Chamber and committees

Good morning. Operation begonia is the utilisation by the police and the Government of the existing laws that we have on prostitution, which we have had for some time. It seems to be working very well. Although we have laws that criminalise sex buying, such as the kerb crawling legislation, that is only able to target somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent of the whole market of prostitution. As the minister has picked up, prostitution has changed over the past few years and most prostitution is now happening off-street—so, indoors, in various different settings.

If the Scottish Government recognises that prostitution is balanced against women and girls—which the minister has done for more than 10 years and has repeated here today—that off-street prostitution now constitutes around 80 or 90 per cent of the prostitution market, and that no laws at all exist to combat the violence that the Government has said that it does not agree with, then surely this is a good opportunity for the Government to work with and support me to get the bill into law. That way, we can address the violence that the Government says that it is opposed to.

Okay. Thank you.

As Liam Kerr very effectively pointed out, this is quite a short bill, so I would imagine that there would not be anything like the number of amendments that we have seen on other bills that have gone through the Parliament recently.

Survivors have given evidence to the committee. The Casey report into grooming gangs, which the United Kingdom Government commissioned, recommended the removal of prostitution convictions for those who have been exploited in prostitution. Scotland’s justice agencies echoed that recommendation very strongly when they gave evidence to the committee—in their view, it is very important that Scotland send a message that women should not be criminalised, and that that message be updated in law and not only in practice.

The minister has raised concerns in relation to the quashing aspect, and she is quite right to say that we have already had a discussion in private about the issue. I am very open to looking at other ways in which those convictions could effectively be removed, not by the process of quashing but perhaps by another system—a pardons and disregards-type system, perhaps, which would achieve the policy aims but do so in a way that the Government would be more comfortable with.

The fact that the Government supports the principle of criminalising the buyer and not the women surely shows that the Government supports the majority of the bill. Would our coming to an arrangement that suits the Government—perhaps on pardons and disregards—satisfy it and allow it to support the bill?

Not online, but off-street prostitution—indoors.

I will press the minister here. You said that you support the principle of challenging demand and that you are opposed to violence against women; I have pointed out that there are no laws prohibiting that violence whatsoever. If we can get the bill into a position where the Government is happy with it, will the Government support and work with me to get it into law?

One of the difficulties for the committee is that research, evidence and a number of studies have been presented to the committee—in writing or through oral evidence sessions—that appear at face value to directly and completely contradict each other. One side says one thing and the other side says the other. Is there any guidance or criteria that the committee can apply in order to spot whether research or evidence meets a high bar?

When we look at things that are presented as evidence, I suggest that we need to look for high sample sizes and at whether the research is statistically representative, and we need to ensure that any research that has been undertaken does not have any links at all to the sex industry. It must not be funded by the sex industry; it should be independent.

I direct that question to Jo Phoenix, in particular, because I think that she mentioned that, but Ruth Breslin might also want to comment. How should the committee work its way through all the research? If it is possible to work it out, what percentage of the research meets a very high bar of robustness?

I cannot speak for the committee because I am not a member, but I am sure that it would be interested in taking up that suggestion. Do you have anything to add, Ruth?

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.