Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will pick up on some of the points that have just been made. Chief Constable Farrell, I hear clearly what you are saying, particularly in relation to the increased threats. However, over many decades, we have seen a shift in policing, and the constant complaint of people and communities that elected politicians hear—and have heard over many decades, because this is not new—is that, increasingly, when someone calls the police when there has been an incident, they do not come and that there are fewer police around.

There used to be police in communities, including in small towns—there was visible policing—and there has been a move away from that over a long time. That has been a deliberate policy; a decision has been made that that is not the best use of policing resources. I have had that justified to me by people from the police on many occasions over many years. They have told me that there is a need to centralise resource into some of the priorities that you have highlighted, such as counterterrorism work and work to tackle organised crime and cybercrime.

There is absolutely no doubt that there has been some success in that regard. You have also spoken about the number of organised crime offenders who are in prison, which is another example of some of that success. There have also been many successes related to the work at Gartcosh, for example. However, the cost for local people and communities is that, when they phone the police—in justifiable circumstances, about a crime—they are not getting the service that they believe that they are entitled to, that many other people believe they are entitled to and that, I have no doubt, you would wish people to be entitled to.

Part of the ask that you have come to the committee with today is for community police officers, so can you say more about what you mean by “community police officer”? If we were able to persuade the Scottish Government to agree to your request, would that mean more visible policing in communities and that, when there was an incident, it would be more likely that the police would be available to provide that service? Will you expand on that? If you want, you can also talk about some of the pressures that you face, but I ask you to comment on how we drive resources so that there is a better service in communities.

What is your organisation’s assessment of the scale of the challenge and how bad it is? It would be helpful for the committee to know that.

We are straying from the central issue about whether it should be a pardon or quashing, but I understand the point that you have made. Do any of the other witnesses want to make any points on quashing convictions or a pardon?

There are currently a range of offences that deal with issues such as human trafficking and the running of brothels, which the bill does not seek to change. Is there a need to strengthen or otherwise reform other offences that are relevant to prostitution?

That is helpful. Do any of the other witnesses have a view on whether the offences in the 1982 act should be repealed?

That is helpful.

The bill seeks to quash existing convictions. I know that Emma Forbes has concerns about that, and one alternative that has been suggested is that people who have been convicted should be pardoned. What are your views on the quashing of existing convictions and the alternative of a pardon?

I will go to Dr Forbes to start, given that she has already expressed a view.

I understand the distinctions that you make. Are there any other reasons why you feel that it would be wrong to quash existing convictions? I have heard other reasons given for that, and I want to be absolutely clear whether that is the reason that the Law Society of Scotland takes the position that it is taking, or whether it has any other concerns. Is it just that the Law Society believes that, if the evidence was there at the time and there was an offence at the time, it would be inappropriate to quash the conviction, although it is appropriate to pardon. I fully understand the point that you make, but does the Law Society of Scotland have any other reason for its point of view, or have you articulated the position?

Therefore, you are saying that those 600 community police officers primarily would be community focused. I appreciate that they might get called off to do other things on occasion, such as when there is a big event, but, in broad terms, they would be focused in communities, so you would hope that that would increase the visibility of policing in communities and the feeling in communities that they are getting a better service. What kind of impact would 600 officers make across Scotland?

Do you think that that would be sufficient to make a tangible difference?

The evidence in relation to proper resourcing is extremely helpful and is important for everybody in the debate to understand. However, many of us will be looking carefully at the provisions on paying for sex, because that is probably the area where there is the biggest divide in people’s views. We will be looking at what evidence we can find in relation to how that model or other models might impact on levels of prostitution, violence against women and human trafficking. I know that you have already said quite a bit about that in relation to other questions, but any further information that you can give us would be helpful.

The previous witnesses made a point about the impact of prostitution on wider society, and I think that we need to think about that carefully. How would you respond to the points that were made about the attitudes of prostitutes’ clients towards prostitutes and the more general issues about the objectification of women and the increased normalisation of pornography in our society? This Parliament has been considering the increased levels of sexism and misogyny, the attitudes of young men and young women, and what that means for society more generally—it is a massive issue. I am asking about what the Parliament tells people in Scotland is acceptable and the impact that that has on how people behave.