Hansard

I will speak to amendment 1 and to the other amendments in the group.I turn first to amendments 14 to 20 and amendment 24, in the name of Margo MacDonald. Together the amendments seek to replace the existing offence of soliciting with an offence of causing actual alarm, offence or nuisance while seeking to purchase, or attempting to sell, sexual services. The amendments also seek to remove the loitering offence with respect both to purchasers and to sellers.As we made clear at stage 1, we intend to amend the bill so as to remove the seller from its remit and to strengthen the offences that are specifically targeted at purchasers and kerb-crawlers. To simplify enforcement and to ensure that purchasers and sellers are treated equally, we made a commitment to remove the requirement for the behaviour to be likely to cause alarm, offence or nuisance.Amendments 14 to 20 and amendment 24 seek to go in the opposite direction. If they are agreed to, it will be necessary for witnesses to come forward to the police to give evidence that they have had alarm, offence or nuisance caused to them. Members of the public may be reluctant to come forward to the police, even when they have experienced alarm, offence or nuisance because they fear reprisals or do not wish to become involved in a court process.Amendments 19 and 20 would remove the loitering offence from the bill. The committee heard evidence from residents groups in Calton and Leith about the disturbance, nuisance and fear that can be caused by kerb-crawlers loitering for the purpose of purchasing sex. We believe that such behaviour needs to be tackled. The Executive cannot, therefore, support the amendments in Margo MacDonald's name. If agreed to, they would considerably limit the circumstances in which the police could act and, as a consequence, they would compromise the protection that the bill will afford the wider community.I turn to amendments 9, 11 and 12, which were lodged by Michael McMahon. Mr McMahon's amendments go part of the way towards meeting the commitments that we made at stage 1 in that they would remove sellers from the new soliciting offence and remove the reference to alarm, offence and nuisance that I mentioned earlier. To focus the new legislation solely on purchasers will send a clearer message about the unacceptability of their behaviour. Amendment 9 seeks to make soliciting an offence in itself, which would further strengthen the offence. For that reason, the Executive supports Mr McMahon's amendments.I turn to amendments 10 and 13, in the name of Fergus Ewing. The Executive supports the general principle behind the amendments, which would duplicate the effects of amendments 1, 9, 11 and 12, in that they would remove references to alarm, offence and nuisance. However, unlike those amendments, amendments 10 and 13 do not provide for removal of the seller from the offence provisions, or for the introduction of the reasonable inference test to the loitering offence in line with the commitments that we made at stage 1. With those assurances, I ask Mr Ewing not to move amendments 10 and 13.I turn now to the Executive amendments. The committee expressed concern about whether it would be possible to secure convictions of purchasers under the new loitering offence. In particular, there was concern about the fact that the loitering offence could not be committed by a person in a motor vehicle. Amendment 1 will strengthen the loitering offence to allow proceedings to be brought where a person is loitering in a relevant place and, in all circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that they are doing so for the purpose of obtaining the services of someone who is engaged in prostitution. Prosecutors believe that the strengthened offence will provide the basis on which prosecutions can be brought against people who kerb crawl or loiter in vehicles. As with all prosecutions, the burden of proof will lie with the Crown. However, the accused will have the opportunity to lead evidence in his defence to show that he had a legitimate purpose.To bring the loitering offence into line with the soliciting offence, amendment 1 will also remove references to sellers and to the alarm, offence and nuisance test.The committee also sought amendments to the bill to apply the new offences to purchasers only and to retain the existing section 46 offence under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for sellers. Although we acknowledge the vulnerability of sellers, we consider that it would send out the wrong message to decriminalise the selling of sex in public places. It could serve to make life easier for people who seek to profit from prostitution by coercing individuals into it, as they would be able to tell those individuals that what they would be doing was not illegal. It would also compromise the protection that is provided to communities from the adverse effects that can arise from street prostitution.Amendment 7 will ensure that the existing law relating to sellers, in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, is retained. Amendment 8 simply reflects the fact that the bill as amended will make new law regarding purchasers rather than simply amend existing law.Amendment 4, in the name of Mike Rumbles, would remove from the loitering offence the exemption for people who loiter in vehicles that are not public transport. By ensuring that the bill can tackle people who kerb crawl or loiter in motor vehicles, it would complement the strengthened loitering offence for which amendment 1 provides. The Executive therefore supports amendment 4.Executive amendments 2, 3 and 6 will make changes that are consequential on agreement to amendment 4. They will tidy up the definitions of public transport and remove the unnecessary distinction between hire cars and other forms of public transport. The Executive amendments in group 1, together with the amendments that Michael McMahon and Mike Rumbles have lodged, will fulfil the commitments that we made at stage 1 to remove the seller from the remit of the offence, to remove the reference to alarm, offence or nuisance and to strengthen the kerb-crawling offence beyond the legal position in England and Wales. Taken together, the amended offences will send a strong signal to kerb-crawlers that their behaviour is unacceptable. I hope that the committee will support the Executive amendments and those in the names of Mr McMahon and Mr Rumbles.