Latest news with #Member'sBill
Edinburgh Reporter
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Edinburgh Reporter
Ash Regan's Unbuyable Bill lodged in parliament
Ash Regan MSP formally lodged a bill in parliament this week creating a new offence of paying for sexual acts, and ending the criminalisation for sex workers. The name of the bill – Proposed Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill, has led to it being dubbed the 'Unbuyable Bill'. The legislation aims to repeal the offence of soliciting or importuning by prostitutes, and to repeal any previous convictions in connection with those offences. Instead it will criminalise the buying of sex. It is also intended as a way of supporting those who are in or trying to leave prostitution. In January this year the final proposal for the Member's Bill was lodged in parliament after a consultation had been conducted and the bill attracted cross-party support. Ash Regan PHOTO Alan Simpson Ms Regan said she was delighted that the Nordic Approach may yet find its way into law – even though it will be 25 years after Sweden introduced similar legislation. This model has already been adopted elsewhere including Northern Ireland. Ahead of the Bill's formal introduction, Ms Regan said: 'Prostitution is not a job like any other, as some lobby groups claim. It is a system of commercial sexual exploitation that targets the vulnerable, is driven by demand and is enabled by silence. Commodifying human beings has consequences – it's time we reframe the shame. 'I am proud to bring commercial sexual exploitation out of the shadows into a debate across Scotland, by formally lodging the Unbuyable Bill in Parliament. Unbuyable is the first key step in tackling attitudes that have shamefully normalised inequality of the sexes and underpinned the scourge of male violence against women 'It is a Bill forged by those who have survived the system of exploitation, for their own recovery and for those still trapped inside or vulnerable to such exploitation. It recognises what so many are afraid to say: that buying sexual access to a human being is a form of male violence. 'We must reframe shame. It does not belong to exploited women and men – it belongs to the men who buy them.' 'The Bill aligns with the Nordic Model— adopted in countries such as Sweden, Norway, France, and Ireland—and marks a departure from the failed approach of decriminalising the sex trade, without addressing the root cause and consequences of commodifying human beings: demand. 'On-street prostitution has been criminalised for 17 years in Scotland yet none of the pimp lobby's predictions have materialised, few convictions of buyers have been made in over the last ten years and critically the demand has not diminished – it has just moved off street. 'Scotland faces a choice. Do we continue with piecemeal initiatives to reduce harm from visible prostitution, with fragile support funding for those exploited, or will we confront the injustice of commercial sexual exploitation head-on? 'Sweden was the first to adopt what we now know as the Nordic Model twenty-five years ago, so it is the same age as our Scottish devolved Parliament. 'The Scottish Government and COSLA's Equally Safe strategy explicitly recognise prostitution as a form of violence against women and girls (VAWG), framing prostitution within the broader context of gender inequality and male entitlement and identifying it as a manifestation of systemic abuse. 'The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, has explicitly recognised prostitution as a form of violence against women and girls, with her 2024 report to the UN Human Rights Council stating that prostitution is intrinsically linked to various forms of violence and constitutes a violation of human rights. 'If Scotland is ready to stand up for women's human rights and dignity, we must legislate, and to do that, my Unbuyable Bill needs public support. I have been overwhelmed by the support and encouragement from frontline services, women's support groups and many others across Scotland and beyond, but that won't be enough. I'm calling on every Scot who believes women are not for sale to join the campaign and make their voices heard. 'No one is unbuyable—until the law clearly says so.' For and against Supporters of the Bill believe that the commodification of women's bodies makes a strong, healthy and just society impossible. They support criminalising the buyers because this sends a strong signal to all of Scotland that women are unbuyable, that we do not condone a practice as inherently harmful as prostitution and that we support its victims. Supporters also believe that this Bill will have an effect not just on those involved in buying and selling sexual acts, but on all of society. Almost all of the supportive respondents who answered this question share the conviction that it will improve the equality between the sexes, safeguard vulnerable women and girls, reduce human trafficking, have a positive effect on public health and so make Scotland a better society for future generations. Frontline services share a strong belief that only legislation of this kind will improve the lives of women and girls involved in prostitution. They also believe that only if these women and girls are protected and no longer freely buyable will Scottish society achieve true equality, fairness and justice. Opponents of the Bill say that it will worsen working and living conditions for sellers of sexual acts, put them at greater risk of harm and leave them worse off. They do not believe that there will be an effect on society. Some respondents also believe that the Bill is a waste of time, will worsen inequality and increase stigma for sellers of sexual acts. Ms Regan, who leads Alba at Holyrood, said: 'This proposal for a Bill is about protecting Scotland's most vulnerable from commercial sexual exploitation of prostitution and the harms that result. This is a critical step in reframing shame in the battle to remove the scourge of male violence against women in Scotland.' The Edinburgh Eastern MSP said in her final document produced for parliament: 'A Nordic Model approach, successfully implemented in countries like Sweden and Norway, promises a more compassionate, effective solution. By criminalising the purchase of sex and decriminalising those who sell it, we hold buyers to account and recognise the true victims of exploitation. Alongside that, granting legal rights to support – exit services, counselling, and real alternatives – ensures that the women involved have a genuine path out of prostitution. We can also reduce demand by rolling out public awareness campaigns that challenge harmful gender stereotypes and uphold the principle that women's bodies are not commodities.' Read more here. AGAINST A campaign has been set up by Scottish sex workers to fight the introduction of the proposed new law. The Scotland for Decrim campaign will oppose Ms Regan's bill. The campaign says that the bill will make sex work far less safe. They refer to an official government review of similar legislation in Northern Ireland – the only nation in the UK to enact the Nordic Model – found that there was 'no evidence that the offence of purchasing sexual services has produced a downward pressure on the demand for, or supply of, sexual services'. It also found that 'the legislation has contributed to a climate whereby sex workers feel further marginalised and stigmatised'. A spokesperson for the campaign said: 'Scotland for Decrim absolutely rejects Ash Regan's attempts to bring in the Nordic Model on sex work in Scotland. As a sex worker-led coalition campaigning for our rights, we know that this offensive bill will endanger sex workers by exposing us to more violence, poverty, and exploitation. Criminalising clients does not solve the reasons why people go into sex work: because of financial need, caring responsibilities, disability, or simply preferring this work to other kinds of work. 'Sex workers are the experts on our own needs. We know that only full decriminalisation will protect our safety, health, and human rights, giving us the power to choose when and how we work. The Scottish Government must also urgently strengthen the social security system so that everyone has access to the resources they need to live, and so that no one has to do sex work if they don't want to. 'This Nordic Model bill would be disastrous for sex workers' safety, as we have seen in other countries where this model has been implemented and sex workers have experienced more violence from clients and the police. Sex workers don't want this, the Scottish public doesn't want this, and politicians from a range of parties oppose this dangerous bill.' Lynsey Walton, chief executive of National Ugly Mugs, the UK's national sex worker safety charity, said: 'This bill won't reduce harm; it will increase it. Criminalising the purchase of sex doesn't protect anyone. It pushes sex work further underground, makes it harder for people to report violence, and forces those already at risk into even more dangerous situations. 'NUM stands in solidarity with sex workers across Scotland who are calling for safety, not criminalisation. We hear every day what they need: access to justice, housing, healthcare, and a voice in the laws that shape their lives. This bill ignores that—and it puts lives at risk. 'It's therefore no surprise that opinion polling shows Scots overwhelmingly oppose Ash Regan's plans for the Nordic Model, alongside international organisations such as Amnesty, UN Aids and the World Health Organisation.' Loading… Like this: Like Related
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Is the assisted dying Bill about to be killed off?
It was always going to be divisive. For the past nine weeks, MPs have been debating a piece of legislation so significant that it is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. If it becomes law, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which reaches the next stage in Parliament this week, will allow adults diagnosed with a terminal illness and a six-month prognosis to be provided with assistance to end their own life. There are persuasive – and emotionally charged – opinions on both sides of the debate, but at one point it seemed as though the assisted dying bill had unstoppable momentum. Introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, last autumn, it was approved in a historic vote on November 29. The last time Parliament voted on assisted dying was a decade ago, in 2015, when a proposed change to the law was overwhelmingly rejected. This time, it was voted through, albeit by a reasonably narrow margin of 330 MPs in favour to 275 against. On that wintery afternoon, a crowd of dozens of Dignity in Dying campaigners in Pepto-Bismol pink, the charity's signature colour, cheered, cried and embraced in Parliament Square, hailing a historic victory. Crucially, Leadbeater's Bill seemed to be building on a solid foundation of public and political support. YouGov polling has suggested that three quarters of Britons support handing the terminally ill the right to end their own lives. While the Government itself has remained neutral on the issue, the Bill has the tacit backing of the prime minister and a series of senior Cabinet ministers, all of whom voted in favour. However, as the Bill winds its way back to the Commons on May 16 – when all MPs will have the opportunity to propose and vote on further changes – there is a sense that it is on increasingly shaky ground. Critics have raised concerns that key safeguards have been removed from the legislation since the last time it was debated. A recent poll conducted by Whitestone Insight on behalf of the campaign group Care Not Killing suggested that more parliamentarians now oppose the Bill than support it. Of 100 backbenchers polled in March and April, 42 per cent said they intended to vote against the legislation at the third reading, while 36 per cent said they would back it. Another 13 per cent were undecided, 5 per cent said they intended to abstain, and 8 per cent preferred not to say. In November, the Bill was passed with a majority of 55, meaning only 28 MPs need to change their minds or abstain from voting for it to fail. A number are said to have decided to do so. Two Labour MPs and critics of the legislation told The Telegraph they know of several colleagues who have changed course and will vote against the legislation, but none has yet said so publicly. Reports on Wednesday suggested at least five unnamed MPs who had previously abstained will now oppose it. Three others were said to be considering changing their position. To date, only Reform MP Lee Anderson and Independent Rupert Lowe, who supported the Bill last year, have publicly declared they will reverse course and vote against the Bill. Adding to the sense of uncertainty over its prospects, research published on Wednesday showed that GPs are deeply divided on the issue. The BBC surveyed 5,000 practitioners, 500 of whom said they were against the law change, calling it 'highly dangerous' and 'cruel'. 'We are doctors, not murderers,' one said. (Four hundred GPs told the BBC they supported the legislation.) The Bill's second reading, which MPs voted on last November, was in fact only the first major hurdle it had to pass to become law. The next challenge was the committee stage, where the highly emotive debate around this issue would be translated, clause by clause, into the letter of the law. For a little over two months, the Bill has been painstakingly scrutinised by a representative committee of MPs selected by Leadbeater. It has been a gruelling process, with sittings lasting until 9pm and, on one occasion, past midnight. Leadbeater and her supporters say the Bill's safeguards have been strengthened. But after 90 hours of debate and 150 amendments, opponents argue that what has emerged from the committee meeting is far more dangerous than the Bill that went in. Unsurprisingly, the atmosphere has been charged. One member describes the mood in the committee meeting room as 'superficially courteous, but in reality quite fractious'. A Labour source close to the proceedings says: 'The 'pro' side have been running this like a campaign, so the legislation is a mess. There's a real sense it hasn't lived up to the promise.' One of the key critics is Tory MP Danny Kruger, who sat on the committee. He says the process has only solidified his strong opposition to the legislation. 'One Bill was sold at the second reading; another has emerged from the committee,' he tells The Telegraph, citing the removal of the High Court judge's role in overseeing each case, a key safeguard. Kruger claims a number of his colleagues supported the Bill in November only to see whether it could be strengthened at the committee stage, many of whom could now change their minds. 'I hope there will be a fair few who recognise that hasn't happened,' he says. Kruger has been strongly opposed to the legalisation of assisted dying from the start. But others, such as Sean Woodcock, the Labour MP for Banbury and a fellow committee member, were 'on the fence' before determining that the current Bill was unworkable. 'It took me a long time to make up my mind on how I would vote,' Woodcock says (he ultimately voted against). 'In principle, I am not opposed to assisted dying, but having worked on the committee, I have come to the conclusion that the Bill that is emerging is deeply flawed. All I've seen is that vital safeguards have been removed, and significant new risks have also emerged.' The most controversial change to the legislation is the scrapping of its requirement for a High Court judge to approve each assisted dying application, a provision which Leadbeater argued would make her Bill 'the most robust in the world'. The change was made after senior judges warned that courts would not be able to handle the increased workload. Instead, it is envisaged that a three-personnel panel of experts composed of a legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker will review each case. Meanwhile, plans for a two-year rollout have been extended to four years – reportedly a request from the Department of Health, headed up by one of the Bill's key opponents, Wes Streeting – amid fears that it would put further strain on an already overburdened NHS. Streeting, who voted to legalise assisted dying in 2015, has said that if the Bill becomes law, he is concerned that people may choose to end their lives prematurely because of the current state of the NHS. He has argued that Britain's palliative care system is unfit to support the change. Leadbeater has also faced criticism for rejecting amendments designed to put stronger protections in place for people with anorexia, among other vulnerable groups. There is still no process in place for family members to be involved in decision making, and significant questions remain over capacity and coercion. Equally crucial is the question of how, practically, assisted dying would actually work. It is still unclear whether private firms would be contracted, or all services would be provided by the NHS. The long-awaited impact assessment – published at 4pm on the Friday before the early May bank holiday weekend – states that legalising assisted dying would save the NHS up to £10 million in the first year of its legalisation, rising to up to roughly £60 million in its 10th year. It also predicts how many people would choose to die this way: between 164 and 787 in the first six months, rising to between 1,042 and 4,559 in the 10th year of its legalisation. Prof Louis Appleby, the Government's adviser on suicide prevention and mental health, described the report as 'stripped of moral values'. Seeing a cost-saving figure put on the plans will do nothing to reassure those who fear that people will be pushed into an assisted death as they feel they are burdening their loved ones or the state. Kit Malthouse, the Tory MP for North West Hampshire, sat on the committee selected by Leadbeater and is a key supporter of the Bill. 'It's a sensitive, complex issue of humanity and morality, and for some people, spirituality, and so it was never going to be easy,' he says. As the legislation progresses to the report stage and subsequent third reading, when MPs will have their say on it for the final time, Malthouse hopes those who disagree are able to do so respectfully. 'We just hope that it stays civilised,' he says. But it seems the gloves may already be off. Online, the debate swiftly spiralled out of control, with MPs on both sides being subjected to vitriolic abuse on social media. Leadbeater, who is the sister of Jo Cox, the MP who was murdered by a terrorist in 2016, told the BBC that sponsoring this Bill had exposed her to a new level of online hate. 'There are people on the extremes of the debate, people who do not want to see any version of a change in the law, and there are people on the other extreme of the debate who would want a much broader law,' she told the BBC. 'Sadly, that has led to more abuse than I've probably had on anything.' Meanwhile, some critics have called the integrity of the scrutiny process into question, arguing that their concerns have been dismissed and that the committee's evidence was weighted towards those who are backers of the Bill. (The Royal College of Psychiatrists, which opposes the legislation, was initially excluded from giving evidence because of an alleged shortage of time, before the decision was reversed.) Allan House, a liaison psychiatrist and emeritus professor at the University of Leeds, was invited to give oral evidence to the committee on January 29. 'You were asked to share whether you were 'for' or 'against' [assisted dying], which I remember thinking was very odd, as I thought people were called because of their expertise, not their opinion,' he says. House claims he was one of only a small number called who were outright opposed to the legislation. Moreover, he says, the Bill, as it stands, 'does not resemble best practice in any other area of health care.' As events have progressed, the issue has formed unlikely alliances in some corners of Westminster, where MPs who may agree on very little else have stumbled on common ground. Diane Abbott and Edward Leigh, the current mother and father of the House, have united from their opposite benches to write a joint op-ed for The Guardian, warning of the legislation's 'dangerous' unintended consequences. Within the committee itself, Kruger and Naz Shah, the Labour MP for Bradford West, have found themselves on the same side of the debate despite having very different politics. 'I'm very clear that I've spoken to colleagues who voted for it [in November] who are not going to vote for it now,' says Shah, who voted against. 'I am one of those who could have been convinced to vote for it had the Bill's safeguards genuinely been strengthened… I'm not convinced it has the mandate it had. The process has been haphazard at best, it has been rushed.' Supporters maintain this is not the case. Malthouse, for example, argues that the Bill has been 'very significantly strengthened'. 'MPs are looking again at [it], as they should, and thinking about its implications for a second time, but we haven't seen any significant shift in opinion about the principle,' he says. 'If anything, there are more people who are reassured.' One of them is Marie Tidball, a Labour MP born with a congenital disability, who had tentatively voted in favour but said she would push for considerable amendments to the legislation. Now, she says, her concerns have been allayed. Leadbeater does not believe that those who backed the Bill in November will rescind their support, despite the growing sense that her Bill is on borrowed time. 'If they look at it in detail, which I really hope they do and believe colleagues will do, they will see the things that have been added that really enhance the safeguards,' she says. Perhaps Leadbeater is also quietly hoping they don't change their minds. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
NZ Herald
11-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Social media restrictions for under-16s: Work to be part of Government's agenda
National's legislation, sponsored by MP Catherine Wedd, will remain in the ballot as the Government does its work. 'I would like to thank Catherine Wedd for her advocacy so far and look forward to seeing how her members' bill can feed into this process,' Luxon said. Luxon said there had been an 'overwhelmingly positive response from mums and dads' that made it 'clear we need to progress options to restrict social media for under-16s'. 'I am concerned by the harm social media can cause young New Zealanders and I believe restricting access for under-16s would help protect our kids from bullying, harmful content and social media addiction,' he said. 'Australia is currently testing a range of options for restricting social media for under-16s, and the United Kingdom, the EU, Canada and states in the US are also exploring the issue. 'As part of her work, Erica will consider how these other jurisdictions are implementing restrictions and what could work in New Zealand, subject to Cabinet approval.' An Act spokesman told the Herald that Sunday's announcement showed why the party had opposed National's bill: 'Much more work is needed, with more options and input from more voices, before we dive headfirst into a ban.' 'Act believes we should instead watch Australia closely as it tries to implement its ban. There will likely be lessons for New Zealand.' The legislation proposed by Wedd on Tuesday would require social media companies to verify if someone is over 16 before allowing them access to their platforms. It reflects a similar move by Australia, which has a ban coming into effect this year. If picked from Parliament's ballot and then passed, the legislation would also introduce financial penalties for platforms that fail to uphold age verification. The law would be reviewed three years after its implementation to assess its effectiveness. When announcing the Member's Bill alongside Wedd on Tuesday, Luxon said he hoped the Government would adopt it, expediting its progress through Parliament. That would require the support of the leaders of Act and NZ First. While NZ First leader Winston Peters agreed the Government should back it, Act's David Seymour said his party opposed it 'because it is not workable'. 'Act is concerned about the practicalities of a ban,' Seymour said. 'For example, requiring all social media users to provide government identification to social media companies would raise privacy issues.' 'The bill's definition of 'social media' more or less includes the entire internet. For example, the bill says social media could be anything that 'allow[s] end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users'. Such a poorly drafted definition is unworkable.' He instead called for the education and workforce select committee to hold an inquiry into the issue, which he believed would 'hear all voices to find a workable solution that respects parental responsibility'. The next day, Act MP Parmjeet Parmar wrote to the committee asking it to hear from teachers, principals, technology experts, mental health professionals and parents among others. 'Act shares the concern that social media is causing harm to young people. But any government response must be grounded in evidence and respect parental responsibility,' she said. Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he was 'broadly supportive' of the bill but felt having consensus within the Government was important. He also wanted to see the details of the actual legislation being proposed. Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said she wanted to learn more about the potential ban, acknowledging the bill was simplistic. Act takes on deepfakes Meanwhile, Act MP Laura McClure on Sunday announced she would introduce a Member's Bill she said would restrict the generation and sharing of sexually explicit deepfakes. Deepfakes are digital images and videos created through artificial intelligence (AI) technology that appear to depict real or fictional people or events. They're often made to show world leaders or celebrities saying or doing something they haven't. McClure said they can be made by anyone with 'alarming ease' and 'violate personal autonomy and self-ownership'. 'No-one should have to worry about their digital images being misappropriated and sexualised. This new form of bullying, shaming, and harassment can lead to profound psychological, reputational and emotional harm. 'What started as a problem for public figures and celebrities can now happen to anyone. Teachers and school leaders have told me this technology is already doing real harm to young people in New Zealand, and this abuse risks becoming normalised if we do not act urgently to ensure the law keeps up with technology.' McClure said her legislation built on existing laws around revenge porn and intimate recordings. It would ensure people who produce or share deepfakes without consent face criminal accountability, while victims have pathways to seek redress and the removal of content. 'My bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 to expand the definition of 'intimate visual recording' to explicitly include images or videos that are created, synthesised or altered to depict a person's likeness in intimate contexts without their consent.' She said she'd be writing to the Minister of Justice urging him to adopt it as a Member's Bill.
Kiwiblog
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Kiwiblog
A less simplistic bill would be good
Winston Peters announced: New Zealand First has today introduced a Member's Bill that would ensure the biological definition of a woman and man are defined in law. The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill will provide clarity and consistency in New Zealand law by defining 'woman' as 'an adult human biological female' and 'man' as 'an adult human biological male' in the Legislation Act 2019. I think this bill would have unfortunate unintended consequences. But, a simple amendment, could improve it. I'm all for having the law allowing sporting events, facilities to restrict entry to those who are biologically women. But I'm also for allowing facilities to have entry based on gender identity, if that is what they want to do. Trans NZers should be able to have their gender identity recognised in law. But the law should also recognise that this doesn't replace biological sex. The health system, for example, needs to know your biological sex, but I'm not sure the Department of Conservation does. So what I would do is have the law define both sex and gender. It could be along the lines of. When referring to sex: a 'woman' is 'an adult human biological female' a 'man' is 'an adult human biological male' When referring to gender: a 'woman' is 'an adult who identifies as a female' a 'man' is 'an adult who identified as a male' When laws are passed, the laws could refer to either sex or gender, as is appropriate. In the absence of a specific reference, the assumption would be it is biological sex that is being referred to.
Otago Daily Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
NZ First Bill would ‘write trans people out of' law
A Saturday protest placed human rights concerns of the rainbow community in the spotlight. Stand Against Transphobia - Fight the Far Right challenged moves to undermine transgender rights. Organised by International Socialists Otepoti Dunedin and Dunedin Pride, the gathering drew about 300 queer and trans members and supporters. Speakers responded to a proposed Member's Bill from New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft that would define a woman as an adult human biological female and a man as an adult human biological male. Protest co-ordinator Oscar Bartle said the party's Bill was a blatant attempt to erase trans and non-binary people from law. ''Not only will this result in situations where trans people will be sent to the wrong prisons and other such injustices, it will also serve to legitimise and embolden the transphobic far-right.'' International Socialists Otepoti Dunedin member Neave Ashton said the world had become a much scarier place for trans people in recent years. ''This Bill, if passed, would effectively write trans people out of legal recognition.'' It could mean trans women would be sent to men's prisons where they were up to 13 times more likely to be raped and sexually assaulted. It might result in ''big, burly trans men with full beards'' being forced to use women's toilets, they said. ''It could also mean that our medication, like puberty blockers and gender-affirming care, could be banned or restricted.'' Local drag performer Ann Arkii, a genderqueer transgender man hoping to receive top surgery later this year, said transitioning had been lifesaving. ''I wouldn't be standing in front of you here today if I was unable to live my life the way that I needed to. ''Who I am as a person is not something that can be defined, debated or legislated by the state.'' Bills like this one were mere distractions from bigger problems such as the cost-of-living crisis, climate change, famine and genocide. ''Trans people will not be erased, not from public life, not from history, not now and not ever. A world without trans people is a world without humanity.'' @
