Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you. Liam Kerr covered much of the territory that I wanted to cover around making sure that we protect those who are involved in prostitution and sex work against forms of violence, and I was going to draw on everyone’s submissions in doing so. However, my next two questions are specifically about the written evidence that Lynsey Walton has provided. Paragraph 180 of the policy memorandum for the bill sets out that the approach

“would ensure that Scotland meets its obligations under international and European human rights law”.

I was struck by your evidence, which says that the bill

“is contrary to international human rights standards”.

Those are two polar opposite views, and I am intrigued to understand why you take your particular view.

I take your point about the existing legislation that deals with areas of human rights concern, but you said in your submission that the bill is

“contrary to international human rights standards”.

Will you expand on that?

Okay. That is useful to understand.

Lynsey, your written evidence states that there is

“strong evidence that the Scottish public oppose the proposed measure to outlaw the purchase of sex.”

You talk about opinion polling that you commissioned involving more than 1,000 Scottish adults in May 2024. You state:

“The results showed that 69% of Scots say the Scottish Government should focus on protecting the health and safety of sex workers, and providing support to people who want to leave the industry, compared to 14% who support the government passing new laws to prevent people exchanging sexual services for money.”

It is only fair to place on record that a poll out this week from the polling agency Find Out Now suggests that 68 per cent of people say that they back

“stronger laws against buying sex as a way of tackling pimping, organised crime and sex trafficking.”

I know that the questions in the polls are not precisely the same, but I want to place the results in context.

To go back to the poll that you commissioned, which YouGov undertook, were those two options mutually exclusive? I presume that some of the 14 per cent could also support what some of the 69 per cent said.