Chamber and committees

Digital technology has created new mediums for abuse, but let us be clear that technology is a tool, not the abuser itself. Technology simply creates new frontiers for a very old problem: male violence against women and girls. It amplifies harm, facilitates exploitation and hides abuse in plain sight, but the perpetrator remains the same. However, we can, and I believe that we now must, join the dots between how the state protects women and girls, and societal attitudes to committing crimes against them.

The numbers are stark. In 2024-25, Scotland recorded just under 15,000 sexual crimes; that is the second-highest annual total since 1971. Rape and attempted rape have risen by more than 60 per cent over the past decade. In our latest crime figures, crimes associated with prostitution are up by 33 per cent, reflecting rising exploitation and the persistent danger faced by women in the sex trade. These are not isolated spikes; they are predictable outcomes of a society that tolerates male sexual entitlement and the exploitation of women to meet it. To confront that, we must define the problem correctly: this is male violence against women and girls. It takes many forms, including rape, grooming gangs, sex trafficking and prostitution, all of which are fuelled by a single root cause: male demand.

New research from the USA confirms what we already know and what the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service acknowledged: men who buy sex are statistically more likely to endorse hostile masculinity, sexual aggression and dehumanising attitudes towards women. They see prostituted women not as people but as products for sale, purchase, review and to meet their wants, no matter how dehumanising, degrading or violent. They are more likely to commit other forms of sexual violence, and their actions directly drive the criminal marketplace for coercion, sex trafficking and other multilayered exploitation.

The Supreme Court ruling delivered legal clarity on “woman”, “man” and “sex”, and now this Parliament must act on that clarity to tackle sex-based risk. Women and girls continue to be commercially sexually exploited; it is legally tolerated as long as it does not occur in public. A Scotland that tolerates commercial exploitation by where it happens—rather than that it happens—is a form of state-endorsed systemic violence, and that makes Scotland a pimp state.

Rising sexual crimes, grooming, trafficking and prostitution are all interconnected and all are driven by male demand. We have the evidence, the data and the legal framework to compel us, united by the common purpose to act in devolved and reserved areas and across local authorities and international bodies.

In this Parliament, I believe that we can take three immediate steps: first, fully implement the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment and ensure that all laws and policies recognise sex-based risk; secondly, through my unbuyable bill, criminalise the purchase of sex and provide robust support for those who are exploited; and thirdly, take domestic violence and trafficking laws seriously, backed by robust data capture and enforcement, in order to detect networked exploitation and protect potential victims and support survivors.

The choice is clear. We know the problem and we know the perpetrators, and now we must act to end male violence against women and girls anywhere that it takes place, whether it is online or offline. Our society cannot continue to tolerate the fact that vulnerable women’s and girls’ bodies are bought, sold or abused. This Parliament has the power and the responsibility to stop it, and my unbuyable bill is a critical first step in that. This Parliament cannot say that it is serious about combating violence against women and girls if it does not take this opportunity.

I have been here for nearly 10 years and, like some of the other speakers, I have watched this debate take place year after year. The statistics show that, rather than things getting better for women and girls, they actually getting worse. We must use what we have and do what we can to combat that.

The majority of those who are in prostitution are not there by choice. They are girls who have been in our care system; they have been sexually abused as children; they have been groomed; they have been coerced; or they have been trafficked into this country. Those girls deserve more, so I believe that this Parliament should act to protect them.

As Madame Pelicot bravely said, the “shame must change sides”.

Digital technology has created new mediums for abuse, but let us be clear that technology is a tool, not the abuser itself. Technology simply creates new frontiers for a very old problem: male violence against women and girls. It amplifies harm, facilitates exploitation and hides abuse in plain sight, but the perpetrator remains the same. However, we can, and I believe that we now must, join the dots between how the state protects women and girls, and societal attitudes to committing crimes against them.

The numbers are stark. In 2024-25, Scotland recorded just under 15,000 sexual crimes; that is the second-highest annual total since 1971. Rape and attempted rape have risen by more than 60 per cent over the past decade. In our latest crime figures, crimes associated with prostitution are up by 33 per cent, reflecting rising exploitation and the persistent danger faced by women in the sex trade. These are not isolated spikes; they are predictable outcomes of a society that tolerates male sexual entitlement and the exploitation of women to meet it. To confront that, we must define the problem correctly: this is male violence against women and girls. It takes many forms, including rape, grooming gangs, sex trafficking and prostitution, all of which are fuelled by a single root cause: male demand.

New research from the USA confirms what we already know and what the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service acknowledged: men who buy sex are statistically more likely to endorse hostile masculinity, sexual aggression and dehumanising attitudes towards women. They see prostituted women not as people but as products for sale, purchase, review and to meet their wants, no matter how dehumanising, degrading or violent. They are more likely to commit other forms of sexual violence, and their actions directly drive the criminal marketplace for coercion, sex trafficking and other multilayered exploitation.

The Supreme Court ruling delivered legal clarity on “woman”, “man” and “sex”, and now this Parliament must act on that clarity to tackle sex-based risk. Women and girls continue to be commercially sexually exploited; it is legally tolerated as long as it does not occur in public. A Scotland that tolerates commercial exploitation by where it happens—rather than that it happens—is a form of state-endorsed systemic violence, and that makes Scotland a pimp state.

Rising sexual crimes, grooming, trafficking and prostitution are all interconnected and all are driven by male demand. We have the evidence, the data and the legal framework to compel us, united by the common purpose to act in devolved and reserved areas and across local authorities and international bodies.

In this Parliament, I believe that we can take three immediate steps: first, fully implement the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment and ensure that all laws and policies recognise sex-based risk; secondly, through my unbuyable bill, criminalise the purchase of sex and provide robust support for those who are exploited; and thirdly, take domestic violence and trafficking laws seriously, backed by robust data capture and enforcement, in order to detect networked exploitation and protect potential victims and support survivors.

The choice is clear. We know the problem and we know the perpetrators, and now we must act to end male violence against women and girls anywhere that it takes place, whether it is online or offline. Our society cannot continue to tolerate the fact that vulnerable women’s and girls’ bodies are bought, sold or abused. This Parliament has the power and the responsibility to stop it, and my unbuyable bill is a critical first step in that. This Parliament cannot say that it is serious about combating violence against women and girls if it does not take this opportunity.

I have been here for nearly 10 years and, like some of the other speakers, I have watched this debate take place year after year. The statistics show that, rather than things getting better for women and girls, they actually getting worse. We must use what we have and do what we can to combat that.

The majority of those who are in prostitution are not there by choice. They are girls who have been in our care system; they have been sexually abused as children; they have been groomed; they have been coerced; or they have been trafficked into this country. Those girls deserve more, so I believe that this Parliament should act to protect them.

As Madame Pelicot bravely said, the “shame must change sides”.

One of the few areas of gender-based violence that is currently condoned by the Scottish Government is the violence of prostitution. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s support—its qualified support—for the principle of my unbuyable bill, which will give the police the powers that they need to close that gap in the law. Will the First Minister meet me and a group of survivors, so that he can hear at first hand about the horrible realities of prostitution?

Which study was that?

I cannot speak for what other people might believe to be true. I am a legislator; I have to go with the facts and the evidence, and the facts and the evidence say that that is not true.

It is often indoors, if that is what you mean, so I imagine that it is similar to Scotland. I think the committee has raised the fact that, even in a country such as Sweden, where they changed the law a very long time ago and there is relatively robust enforcement, prostitution still exists. You are right about that.

However, I have heard from Sweden that, when you criminalise the buyer, you change the power balance. It gives women who are in prostitution a sense that they have slightly more power in relation to the sex buyer than they had before, because now they have the law—and, one would hope, the police—on their side. If they have a problem with a sex buyer, they can go to the police about it. That makes an important difference to the power balance.

I am not sure that I understand the question. Are you talking about the way in which our current laws are drafted or are you asking about the way in which the bill is drafted?

Yes—I have acknowledged that.

That is quite right—that has come through in the evidence, and it has been raised with me in my meetings with the Crown Office.

For obvious reasons that the committee will understand, women working in prostitution will often not be willing to go to court. Many of them fear for their safety, they might have threats made against them and so on. Obviously, they might not want buyers to know that they have gone to court to get convictions. My view is that it would be good if we could get as many convictions as possible without relying on the women’s evidence. I believe that that can be done, but I accept that there will be occasions when the women will need to give their testimony.

Can you be more specific, Ms McNeill?