Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. Quite a few of the issues that I was going to raise have already been covered, but I want to raise some of the concerns that we have heard from people who are currently involved in the sex trade. Sharon Dowey explored with you, and you brought up in your opening remarks, the issue about choice—people who choose to do it—and necessity. Does the bill take that into account? From the evidence that we have taken, we can almost distinguish between people who choose and make a decision to do it—who say that it is a good move for them—and those who are forced into it. If the bill were passed, what would be the implications for those who make that choice?

You heard the minister say last week that the Government is generally supportive of the general aims of the bill and what you are trying to achieve, but that it feels that this is a big and complex issue, with various different moving parts. What do you think of the notion that your bill is perhaps not the right place to do this just now but that a bigger piece of work needs to be done in the next parliamentary session to marry up all the different strands? Do you have a thought on that?

We also heard that people who are currently involved often feel that services—whether that be police, social work or health services—treat them pretty badly. They almost feel subhuman at times. From our evidence, there is a fear, as other members have expressed, that that situation would become worse if the bill was passed. What are your thoughts on that? Is there any evidence from other countries that would either back that up or disprove it?

Good morning. I think that I have spoken to most committee members already, but I apologise again for having had to move and join the meeting remotely.

Katy Clark started to explore this matter in relation to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. You probably saw last week’s evidence session, when the SFRS advised the committee that it had made a business case to expand the firefighter role, but that had not been funded by the Scottish Government. I think that there was an agreement that you were keen to look at that. Why was that decision made, and could it be reconsidered, given the persuasive case that the SFRS made for the expansion of the role?

Good morning, minister. As others have noted, you have said that you agree with the principle in the bill of criminalising the buying of sex and that you do not agree with the quashing of offences, which are two of the main aspects of the bill. The bill partly meets the Government’s position, but you have concerns, which you have outlined. My question is quite a general one. How do we square that circle, and is there anything that the committee can do to help?

What I am trying to ask, if I can be blunt, is whether you and the Government are open to suggestions that the committee will come up with in the stage 1 report on a cross-party basis. I emphasise that it would be on a cross-party basis, because I feel that this is very much a non-party-political issue. Is that something that the Government is open to?

Before I ask a question about fatal accident inquiries, I will ask about the social care aspect, which you have spoken about and which I am really interested in. That is changing the whole shape of prison care. Do you have any idea what share of the costs of social care is being incurred by the Scottish Prison Service and how much is falling on the NHS? Is there any overlap? If so, can anything be done in that regard?

I have one final question. I appreciate that the question is as much for the member in charge of the bill as it is for you. In fairness, I will ask it to the member in charge next week, if somebody else does not do so beforehand. What discussions have the Government and the member in charge had as the bill has progressed or in its earlier stages? Have there been any discussions at that level to try to square the circle, as I mentioned earlier?

Thank you, minister; that is reassuring. One of the concerns that I have is that we continue to go back over this area again and again. We have heard from those with lived experience on both sides of the argument that they are tired of having to continually come in, speak to politicians and defend their position one way or the other, whether they want to continue to have the right to sex work or whether they are against it and they want to see the bill passed. I am therefore concerned that a new approach might feel like starting again.

It is probably too early to ask, because we are at stage 1 and you have a neutral position, but how confident are you that the Government could take this forward—in other words, safely criminalise the buying of sex without continually having to revisit the issue—in a new parliamentary session? Has that crossed your mind?

I move on to my more substantive question. In your submission, you said that a resource increase is needed to meet

“Additional costs to support the implementation of the FAI Taskforce recommendations.”

Could you set out what that resource requirement is and what it covers, and the implications with regard to deaths in custody if you do not have the budget to implement those recommendations?

Could you provide the committee with those costs in writing?