Chamber and committees

I confirm to the member that I did not send a complaint to the Ethical Standards Commissioner and that both the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and the Presiding Officer—I believe—read my letters as an attempt to seek guidance. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the member.

I believe that, as members of this Parliament, we should not fear communicating freely with the public on important matters—matters that they think are important—about what is going on in here. The motion before members this evening is not just about sanctions for a social media post; it is about whether we are consistently upholding accountability and maintaining public trust in this institution.

I move amendment S6M-20269.1, to leave out from “to impose” to end and insert:

“that no further action should be taken.”

Over these past decades, public trust in this Parliament has declined significantly, and that is every member’s joint responsibility. Confidence in this institution is now at its lowest point since devolution began, dropping 20 points in just 10 years. I think that Scots expect their Parliament to act to their values and in their interests. Today, many people are, unfortunately, questioning whether we still do that. Transparency is central to building and sustaining trust, and more than 90 per cent of Scots value openness in public decision making. Honesty, clarity and accountability are values that should guide how we all operate.

I sought and gratefully received advice from the Presiding Officer and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in response to overwhelming concern from the public, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, where there was widespread condemnation of an attack on the judiciary from a member of this Parliament with a privileged position of deputy convener. That committee has human rights and civil justice responsibilities, which—I believe—compounded the gravity of the incendiary public comments accusing the Supreme Court of “bigotry, prejudice and hatred”.

What followed was widely regarded as farcical, with the member allowed to dial in to vote to save herself from a motion to remove her that had been lodged by a committee member, Tess White. Meanwhile, the Ethical Standards Commissioner pursued a complaint about me making a complaint that the commissioner never actually received, as I never made the complaint.

Upholding our duty to defend the judiciary, however, is specified in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, which obligates us, as members of the Parliament, to do so. Other members who similarly publicised their grave concerns have received no proposed sanctions.

My legal advice, from Roddy Dunlop KC, highlights both the commissioner’s misrepresentation of human rights legislation and a confused interpretation of the code. The logic—which the convener has repeated here today—appears to be that publicising anything that is loosely interpreted as an intention to complain would impact a potential ESC investigation, despite such an investigation clearly never commencing because there was no ethical standards complaint in order to trigger one.

After six sessions of this Parliament, there remains no convener code for committees that I or other members could have used, despite unanimous agreement on the critical importance of committees to an effective legislature. I also make Parliament aware that this is not the first complaint against me to the Ethical Standards Commissioner since I launched the consultation on my unbuyable bill. The process has been on-going for more than seven months and concludes with a proposed sanction just as I prepare for a critical stage 1 debate and vote, which were supposed to take place next week.

Advancing a bill of that nature against the roots of male violence against women has been extraordinarily challenging, despite the issue supposedly being a priority in this Parliament for women and girls across Scotland and those around the world who are trafficked here and groomed and coerced in our own towns and cities.

Despite the barriers that I have faced, which have included having no non-Government bills unit resource such as other members have enjoyed for their members’ bills, I am working to make—I hope—meaningful legislative change that the Parliament and the country can be proud of.

Holyrood was designed at the outset to be more transparent, more participatory and more accountable than Westminster, and every single member in here has a duty to protect those principles and not to undermine them.

If I will get the time back, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its equally safe delivery plan, what discussions the Minister for Equalities has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the provision of sustained social and economic investment in prevention, housing, safety and long-term recovery for women and children currently in, or who are survivors of, the commercial sexual exploitation of prostitution. (S6O-05321)

Prostitution generates billions of pounds globally for the sex trade, and it is the world’s third-largest criminal industry after the drugs and arms trades, yet it is the public purse that bears the cost.

In Scotland, prostitution is among the highest-cost forms of gender-based violence. Evidence that I recently shared with the Government shows that violence linked to prostitution alone costs £382 million each year—that is 0.6 per cent of the Scottish budget, or £69 per person—and that lifetime public sector costs reach up to £350,000 per exploited individual. Does the Government agree that it is only by tackling the root cause, through criminal deterrence of sex buying and sustained investment in prevention and trauma-informed support, exit and recovery services, that we can reduce that crisis spending—

—and uphold the Christie commission principles?

The Sandie Peggie employment tribunal exposes not just one employer’s failings but a systemic collapse in how public bodies understand and uphold women’s sex-based rights. This judgment further exposed how whistleblowers are harassed merely for speaking up for themselves or for others. Women in Scotland should not have to become litigants simply to secure their lawful rights to dignity and safety at work and in public spaces and services. The Supreme Court settled the law. Will the Government now act with urgency to follow the law, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised months ago, and support its public bodies to follow the law and stop this ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money?

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?