Chamber and committees

Through my amendment, I am asking the Parliament for something that should not be controversial: time—having the time to do our jobs properly by respecting the gravity of our task and acknowledging the reality of those whose lives are central to the debate.

Having been involved in the member’s bill process after progressing many Government bills, I very much feel the lack of parity of esteem that is given to members’ bills. I believe that the Parliament should reflect on that for the next parliamentary session.

Yesterday’s scheduling by the Parliamentary Bureau of 80 minutes for such an important debate shows the complete disconnect between the Parliament and public interest and survivor reality. This is not an abstract policy discussion such as the one on greyhound tracks, which are no longer operational in Scotland. There are women and children being exploited less than a mile from here and all across Scotland, and it is a growing problem. It is about violence, inequality, coercion and trauma, and it is about our children and women.

The Parliament last legislated substantively on prostitution in 2007—nearly 20 years ago. Over the past two decades, survivors have organised, spoken out and repeatedly asked to be heard. Next week, their long wait will be over. They have shared painful experiences at the Criminal Justice Committee, at parliamentary events and in the media—often at great personal cost to themselves—in the hope that lawmakers in the Scottish Parliament will finally listen to them. After almost 20 years, I would think that the very least that we could offer them is a full debate and proper scrutiny by their elected representatives.

Let us be honest—this is not a new conversation that we are having. The approach has been Scottish National Party policy for many years, and members know that. It has also been established in the Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities’ equally safe policy for more than 10 years, and the direction of travel has been clear. The cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation in its inquiry on the subject was clear that we must now move on from talking to acting.

My unbuyable bill is not sudden, unexpected or rushed. We have a five-year parliamentary session, and we cannot again tell survivors, “Not yet, but soon”. That would be a failure for them and of this Parliament in acting for them.

Public engagement on the issue is now intense. Over the past couple of days, members from across the chamber have approached me to say that they do not think that they will be able to speak in the debate and that they desperately want to take part. That is deeply troubling, and it is not equitable, either. Over the years, we have had two-hour-plus debates on many bills. Recently, we considered the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, when we debated—rightly—for more than four hours. Members’ bills deserve parity of esteem, and they deserve timing that is dependent on the breadth and depth of the debate.

In my opinion, the sensitivity of the issue means that it deserves more time, not less. It demands space for evidence to be tested, for voices to be weighed carefully and for members to fulfil their responsibility to deliberate thoughtfully. I urge the Parliament to grant us the necessary time for a full, thoughtful debate, to allow us to give the issue the right amount of time before members reach their decision.

I am grateful to the bureau for listening yesterday and for extending the time slightly. However, I urge members to support my amendment and give the debate the time that it deserves.

I move amendment S6M-20611.1, to leave out from “followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill” to “5.55 pm Decision Time” and insert:

“followed by Stage 1 Debate: Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill

followed by Motion on Legislative Consent: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill – UK legislation

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

6.30 pm Decision Time”.

18:10

Through my amendment, I am asking the Parliament for something that should not be controversial: time—having the time to do our jobs properly by respecting the gravity of our task and acknowledging the reality of those whose lives are central to the debate.

Having been involved in the member’s bill process after progressing many Government bills, I very much feel the lack of parity of esteem that is given to members’ bills. I believe that the Parliament should reflect on that for the next parliamentary session.

Yesterday’s scheduling by the Parliamentary Bureau of 80 minutes for such an important debate shows the complete disconnect between the Parliament and public interest and survivor reality. This is not an abstract policy discussion such as the one on greyhound tracks, which are no longer operational in Scotland. There are women and children being exploited less than a mile from here and all across Scotland, and it is a growing problem. It is about violence, inequality, coercion and trauma, and it is about our children and women.

The Parliament last legislated substantively on prostitution in 2007—nearly 20 years ago. Over the past two decades, survivors have organised, spoken out and repeatedly asked to be heard. Next week, their long wait will be over. They have shared painful experiences at the Criminal Justice Committee, at parliamentary events and in the media—often at great personal cost to themselves—in the hope that lawmakers in the Scottish Parliament will finally listen to them. After almost 20 years, I would think that the very least that we could offer them is a full debate and proper scrutiny by their elected representatives.

Let us be honest—this is not a new conversation that we are having. The approach has been Scottish National Party policy for many years, and members know that. It has also been established in the Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities’ equally safe policy for more than 10 years, and the direction of travel has been clear. The cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation in its inquiry on the subject was clear that we must now move on from talking to acting.

My unbuyable bill is not sudden, unexpected or rushed. We have a five-year parliamentary session, and we cannot again tell survivors, “Not yet, but soon”. That would be a failure for them and of this Parliament in acting for them.

Public engagement on the issue is now intense. Over the past couple of days, members from across the chamber have approached me to say that they do not think that they will be able to speak in the debate and that they desperately want to take part. That is deeply troubling, and it is not equitable, either. Over the years, we have had two-hour-plus debates on many bills. Recently, we considered the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, when we debated—rightly—for more than four hours. Members’ bills deserve parity of esteem, and they deserve timing that is dependent on the breadth and depth of the debate.

In my opinion, the sensitivity of the issue means that it deserves more time, not less. It demands space for evidence to be tested, for voices to be weighed carefully and for members to fulfil their responsibility to deliberate thoughtfully. I urge the Parliament to grant us the necessary time for a full, thoughtful debate, to allow us to give the issue the right amount of time before members reach their decision.

I am grateful to the bureau for listening yesterday and for extending the time slightly. However, I urge members to support my amendment and give the debate the time that it deserves.

I move amendment S6M-20611.1, to leave out from “followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill” to “5.55 pm Decision Time” and insert:

“followed by Stage 1 Debate: Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill

followed by Motion on Legislative Consent: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill – UK legislation

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

6.30 pm Decision Time”.

18:10

That vulnerability also applies to female patients in mixed-sex hospitals—

How many rapes of women and girls in Scottish hospitals are acceptable to the Government?

The human rights of women and girls in Scotland are not complex. Sex-based risk is real. Women and girls have unique vulnerabilities to sexual violence, including in institutional settings such as hospitals, but also in prisons, toilets and changing rooms.

Protections that are recognised in law should not be optional. The tribunal’s judgment in the case of the Darlington nurses was clear that failure to provide single-sex changing rooms violated their dignity—

The latest Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service figures show a 43 per cent post-Covid rise in under-16s who are reported for rape and sexual assault. There is a crisis of violence against women and girls in Scotland. What we are currently doing is not working. Will the Government please do something different and start with what the Lord Advocate has described as root-cause offending: the violence against women of prostitution? Prostitution dehumanises women and girls, and that human rights abuse is currently state sanctioned. Will the Government take this opportunity to stand up for women and girls, protect them and support my unbuyable bill?

I look forward to seeing the details of that additional funding.

Current funding is very fragmented and it does not align with Scotland’s international human rights obligations, the Government’s stated aim to eradicate male violence against women or the Government’s and COSLA’s equally safe strategy, which recognises prostitution as a form of violence. The costs relating to violence against people in prostitution are continuing to escalate, and a tiny fraction of that money could be used instead as a proactive investment to deliver preventative, trauma-informed support and exit services.

Will the Scottish Government finally meet its obligations to reduce the sex trade market through criminalising sex buyers? Will it properly fund the support and exit recovery services that exploited women and children across Scotland need?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider allocating ring-fenced funding to local authorities in the 2026-27 budget to ensure consistent provision of prostitution support and exit services across Scotland, in line with the joint Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities equally safe commitment to tackling commercial sexual exploitation. (S6O-05365)

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.