Minister has ‘significant and deep concerns' about Ash Regan's prostitution Bill
A Scottish Government minister has highlighted 'significant and deep concerns' about a new Bill which could quash convictions for those involved in prostitution.
Siobhian Brown raised concerns about the move – which is part of legislation put forward by Alba MSP Ash Regan as part of her Bill to criminalise the buying of sex.
The community safety minister insisted that quashing convictions was an 'exceptional' measure and 'not a step that can be taken lightly'.
While Brown acknowledged Holyrood had passed legislation to quash convictions of those caught up in the Post Office Horizon scandal, she said the cost of this was 'estimated to be £804,000 based on 200 people'. PA Media Community safety minister Siobhian Brown wrote to MSPs on the Criminal Justice Committee setting out the Government's initial view on the Bill (Jane Barlow/PA)
She noted that documents submitted as part of Regan's Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill suggested that since 1982 a total of 10,459 women have been convicted of soliciting.
With these documents also indicating that Police Scotland 'currently holds 2,773 case records involving 791 individuals', Brown said this 'raises some concerns about the accuracy of the associated costs – around £250,000 – detailed in the Bill's financial memorandum'.
Her comments came in a letter to Holyrood's Criminal Justice Committee, which is due to scrutinise the legislation the Alba MSP has put forward.
She went on to state there was 'insufficient detail' on how proposals to provide support to those involved in prostitution to help them change their lifestyle 'would work in practice', including how long such measures would be available for and what the costs would be.
Regan's member's Bill also sets out to criminalise those buying sex while decriminalising those selling it.
Under the proposals, those convicted of buying sex could be fined up to £10,000 if the case was prosecuted in the sheriff courts – with these courts also able to impose jail sentences of up to six months.
Brown stressed that while the Scottish Government backed the 'underlying intent of the Bill to challenge men's demand and to tackle commercial sexual exploitation', she added there were still 'significant questions and concerns regarding the measures within the Bill and how they would work in practice, the extent to which they would deliver on the policy intent, and the associated financial implications'.
Her comments came after a paper published last week by the Scottish Government said evidence was 'limited' on the impact of these 'challenging demand approaches'.
In the wake of that, sex worker safety charity National Ugly Mugs urged MSPs to 'pull the plug' on Regan's 'misguided and dangerous' Bill.
Chief executive Lynsey Walton said: 'Sex worker groups, alongside leading NGOs like Amnesty and the World Health Organisation, have long warned that criminalising the purchase of sex only serves to make life more difficult and dangerous for sex workers, while having no impact on trafficking and exploitation.
'We are pleased that the Scottish Government has now accepted that the international evidence backs this up.
'MSPs now need to pull the plug on Ms Regan's misguided and dangerous legislation, and focus on supporting sex workers' rights to work safely and free from stigma.'
Regan has been contacted for comment.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Now even Labour seems to have understood our courts are out of control
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill has flown rather under the radar of all but a handful of open-borders organisations. But following as it does Shabana Mahmood 's previous showdown with the Sentencing Council over its proposals for two-tier justice, it casts an interesting light not only on the slowly emerging cross-party consensus on regaining political control over Britain's borders, but how to do it: responding to adverse court judgments with primary legislation. The Bill has been tabled because of a recent ruling by the Supreme Court. In February, in its judgment on N3 (ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, it ruled against the Government (which had prevailed in both the High Court and Court of Appeal) on the question of whether a child, born to a man who had his citizenship revoked and then restored, was a British national. As so often, the case itself dealt with unusual circumstances: the child ('ZA') was born during the gap in her father's British citizenship. But as also so often, it involved the Supreme Court setting a wider precedent. As the Government's explanatory fact-sheet explains: 'The Supreme Court held that if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, the initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be a British citizen.' The sheet adds: 'This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.' It isn't difficult to see the problems here. First, while undoubtedly a nice thing to do for a child, this precedent could be extremely problematic if exercised by an adult litigant deprived of their citizenship on national security grounds: like going to join Islamic State, as did Shamima Begum. Second, it is out of line with existing law and policy in similar areas. A successful asylum appeal, for example, does not automatically grant asylum status; all avenues of appeal by the Government must be exhausted first. But most seriously, the Supreme Court's version of the policy risks making it practically impossible to deprive anyone of their citizenship at all. Why? Because Britain remains committed to the international conventions which prohibit rendering someone 'stateless', i.e. without citizenship. This is why citizenship can only be revoked from dual nationals (indeed, that has been one of the criticisms levelled against it). Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling creates an obvious exploit. In a future case, the Government might lose an initial challenge to a deprivation of citizenship order (DCO), but go on to win on appeal. However, if the plaintiff's initial victory quashed the DCO, they could then renounce their dual nationality – making a new DCO unlawful, even if the Government eventually proved the original was lawful. It's an extremely silly precedent to set and ministers are right to take action. More than that, this is very much the right kind of action. A narrowly targeted Bill is much less liable to being undermined by judicial interpretation than a broader, more eye-catching law, both because it is less open to creative interpretation and because it makes the political will of Parliament extremely clear. For all the legitimate criticism levelled at the judiciary, it's important to keep in mind that under our constitution, they can only move into territory vacated by MPs. Even when they egregiously overstep the mark, as when they interpreted completely out of existence the attorney general's veto in the Freedom of Information Act in the Evans ruling, Parliament could have legislated to put that right – and didn't. Perhaps the single biggest reason to be sceptical that we'll see any sustained pushback against judicial overreach is simply that it would involve MPs doing a lot more work, and perhaps even having to reverse New Labour's comfy cuts to their sitting hours. Given that the new generation seem to think that Commons debates intrude on their diaries, that seems like a long shot.
The Herald Scotland
14 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
There is an alternative to massive defence spending
The SDR implies that bolstering the UK's nuclear capabilities will bring job growth and prosperity to Scotland, including through investment at Faslane. Yet history tells us otherwise. Defence jobs are precarious, vulnerable to political shifts and budgetary overruns. The delayed Astute-class submarine fleet is a case in point: its costs rose from £4.3bn to over £11bn. Analysis for the Scottish Government showed military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of any public investment. For every pound spent, sectors like care, education and renewable energy produce far more and better-quality employment. At the same time, excess government defence spending comes at the cost of other these other socially necessary jobs. There are also ongoing safety issues and radioactive air emissions at Coulport, located 8 miles from Faslane, continue to rise. But this militarised approach has even wider environmental impacts. The climate, pollution, resource and biodiversity impacts of defence production and military activity is ignored in the SDR and NATO approaches. A 2020 report by Scientists for Global Responsibility and Declassified UK found that the UK military-industrial sector emits more carbon than 60 entire countries. The Ministry of Defence has acknowledged its carbon footprint but proposed solutions – such as biofuels or nuclear – offer limited gains and potentially new environmental harms. While the world grapples with rising temperatures, investing billions into weapons systems that drive emissions is not only short-sighted – it is dangerous. There is no evidence that increasing military spending reduces the likelihood of conflict. In fact, a review on this question indicates that greater defence spending tends to increase the likelihood of conflict. The authors conclude, where tensions already exist, 'arms are not an effective deterrent but rather spark conflict escalation'. The UK already spends more on defence than almost every other country in the world. Just the US and four other countries exceed our amount of spending. More defence spending will not make us any more secure and will, likely, increase our vulnerability to attack. Read more The Alternative Defence Review argues for a fundamentally different approach, based on two key principles: human security and common security. Human security means protecting people from poverty, illness, climate disasters, and systemic inequality and ensuring decent housing, education and infrastructure. Clean air, good jobs, reliable transport, and mental health services are all foundational to a safe society. Common security, meanwhile, recognises that no nation can truly be safe while others suffer. Security cannot come at someone else's expense. Cutting the aid budget, disability benefits and publics services in order to increase defence spending will bring about misery, deaths and social instability. We are repeating the same mistakes that brought us to the current crisis – with climate breakdown, the cost of living, and public service collapse threatening the fabric of society. Students at the University of Glasgow have called for divestment from arms-linked investments and continue to campaign for ethical funding in higher education. Their efforts reflect growing public concern that Scottish public funds are quietly underwriting militarism. Amnesty International recently accused the Scottish Government of 'turning a blind eye' to the role of state support in enabling arms manufacturers to export to Israel – despite calls for an arms embargo amid the Gaza conflict. Freedom of Information requests revealed that Scottish Enterprise had provided hundreds of thousands of pounds to defence firms with known export licences to Israel, including Leonardo, BAE Systems and Raytheon. Though the Government insists this support is for training or innovation – not weapons manufacturing – critics point out that it remains part of the same supply chain. Students, Amnesty and peace campaigners are demanding consistency between Scotland's values and where its money flows. The overseas aid budget was cut to help finance increased defence spending (Image: PA) The ADR envisions a Just Transition for defence workers and communities who currently depend on defence contracts. By shifting investment into housing retrofits, green innovation, renewable energy, care services, infrastructure and climate resilience, we can build real security – social, economic and environmental – while creating more jobs than defence ever could. Scotland has the resources, skills and research capacity to lead on this. But it must choose to do so, rather than continuing to echo outdated UK defence strategies. The Strategic Defence Review expects Scotland to fall in line with a broken model – spiralling procurement costs, misaligned values, and a reliance on militarised spending as a tool of economic policy. In contrast, the Alternative Defence Review charts a different course: one rooted in peace, sustainability, and the real needs of communities. As we face the converging crises of climate breakdown, deepening inequality, and global insecurity, our responses must reflect the scale and nature of these threats. By reading, debating, and implementing the ADR, Scotland has the opportunity to lead the UK in building a new kind of security – one that truly serves its people. Karen Bell is Professor of Social and Environmental Justice, University of Glasgow
The National
25 minutes ago
- The National
UK Government looks to rescue English oil refinery with 620 jobs at risk
Sky News has reported that Miliband, the UK's Energy Security Secretary, wants to create a mechanism for refineries to become eligible for the Energy-Intensive Industries Compensation Scheme after State Oil – the parent company of Prax Group, which owns the Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire – appointed administrators on Monday. Refineries are are currently excluded from the scheme. More than 180 staff are employed by State Oil, while it is thought that around another 440 work at the Lindsey refinery. READ MORE: Wildfires becoming 'danger to human life', Scottish Government warned Trade union Unite called on the Government for urgent intervention as it raised concerns that the failure of the firm could impact UK oil supplies, leaving the UK on a 'cliff edge'. The Lindsey site is one of only five large oil refineries remaining in the UK after the recent closure of the Grangemouth plant in Scotland. Just over 400 jobs were lost earlier this year when the oil refinery closed and transitioned into being an import terminal. Grangemouth (Image: Jeff Mitchell/Getty) A separate winding-up order has also been made against the Lindsey oil refinery and related businesses and a liquidator has been appointed. Energy minister Michael Shanks and Scottish Labour MP said the firm's collapse was 'deeply concerning' and said the company had left the Government with 'little time to act'. He said: 'There have been longstanding issues with this company and workers have been badly let down. 'The Secretary of State is today writing to the Insolvency Service to demand an immediate investigation into the conduct of the directors and the circumstances surrounding this insolvency. READ MORE: Protesters target Wimbledon over Barclays sponsorship links to Israeli arms firms 'The Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security, and do everything we can to support workers and the local community, including engaging with trade unions and industry bodies.' He added: 'The Government believes that the business's leadership have a responsibility to the workers and the local community. 'We call on them to do the right thing and support the workers through this difficult period.'
