Seòmar agus comataidhean

I support the regulations, and I think that the committee should support them because the circumstances that have been set out require us to act.

It is interesting that the deputy convener conceded at the outset that we are in an emergency situation, and an emergency situation compels us to respond urgently. I am afraid to say that the deputy convener’s response to the cabinet secretary did not indicate what would otherwise constitute an urgent and emergency response. It would be very easy to pass on by and abdicate any responsibility for trying to find a solution. With respect, I would say that that would be a knee-jerk response. It is clear that the regulations have not been proposed lightly. People will be watching.

It is important to remind ourselves that there are clear restrictions on the cohort of prisoners that will be eligible for early release—that is set out very clearly. Life prisoners will not be eligible. Untried prisoners will not be eligible. Terrorist prisoners will not be eligible. Those who are subject to proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003 will not be eligible. Those who are subject to notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will not be eligible. Those who are serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention for an offence that is aggravated as described in the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 are not eligible. There are others—I could go on.

That is not to dismiss the reasons why those who will be eligible have been imprisoned. I recognise that the courts have made that assessment and determination, and I do not dismiss that lightly, but we must remind ourselves that there are prisoners who will not be eligible.

The governor’s veto will also be extended to deputy governors. They can make a further assessment, and those who might otherwise be eligible could be vetoed.

The most compelling reason that I have heard thus far is the impact on the prison environment and on being able to undertake the rehabilitation of prisoners, which I know is sometimes dismissed as not important. As far as I am concerned, it is an essential part of the work that is undertaken in prisons, because, if it is done properly, it creates a safer society. However, for no other reason than that we have heard that overcrowding has an impact on the safety of those who work in the prison environment, we should support the regulations today.

Thank you very much for your evidence thus far. I have a few questions—I flag that early. If you can assist me by not testing the patience of the convener in working through them, that would be—

That is helpful. Ruth, you talked about that exact experience.

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?

Thank you.

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.

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.

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, all.