Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I am going to draw on the written submissions, I probably will operate on that basis.

The first issue that I want to ask about, which Liam Kerr touched on, is the impact of any legislative change on the safety of those who are involved in selling sex. That must be absolutely paramount in our consideration. We should not do anything that makes their circumstances more harmful; anything that we do should improve their situation.

Dr Vuolajärvi, in your written submission, you provide some pretty stark information. You say that

“criminalizing sex buyers increases rather than reduces harm to sex workers.”

That seems to be based on the evidence that you gathered in speaking to those who are involved in selling sex, who cited “increased violence exposure” and “reduced safety practices”. It would be helpful if you could speak about that.

However, I was also struck by Ruth Breslin’s point that that has not been the experience in Ireland, so it would be helpful if you could speak about that as well.

Thank you, all.

I said that I was going to return to the issue of policing, but I am not going to do so, I am afraid, simply because I do not have time. I think that the witnesses have said enough for us to be able to pick up the issues with Police Scotland directly.

I have a question about demand reduction. Part of the notion behind the bill is that it will drive down demand. I think that I heard Ruth Breslin say that that has been the experience in Ireland—you can correct me if I am wrong, Ruth.

Niina Vuolajärvi has presented some information. Perhaps you can clarify something, Niina, as there is seemingly a contradiction, from my reading, in what you say in your submission. You state that in Sweden, after the law was introduced, there was a

“Decrease from 13 percent to 8 percent of men reporting having bought sex”.

However, you go on to say that in Sweden,

“10-15 percent of men have bought sex”.

If you could explain that difference, that would be helpful. You also say that there is

“No significant difference between countries with full sex buyer criminalization (Sweden, Norway) and other Nordic countries”.

Could you speak to that a bit more?

Ruth, if you then want to come in and speak about the Irish experience, that would be helpful.

Thank you.

That is useful, and I take your point about violence, which tallies with the evidence that we heard in the previous evidence session. One witness who supports the bill made the point—which I think we all understand—that no change can ever make the selling of sex truly safe.

Okay. Is the point that you are making about the comparison between jurisdictions?

Okay, that is helpful.

My final question relates to the bill’s provisions around support and assistance for women—it is primarily women—who seek to exit prostitution. I think that I am right in saying that three of the submissions highlight the need to support women, whether or not they intend to leave prostitution. Support does not necessarily have to be predicated on the desire to leave. Could you speak to that?

Good morning. Thank you for your evidence so far.

I will start with a question that is perhaps a little more unfair on panel 1 than on panel 2. With your permission, convener, I will go on to ask panel 2 the same question, so those witnesses will have the benefit of having heard the previous responses, whereas the current witnesses have not had that benefit.

Do you perceive that there is common ground on any element of the bill proposal with people who oppose the bill?

I appreciate that. You have all spoken about the concern, which I think we all share, about ensuring that the safety of those who are involved in prostitution—who, clearly and overwhelmingly, are women, primarily—is paramount. That is imperative. I was taken with the point that you made, Amanda Jane, that no system can make prostitution safe. The question that we are grappling with in this context is whether changes under the bill would make it less safe or more safe for those who are involved.

I am happy to hear general observations. However, as well as your helpful written evidence, for which I am very grateful, we have had a variety of evidence submitted by people who are opposed to the bill. Information has been provided that suggests that, in other jurisdictions, changes that have been made that are similar to the proposals in the bill have made the experience of those involved in prostitution less safe.

Ugly Mugs Ireland has found evidence showing that the number of crimes against sex workers—that is the terminology that the organisation uses, I should say—almost doubled in the two years following the introduction of the law in the Republic of Ireland. HIV Ireland has found that, under the Nordic model, sex workers who experience violence at work are increasingly reluctant to report to the police. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice, in a 2019 review, reported that

“assaults against sex workers ... increased by 225% from 2016 to 2018.”

Médecins du Monde has reported that the law in France has led to 42 per cent of workers being exposed to more violence and 38 per cent finding it increasingly hard to demand condom use.

On the face of it, those are concerning figures, obviously. What is your response, on hearing that evidence?

Perhaps we will need to look into that a bit more.

I have one final question, convener. I could ask a lot of questions, but I recognise that all members will be in the same boat.

I bring us back to the provisions of the bill, which talks about a duty to provide assistance and support to people who are looking to exit prostitution. What might that support look like, and could it be provided on a non-statutory basis?