Chamber and committees

I can understand to an extent why the cabinet secretary does not want a description of “public interest” to be in the bill. However, there should surely be a reference to it in the bill so that the whole bill uses that framework, which is legally understood. Would she consider lodging an amendment, in discussion with other members who have lodged amendments, that would cover the whole bill, so that all the actions under the bill would be taken in the public interest?

Amendment 339 would make land management plans subject to a public interest test, requiring landowners to consider the public interest when pursuing such plans. Owning large areas of land is a privilege and therefore large landowners need to consider the impact of their activities on the wider public when drawing up their land management plans.

Amendment 342 seeks to expand the definition of land that is subject to obligations under proposed new section 44A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to include public interest determinations. It would also add public interest criteria for applying land management obligations and would allow the Government to impose public goods obligations on large landowners. Too often, we hear of communities that cannot access land for vital community interests such as housing and food production. The amendment would empower the Government to step in where community efforts have failed.

Amendment 348 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 342 and would include proposed new section 44D to the 2016 act in the list of relevant sections.

I support other amendments in the group from Mercedes Villalba, Michael Matheson and Ariane Burgess. It is clear that we need a public interest test for many aspects of the bill for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has laid out, which I will not repeat. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on which amendments would best do that.

Amendment 312 would ensure that land management plans complied

“with the format to be prescribed by the Scottish Ministers”

which would ensure that the plans would meet the terms of the legislation while being simple to produce in a given format. The evidence about the cost of producing land management plans varied widely, so having a pro forma to hand would make those plans simple to pull together. That said, large landholdings will already have plans to manage their land, unless it is derelict, and should be able to quite simply bring those plans together into a given format.

Amendment 315 would extend the review period from five to 10 years, taking into account the fact that land use patterns are slow to change and that tree planting, peatland restoration and the like can all take decades. The amendment would allow additional time before a review must be carried out. Where there is significant change during that period, the bill already allows a framework for changes to be made to land management plans. I think that 10 years strikes a reasonable balance and believe that the 20-year period that would be created by Tim Eagle’s amendment would be far too long.

I believe that land managers would do that—for instance, if you are planting trees, you need to know how many you have planted and you need to manage them to make sure that they are growing properly and that the conditions are right for them. If something goes wrong, you have to take stock and go back. It is the same for peatland restoration, and it is the same for growing food—you need to plan ahead to make sure that the soil is in the right state to grow the crops that you are looking for. Land management is not something that you do and then walk away from; you have to continually monitor what you are doing.

My amendment 335 is reasonably self-explanatory. There is a conflict because the Scottish ministers would be very unlikely to impose obligations on themselves, so the amendment would strengthen land management plans for Scottish Government-owned crofting estates. The Scottish ministers would be able to appoint someone in their stead to fulfil their obligations, especially where there is a conflict.

My amendment 340 would allow the commissioner to decide whether one land management plan is required for multiple holdings or whether each holding should have an individual plan. Although it is likely that an owner would have one plan, there are maybe situations in which the landholdings are very different, and different plans are in place. Amendment 340 works with Mercedes Villalba’s amendments where non-contiguous holdings have a cumulative effect.

I thank the members who signed my motion, which enabled this debate to happen.

It has been a long-held view of the Scottish Government and the Parliament that prostitution is violence against women. It is the epitome of inequality when a man can buy a woman for their own pleasure—a pleasure that has, at its very core, the overpowering of another’s free will in return for money. It exploits the seller’s need for money to take their power and agency away from them. By its very nature, the payment is to negate the need for consent—but you cannot buy consent.

We all know that prostitution is inherently dangerous. Those who sell sex often face rape and abuse from sex buyers. Despite the recognition that this is violence against women, there is little in our law that protects women from such violence. Indeed, the law criminalises them and exonerates the perpetrator.

I commend Ash Regan for bringing forward her Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill. We need to decriminalise those who sell sex, who we recognise are being subjected to violence. We need to hold the sex buyers who perpetrate that violence and create demand to account. Although our law holds men who kerb crawl to account, it does not hold pimping websites to account, nor those who profit from prostitution by hosting the adverts and those who place them.

According to police figures from 2020, 84 women were sexually exploited by trafficking gangs in Scotland. Nine of the women were underage, with the youngest being only 13 years of age. We know that that is a tiny fraction of those who are exploited. Many women do not believe that they are being exploited because they came here of their own free will to try to find a better life and blame themselves for the situation that they now find themselves in. Others fear retribution from traffickers and flee.

The police use pimping websites to identify trafficked women. The cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation carried out an inquiry into those websites and found that although they enable violence against women they are subject to no redress at all.

I am a member of the A Model for Scotland campaign group that campaigns for a law to effectively stop this exploitation. In 1999, Sweden became the first country to combat demand for prostitution by criminalising paying for sex while decriminalising the victims of sexual exploitation. Evidence shows that, in Sweden, the proportion of men who pay for sex had dropped from 12.7 per cent in 1996 to 7.6 per cent in 2008. That was the lowest level of demand in Europe. Public attitudes changed because the law acts as a deterrent to sex trafficking. Other aspects of their society also changed for the better, including the sharing of caring responsibilities and a narrowing of the gender pay gap.

For such laws to be effective, we need to empower women and address vulnerability. No one chooses to sell sex as an easy option; it is a choice that is made when no other options exist and when there is no other choice. That makes selling sex inherently exploitative—one human being exploiting another’s vulnerability.

Therefore, support to exit must include health support and it must also support empowerment to work and build a future. We need support services—including the police—to be readily available and properly trained to identify this abuse, to intervene and to support those who face exploitation.

In 2020, University College Dublin examined the recent change of law in Ireland, reporting

“an increased willingness amongst women to report crimes committed against them and in their improved relationship with Gardaí overall.”

Similar outcomes have been reported elsewhere. That demonstrates that change needs to be met by a police force that is able to provide the right support.

Many of those in prostitution have multiple vulnerabilities, including a lack of money and a history of childhood sexual abuse; looked-after children are particularly vulnerable.

As an example, I highlight the case of Eva, who grew up with a chaotic home life. She battled anxiety and depression and was moved into supported accommodation for her own safety after a couple had groomed her into selling sex. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the accommodation was targeted by men who were looking to build relationships with young people and offer them drugs and alcohol in return for sex. She was approached there by a 20-year-old man who built her trust and offered her free drugs.

Eva did not recognise that as grooming. She introduced her friends to him—they would gather at his flat for drink and drugs, and he asked her and her friends for sex as payment. He then had Eva sell sex to other men to help him out financially. She believed that he was her boyfriend, and she agreed to do that to help him. She did not get involved with that man to set up a business—she was vulnerable. He gave her time and attention as well as drugs and alcohol. He groomed her into prostitution. In Scotland today, she is committing a crime but those who buy sex with her, from her boyfriend, are not.

When people see the reality of prostitution, no one can be under the impression that it is harmless. Christian Action, Research and Education—CARE—for Scotland undertook a Savanta poll of more than 2,000 United Kingdom adults, which found that seven in 10 people back a ban on pimping websites that advertise sex for sale.

In 2024, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, in her report on “Prostitution and violence against women and girls”, recommended that states

“Adopt the abolitionist legal framework and its five pillars, including the decriminalization of women in prostitution; providing comprehensive support and exit pathways; criminalizing the purchase of sexual acts; criminalizing all forms of pimping; and implementing sensitization campaigns for sexual act buyers”.

We must take that action, and I urge the Scottish Government to work with Ash Regan to ensure that we create a model for Scotland that combats exploitation and prostitution, in order to create a Scotland where women are truly equal.

With any piece of legislation, there must be tweaks to ensure that it works properly, but does the minister agree that in the countries that she mentions that have had to make tweaks and invest more in training and support, the legislation is working well and is preventing violence against women? We could learn from that and put in place legislation that would save many women from suffering violence at the hands of perpetrators.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I want to ask about regional marine planning. How will the cumulative impacts of developments across marine planning boundaries be dealt with? If we are talking about the area between Cape Wrath and the Mull of Kintyre, for instance, there will be three councils involved.

The bill provides for a new overarching power that would allow the Scottish ministers to modify, by regulations, Scottish environmental impact assessment legislation and the habitats regulations. Is that power required, given the existing delegated powers in this area?

We have heard evidence to suggest that substantial changes should be made by primary legislation. Can you give us an example of what you think the power would be used for? We have had evidence that they are not needed because there is a huge amount of leeway within the existing regulations to allow us to protect other species, for example. There is a fear that having that power might mean that big changes could be made without proper scrutiny.