Calls for the government to address demand for prostitution
Ms Gilbert said that the debate, 'That this House has considered the matter of tackling demand for prostitution and sex trafficking', focused on the urgent need to adopt a demand-reduction approach to tackle the exploitation of women and girls who are coerced, trafficked, or driven by poverty into the sex trade.
Her speech highlighted the issue in Edinburgh, and some of the vulnerable women who have been affected by it, including Fiona Broadfoot who has spoken out about her treatment whilst working in an Edinburgh brothel.
Tracy Gilbert said: 'In Edinburgh over the weekend (7 –8 June 2025), 142 women were being advertised for prostitution on one pimping website alone. Five of the top ten adverts are explicitly posted by so-called 'agencies' – so the site isn't even trying to hide the organised nature of this exploitation.'
She outlined that current legislation fails to effectively deter those who purchase sex and called on the Government to explore legislative models that criminalise the buying, not the selling, of sex, as adopted in countries such as Sweden and Norway, and she gave examples of reviews made after the buying of sex including the following:
'Bad attitude. Everything was off limits.'
'Finally got her to lay there but it's like shagging a dead fish.'
'No smile, her atrocious English made the interactions even more impossible.'
Tracy added: 'Men who buy sex are reviewing women as if they are reviewing an Xbox game. These comments prove that men who pay for sex treat women as subordinate sex objects whose role is to service their sexual desires.'
Watch the debate online here: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/04426796-9b75-4c56-bffb-490eb1bbeb85
Like this:
Like
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Landlords must lose the fight over Scotland's rent controls
Last year, the government declared a national housing emergency, recognising record levels of homelessness, the toll high rents are taking on tenants, social housing waiting lists of nearly a quarter of a million across Scotland, and disrepair rampant across our housing stock. Yet as Professor Duncan Maclennan points out, the 'housing emergency' is a misnomer. Read More: This so-called emergency did not happen overnight; it has been created by design through the privatisation of our housing stock and unregulated growth of the private rented sector. Scotland's tenants have faced the hard end of these economic decisions for decades, and bold structural solutions are urgently needed in response. Tenants don't have time to wait. Rent controls, as outlined in the Housing Bill, are an important first step towards ending decades of housing misery. Robust, universal rent controls which have the ability to bring rents down could begin to transform our housing system by making private rented accommodation more affordable and disincentivizing exploitative landlordism overall. It's important to state that forms of rent control seen in recent temporary measures have included too many loopholes for landlords to exploit. Any exemptions to upcoming rent controls would create a multi-tier system, leaving thousands of tenants open to unregulated rents and undermining future policy efforts. The current consultation on rent controls has laid bare the Government's intention to appease landlords by introducing significant exemptions to rent controls. Ruth Gilbert, national campaign chair of Living Rent (Image: Newsquest) At this last hurdle rent controls are under threat. Since the government first committed to rent controls, the landlord and developer lobbies have eroded support for proper regulation of the private rented sector among politicians. The constant barrage of criticism - combined with empty threats of a mass exodus of landlords - have pushed a pliant government into conceding to appease the market at the expense of tenants. The most egregious exemption proposals concern 'build to rent' developments. The government has proposed a suite of amendments designed to encourage these sorts of developments, but this dangerous trend towards large-scale private developments is not something they should sensibly support. Build to rent properties are expensive, and beyond the reach of most tenants. Anyone who has walked through either Glasgow or Edinburgh recently will have seen these buildings springing up alongside billboards that promise convenient locations, fun perks, and luxury accommodation. Worryingly, this is just the start of the build to rent boom, over 3,800 units have been built, and there are 12,767 still in the pipeline. This explosion of the sector should highlight that it does not need any further government incentives. Indeed, across the UK the industry received over £1bn in investment from North America in the last quarter of 2024 alone. Developers' push for exemptions only highlights the business model they are touting. The bill, as introduced, already allows for above inflation rent increases, and so lobbyists' greedy demands for more exposes a model that is more concerned with creating dividends for overseas investors than delivering on the needs of Scotland's people. The government is deeply misguided if it thinks that expensive, luxury accommodation is going to fix our housing emergency. These are development sites which can and should be used for much-needed and genuinely affordable housing for social rent. Also proposed for exemption are mid-market properties. Mid-market tenants are some of the most vulnerable in our housing system. Apparently designated for tenants with low to middle incomes, mid-market properties exist to ensure that those unable to afford rents in the private sector and who cannot access social housing are able to better afford their housing costs. By threatening to exclude mid-market tenants from rent controls, this will see mid-market landlords able to increase rent however high they like with tenants left with no recourse to challenge it. For example, this summer at Water Row mid-market development in Govan, tenants were hit with a 10.6% rent increase after being given a rent increase of 39% before they had even moved in. The rent increase was delivered despite a previous commitment to keep rent below the local housing allowance. However, tenants had no legal recourse to challenge. It was only through Living Rent members organising together and fighting back did the landlord eventually concede and cancel the rent increase. This government needs to stop listening to the empty threats of landlords and legislate to protect those who have been most impacted by decades of mismanaged housing policy. Scotland's tenants need universal and comprehensive rent controls that bring rents down. Anything short of this will ruin the housing bill, undermine the possibility of a more just housing system for years to come, and damage the wavering trust that Scotland's tenants have that politicians will take the urgent action needed to end the national housing emergency. Ruth Gilbert is the national campaign chair of Living Rent
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Liberal and Labor leaders court crossbench after snap Tasmanian election delivers another hung parliament
Tasmania's premier and opposition leader have both reached out to independent MPs in the hope of forming government, after the Labor party lost ground in an early election it brought on. Saturday's snap poll, 16 months after the last election, returned another hung parliament with the Liberals so far securing 14 seats and Labor nine, as counting continued. Both parties will be short of the 18 seats required for majority, with the Liberal premier, Jeremy Rockliff, declaring victory on election night and saying he would try to form a minority government. Rockliff on Sunday told reporters he'd reached out to potential crossbench collaborators. 'My view is that the crossbench, in the cold, hard light of day, will recognise the party – being the Liberal party – with the most number of seats are able to, of course, form a cabinet,' the premier said. 'What Tasmanians clearly voted for yesterday was an end to the political games. They expect a parliament to work together and they expect the parliament to last four years.' Labor under Dean Winter suffered a 3% swing against it to the Liberals. It was Labor's worst vote in Tasmania in more than a century with the party securing 26% of the vote with three-quarters of the ballots counted. However, Winter hasn't ruled out trying to form government if the Liberals are unable to get a left-leaning independent crossbench onside. 'I've spoken to a number of members of the crossbench and offered Labor will try and work differently and collaboratively,' the opposition leader said. 'I won't go into the details of any of the conversations but we'll treat people with respect. I think that's what the crossbench is looking for and it's also what Tasmanians are looking for.' Winter reiterated on Sunday that he would not 'do a deal' with the Greens. Labor would need support from the minor party, which holds five seats, to govern. Winter said he would not compromise on Labor policy, including support for a $945m stadium which is opposed by the Greens and three crossbench independents. One of those independents, a re-elected Kristie Johnston, said she wouldn't enter into a formal deal for confidence and supply with either major party and would provide support on merit. 'They need to negotiate and respect the views of parliament,' she said. Sign up to Morning Mail Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion It could take weeks for the final outcome in four remaining undecided seats, meaning a formal minority agreement might take even longer. Rockliff would need to work with independents to govern, including two, Johnston and the re-elected Craig Garland, who voted for June's no-confidence motion against him. The June vote, which triggered the election, lashed ballooning debt under the Liberals and a bungled Bass Strait ferry delivery. The state Greens leader, Rosalie Woodruff, kept the door ajar for a Labor alliance, calling on Winter to 'have a conversation'. A drawn-out post-election scenario would delay the parliamentary approval process for the new stadium, a condition of Tasmania's AFL licence. The project is supported by the Liberals and Labor but opposed by the Greens, Garland, Johnston and the third elected independent Peter George. The new parliament will be very similar to the previous one that included 14 Liberals, 10 Labor MPS, five Greens, five independents and one Jacqui Lambie Network member.
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
What has Scotland gained from having voted in 37 Labour MPs?
It's also the case that, by rejecting out of hand the Octopus Energy proposal of seven or eight "zones" for electricity, the Labour Government is ensuring that Scotland's economy will be more depressed than needs to be the case. Had zonal pricing gone ahead, there would have been a boost in economic activity for Scotland, with energy-hungry business operations looking to relocate, or to expand, their business in Scotland to benefit from the lower price of electricity. Our NHS and public services, hospitality sectors, and every other business would have benefited instantly. Across Dumfries and Galloway we previously sent Tory MPs to London to do their bit for Scotland in government but, instead, we got Brexit. And that despite Scotland voting 62% Remain in the EU. And now we have Labour in Westminster failing to as much as rejoin the European Economic Area with a single market) with the resultant loss of freedom of movement for people both ways; nor the customs union to facilitate the movement of trade and services. The question must surely now be: "What is the benefit to Scotland of being a part of this UK that is so much against what the people of Scotland want and need?" Ian Waugh, Dumfries & Galloway Indy Hub, Dumfries. SNP's wise policy on offshore wind Jill Stephenson (Letters, July 13) claims that the Scottish Government does not own any energy sources for wind generation and that these are actually the property of private companies. Is this the same Jill Stephenson who berated the Scottish Government three years ago for selling wind farm seabed licences at a much lower price as compared to Westminster? How do you auction off something you do not own? As regards the efficacy of that decision, it is perhaps worth noting a January 2022 article in the industry magazine WindEurope which commented as follows: 'The Crown Estate Scotland has announced the results of the 'ScotWind' seabed tender. They auctioned 8,600 km² of sea space which could host almost 25 GW of offshore wind. 17 projects won. With 15 GW most of the capacity that will now be developed to be floating offshore wind, the system the Scots have used for awarding seabed leases ensures the new offshore wind farms will be delivered at the lowest cost for taxpayers. "The option fees are much lower than in the UK's recent Offshore Wind Lease Round 4. Scotland chose a more sensible tender design with a maximum price ceiling of £100,000/km². This has avoided bidding at very high prices – which keeps the costs of offshore wind low for consumers. As seabed leasing costs are usually passed on to the electricity consumer, a price ceiling ensures that new offshore wind volumes are also delivered at the lowest cost for consumers." A business ceases to become commercially viable when its customers can no longer afford to buy its products. So keeping that price as low as possible becomes a pre-requisite for any energy policy. However Westminster has not only ignored that logic but has transferred the high prices it charged for its licences onto Scottish consumers. This has led to a number of businesses in Scotland closing as rising energy costs have made them uneconomic. How could any Scottish Government create a viable business in these circumstances? Robert Menzies, Falkirk. Read more letters We need a vote on Holyrood The cost of running Holyrood is spiralling out of control. With a total budget of over £41 billion it is questionable if Scotland really needs this expensive additional layer of government. The previous system before Holyrood was established was to have a Secretary of State for Scotland with a small team of Scottish civil servants running Scotland very efficiently at a fraction of the cost of Holyrood. There is growing support for having a referendum in Scotland to consider closing Holyrood and reverting to the old system, thereby saving billions. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. A disregard for human life Thank you so much for printing Denis Bruce's letter (July 13) regarding the statements of Lily Allen and Miquita Oliver on how much they are relishing their easy access to abortions, and how exciting an experience it is, totally disregarding the fact that for every abortion they have had, they have taken a human life, and all those involved in the process are now conditioned into seeing this as a service and part of the rights of any mother. Is that the road we are going down? Once this disregard for human life seeps out into all other avenues of what is acceptable, living in such a society for future generations looks very bleak indeed. Respect for human life is at the very centre of a civilised society. If this bill to decriminalise abortion, which is not yet passed, and still has to go to the House of Lords, could be stopped in its tracks, a great many people around the country, not just Denis Bruce, would be very relieved indeed. Let us learn from those countries who chose to go down that route some years ago and are now living to regret it. I never thought I would live to see the day when a mother could legally take the life of a baby about to be born. God help us all. Nancy Gilfedder, Glasgow. Am I worthy of preservation? "Every human has immeasurable value" asserted several distinguished academics (Letters, July 6) in response to the question of the merit of human life, otherwise "we descend into a jungle of barbarity". Indeed. In making their case, they cited various debates in society currently querying the sanctity of life but, frankly, they had plenty to choose from. An embarrassment of riches stretched out before them in that respect. We seem surrounded by politicians and commentators, expert on price but conspicuously poorly advised on value. Nowhere more so than upon the issue of welfare reform. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was literally brought to tears during a discussion on the theme (though, we were assured, for wholly unrelated reasons, and that the source of her obvious distress was "a personal matter"). As someone who has relied on benefits for many years, I consider myself a dab hand at budgeting. I have to be. When the sums do not add up, I am not afforded any claim to personal matters. Were I to tender such emotion, the barbarians around me would have a field day at my expense. So what are we worth? And whom amongst us should we prioritise for preservation? The aforementioned academics argued that the calculation is immeasurable. But someone will measure it. They always do. With or without hankies. Archie Beaton, Inverness. Has the Scottish Government got it right on offshore wind? (Image: PA) Crack down on charities This Government is spending, or should that be wasting, money like water and taxes are increasing and increasing. Cuts must be made. What about starting with charities? There are 200,000 charities in the UK. For the tax year to April 2025 the tax relief for these charities and their donors totalled £6.7 billion. Yes, billion not million. That is £6.7bn less to spend on where it is more needed. The Government should be more critical in allowing new charities and challenging existing charities with a view to reducing the numbers to see where savings can be made and whether they are still in the public interest. Just think what could be done with a 10 per cent saving. Top of the hit list should be the 1,717 migrant charities (up from the 2020 level of 1,104) which play a dominant role in preventing the deportations of migrants who had no right to remain in the UK. Clark Cross, Linlithgow. UK is at war with Russia Of course the latest Russian drone attacks on Ukraine should be condemned ("Zelenskyy's plea as Ukraine is bombarded", July 13), but let's not forget that Russia proper is being attacked with UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, meaning the UK is effectively at war with Russia (that Brits aren't firing them is immaterial). Given the increasing importance of cyber warfare, Keir Starmer (who recently told us to prepare for war) is risking attacks on UK infrastructure. If the coming winter is marked by regular power cuts, with hospitals having to run on generators, we'll know who was stupid enough to up the ante. George Morton, Rosyth. Hypocrisy over Trump I see that the usual suspects are lining up to protest at the forthcoming visit of President Trump – left-wingers, the Greens and the SNP. Not that long ago, there was a visit from the Chinese leader, head of an odious government, with very few of the above turning out to protest. Why not? William Ballantine, Bo'ness.
