcing of technology and infrastructure.”

The Faculty of Advocates told the Criminal Justice Committee that

“These undoubted and important benefits do come at a cost to the justice system... Valuable court time is regularly lost due to delays in establishing remote links and re-establishing failed remote links.”

I also welcome amendment 2, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which relates to—

The provision in question relates to the retention of evidence. Again, my motivation was to maintain the status quo. I am not trying to put any more responsibility or burden on the police to retain any evidence that they do not already retain. Given that we are not practitioners, we must examine the matter and ensure that there will be no loss to the justice process as a result of destroying or not storing evidence. In some cases, the justice process is long.

I assure Audrey Nicoll and Police Scotland that I do not intend to move amendment 63, but we should be absolutely clear, before we pass the bill, about the important difference between producing an item and storing it, and that there will be no loss to the interests of justice as a result of passing the bill.

I move amendment 61.