Chamber and committees

What rational person thinks that the vulnerable are kept safe by shielding the men who have queued around the block to buy access to these wee girls’ bodies and then rape them like takeaway meals on the vile Punternet community sites?

There are sliding-door moments in politics, and today is one of those sliding-door moments. I gave survivors, who have been ignored for generations, a voice in their national Parliament. Now, members, it is over to you. What are you going to do?

Are you going to listen, are you going to act, or are you going to stand for shielding sex buyers and tolerating the collateral damage that they inflict? If that is for you, that will have to be between you and your conscience.

Survivors do not want your praise.

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

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?