Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the witnesses. Thank you for attending.

It often seems that a voice is missing from the debate, and for me, that voice is that of the buyers. We know that sex buyers are around 99 per cent male, so it is the voices of the men who pay to buy sex that are missing. Could Diane Martin and Amanda Jane Quick give the committee an idea of what the attitudes of sex buyers are to the women whom they pay? As I probably will not get a follow-up question from the convener, I will add the second part of my question, which is, if the Parliament decides that it does not want to progress the bill, what do you think the consequences of doing nothing will be for Scotland?

Can you tell us a bit more about your members? Who would be in that category? I guess that you would use the term sex workers, but would that include women who are currently working in prostitution, as well as women who do lap dancing, webcam work, dominatrix work and so on? Would it cover that whole range? Would it include managers—pimps—too?

I suppose that I am just curious about it. In the 25 years since Sweden brought in its legislation, there has been a debate about the issue in many countries. The arguments against moving to a Nordic model are always exactly the same in every country, and it is always women who make the cases for and against the proposal. I am genuinely curious as to why we do not hear from the punters in this debate, when it is one that concerns them.

Good afternoon, as it is now, and thanks to the panel for attending today.

To start with, I want to pick up on the comment that Lynsey Walton made quite a while ago about millions of National Ugly Mugs alerts. I might have heard you wrong, but did you say that the figure was 4 million?

That really sounds like a lot of violent men about whom you have to send out alerts. However, I will move on.

National Ugly Mugs openly states that it is funded by Vivastreet. For the benefit of the committee, I note that Vivastreet makes millions of pounds every year from facilitating the prostitution of thousands of women. Lynsey Walton, do you perhaps see a conflict between representing the women’s interests on the one hand and, on the other, being funded by, and possibly representing the interests of, those who profit from those women?

I want to ask you the same question about the buyers that I asked the previous witnesses. My view is that we very much do not see or hear from the buyers, and that the best that we can get when it comes to understanding their views on prostitution and the women they pay for sex comes from looking at things such as Punternet, where you can see women being reviewed as commodities, like takeaway meals. Do you have any views on why the buyers do not come forward to make the case with regard to their right to buy sex? Do you have any idea why that is?

Well, if we could find any who would want to talk to us, I am sure that the committee would be interested in hearing from them. I will hand back to the convener.

To ask the Scottish Government what benefits it anticipates the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will deliver for rural and island communities, including in relation to breaking up concentrated land ownership and ensuring that land is used in the public interest and communities are not locked out of decision making. (S6O-05001)

Former MSP Andy Wightman has called the current Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

“the least ambitious ... ever introduced”,

saying that it creates

“new complexities, friction and conflict in the land market for no evident gain.”

Scotland cannot afford a land reform bill that just tinkers around the edges while ignoring the harsh reality of concentrated land ownership. Rural communities are being locked out of housing and local economies, as land and property are treated as investments.

Will the Government commit to ensuring that the bill will release land for genuinely affordable community-led housing and, possibly, self-builders, rather than add bureaucracy and leave local people behind?

I join other members in congratulating Pam Gosal on bringing this important debate to the chamber. Motions on this topic—including my own, back in April—recognise the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish ministers, which was delivered on 16 April this year.

However, five months on, the Government and legal advisers are, oddly, trying to convince the people of Scotland that applying the clarity from the apex court is somehow complex. The ruling was clear and decisive, and it was historic. The Supreme Court affirmed beyond doubt that the words “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 mean biological woman and biological sex. The judgment was not only unanimous but necessary. It is necessary because the Scottish Government has, for far too long, pursued policies, guidance and legislation that have undermined the basic protections that are guaranteed to women under the 2010 act. The judgment was crucial because, without that clarity, women’s rights—hard won over generations—were being eroded in practice before our eyes.

I congratulate members of For Women Scotland, some of whom are here with us in the public gallery, on their courage, persistence and dedication. They did what they did against the odds, without the resources of the Government at their disposal, and they carried that fight all the way to the highest court. They did so not for recognition or power but for the fundamental principle that women’s rights matter and that those rights and protections need to be rooted in biological sex.

The First Minister, who, I hope, is watching this debate, must now honour the promise that he made to meet members of For Women Scotland, who have now been forced to take the Government back to the courts to make it comply with the law. That is shameful.

We are not talking about an abstract legal debate. The issue goes to the heart of women’s safety, dignity and equality. As we all know, it has implications for women’s prisons, hospital wards, women’s sports and every single-sex service that women and girls depend on. It has implications for the support services that are available to women who are recovering from prostitution, male violence and abuse, and for the principle of trust in the rule of law itself. If a unanimous judgment of the UK Supreme Court can be met with foot dragging and confusion, women in Scotland are entitled to ask whose side the Government is really on.

I say to the minister that acceptance of the Supreme Court’s ruling must result in action—without qualification, without caveat and without delay. With respect, that is not currently happening. All the policies and guidance that do not comply with the Equality Act 2010, as interpreted by the court, must be withdrawn.

Let this Parliament send a clear message today that women’s rights are not negotiable and that the meaning of “woman” is not up for reinterpretation. In Scotland, the law is not optional. For Women Scotland has done its part. The Supreme Court has done its part. It is now time for the Government to do its part by upholding the law, upholding its promises and upholding the rights of women and girls across Scotland.