Chamber and committees

Thank you. Liam Kerr covered much of the territory that I wanted to cover around making sure that we protect those who are involved in prostitution and sex work against forms of violence, and I was going to draw on everyone’s submissions in doing so. However, my next two questions are specifically about the written evidence that Lynsey Walton has provided. Paragraph 180 of the policy memorandum for the bill sets out that the approach

“would ensure that Scotland meets its obligations under international and European human rights law”.

I was struck by your evidence, which says that the bill

“is contrary to international human rights standards”.

Those are two polar opposite views, and I am intrigued to understand why you take your particular view.

I take your point about the existing legislation that deals with areas of human rights concern, but you said in your submission that the bill is

“contrary to international human rights standards”.

Will you expand on that?

Okay. That is useful to understand.

Lynsey, your written evidence states that there is

“strong evidence that the Scottish public oppose the proposed measure to outlaw the purchase of sex.”

You talk about opinion polling that you commissioned involving more than 1,000 Scottish adults in May 2024. You state:

“The results showed that 69% of Scots say the Scottish Government should focus on protecting the health and safety of sex workers, and providing support to people who want to leave the industry, compared to 14% who support the government passing new laws to prevent people exchanging sexual services for money.”

It is only fair to place on record that a poll out this week from the polling agency Find Out Now suggests that 68 per cent of people say that they back

“stronger laws against buying sex as a way of tackling pimping, organised crime and sex trafficking.”

I know that the questions in the polls are not precisely the same, but I want to place the results in context.

To go back to the poll that you commissioned, which YouGov undertook, were those two options mutually exclusive? I presume that some of the 14 per cent could also support what some of the 69 per cent said.

Forgive me if I am not being clear. The point that I am trying to drive at is whether people could subscribe to both points of view or could support only one or other of the options. I appreciate that you might not be able to answer that right now so, if we could get more information, that would be helpful.

You referred to the possibility of a subsequent supplementary LCM. This might be an unfair question, because it is a great imponderable, as these things are outwith the Parliament’s control, but can you foresee circumstances in which more than one additional LCM might be required?

I also have a follow-up question, which I will get out of the way now. Has the interaction between your officials and UK Government officials been positive? Are you getting good engagement? Are there any challenges?

Will the committee get a good heads-up if anything is coming down the track?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I have a few quick questions on procedural matters. In the initial LCM, there was a recommendation to refuse consent for elements of the bill. I think that I am right in saying that that issue has now been resolved and that the bill has been amended satisfactorily in the UK Parliament, but I would like some clarification on that. If that means that there is now no reserved position, is it the Government’s recommendation to just proceed with consent?

That brings me to my second question, which is about the first supplementary memorandum, LCM-S6-57a. Paragraph 11 refers to a divergence of views in relation to whether an element of the bill is reserved or not. That might be felt to be a moot point, because even though there is a difference of view on whether the element that relates to internet services is reserved, the recommendation is still that we would consent. I will, however, ask a quick question. Is there a difference of opinion on what is reserved and not reserved in any other elements of the legislation, particularly with regard to further supplementary memoranda that might be required?

My only interest that might be relevant to the work of the committee is my membership of Amnesty International.

My questions relate more to the context in which we should consider the regulations, which are clearly at the draft stage—we will come to the specifics in due course. We have found at least one person who can testify to this point, as Mr Kerr said that, at the time of the bill’s passage, he thought that this should be included in primary legislation, and I recall that some constituents who got in touch with me at the time of the bill’s passage suggested something similar. My first question, therefore, is whether we should bear that in mind as part of the context. Yes, we took the approach that we could do it through secondary legislation, but at the time of the bill’s passage there was a cohort that said that we should do this.

I clearly understand your wider point about the misogyny bill but, given that the Parliament legislated for the provision that enabled the Government to bring forward the order, do you think that it is important that we consider it on its own merits, irrespective of whether such a bill comes forward?