Jamie Hepburn
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We have a full week left next week. The committee could request that witnesses give evidence on a day when it does not normally sit— that is entirely possible. Jamie Hepburn: I was going to come on to that. I recognise that point, and it was considered, given Ms Hamilton’s concerns.”
“The member will appreciate that the Government cannot compel a committee to undertake scrutiny that it does not want to undertake, and I do not think that Parliament would want the Government to do that.”
“The timing of the bill’s introduction—it was after the Scottish Parliament elections and during the period of Government formation—was always going to be challenging, but that has been compounded by the lack of prior engagement from the UK Government, despite its intent to expedite the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill…”
“I recognise that it is regrettable that I must stand before Parliament today and ask that it suspend standing orders to allow the first motion on legislative consent in this parliamentary session to come straight to the chamber. By way of background, the UK Government introduced the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill on 14 May 2026.”
“I believe that all of us in public life strive for that and that we have all been motivated to enter politics for those reasons. Maybe that is a reminder of the point that David Linden made about the common ground that exists between us all.”
“We should recognise the challenges that we face, but Adam Harley made an important point: that the general experience of being involved in politics is a good one. Just as he spoke of, I like nothing more than to engage with the constituents I represent in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. By and large, that is a positive experience.”
The complete record
Every one of 471 lines we hold for Jamie Hepburn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“At every opportunity that I have, I will seek to do so. However, the fundamental fact is that the timescale for the consideration of this UK bill is not in the hands of the”
“The member will appreciate that the Government cannot compel a committee to undertake scrutiny that it does not want to undertake, and I do not think that Parliament would want the Government to do that. That is why the Parliamentary Bureau has agreed to seek to expedite the vote on the motion on legislative consent to ensure that Parliament can take its collective view next week. Rachael Hamilton: The minister will know that the committee has not yet met and that the committee members were not aware that the convener had rejected the possibility that we could bring in witnesses next week. Jamie Hepburn: I believe that that was communicated to all business managers—that is my understanding—and it was certainly communicated to me. With the best will in the world, I can do only so much to try to facilitate committee consideration.”
“We have a full week left next week. The committee could request that witnesses give evidence on a day when it does not normally sit— that is entirely possible. Jamie Hepburn: I was going to come on to that. I recognise that point, and it was considered, given Ms Hamilton’s concerns. There was engagement with the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, and the convener of that committee indicated that he was content for the committee not to consider the LCM in this case. With the greatest will in the world and the greatest respect, the Government can do only so much—indeed, the Parliamentary Bureau collectively can do only so much. The Government engaged with the committee to offer it that opportunity, recognising that it would not be an ideal timescale or ideal circumstances, but the committee said that it did not want to do that.”
“The timing of the bill’s introduction—it was after the Scottish Parliament elections and during the period of Government formation—was always going to be challenging, but that has been compounded by the lack of prior engagement from the UK Government, despite its intent to expedite the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill through the UK Parliament. There will be no opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to consider whether to grant legislative consent to the bill after our summer recess—it is important to press that point. On the UK Government and UK Parliament timescale, we will not have the opportunity to consider whether to grant consent after our summer recess. Rachael Hamilton: We are a powerful Parliament. The Parliamentary Bureau should consider that the committee can request to sit on another day.”
“I recognise that it is regrettable that I must stand before Parliament today and ask that it suspend standing orders to allow the first motion on legislative consent in this parliamentary session to come straight to the chamber. By way of background, the UK Government introduced the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill on 14 May 2026. It had been announced in the King’s speech the previous day. There was no substantive engagement from the UK Government on the bill prior to its introduction—the Secretary of State for Business and Trade wrote to the First Minister only on 13 May, setting out the intent to introduce the bill the following day.”
“Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“The most up-to-date version is available here: https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report Members and other meeting participants who wish to suggest corrections to their contributions should contact the Official Report. Official Report Email: official.report@parliament.scot Room T2.20 Telephone: 0131 348 5447 Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP The deadline for corrections to this edition is 20 working days after the date of publication.”
“When we see some of the activities that are causing real concern and are motivated by various forms of extremism—right now, the main challenge is far-right extremism, which we have seen on our streets in the past few days—we must show leadership. We must call out any rhetoric of that nature. That is something that I am committed to, and we should commit to it collectively, because that is the type of call that, I think, Jo Cox, her foundation and, indeed, Ms Young, in this members’ business debate, have sought to make. We must all aspire to achieve that. Meeting closed at 18:53. This is a draft Official Report and is subject to correction between publication and archiving, which will take place no later than 35 working days after the date of the meeting.”
“I will finish on a point that has been made by a number of members, which is about the language that we use. Freedom of speech, the right to free assembly and the right to protest are fundamental to a free society and a liberal democracy. However, all too often, of late, some people out there have articulated their activities as being predicated on those principles but have veered into the type of language that I find reprehensible. Many of us—most of us; all of us, indeed—find it reprehensible. Those people are causing concern. In that regard, Q Manivannan was right about the importance of the choice of language that we deploy. We should all remember that. Michelle Campbell and Patricia Gibson made the point about the manner in which we seek to engage in discourse.”
“The Government, the parties and the Parliament as an institution have a role to play in that regard. Jenny Young: I welcome the member’s comments about the quality of the debate this evening. I put on record my thanks to all members for their very fine contributions, which were thought provoking, for sure. Jamie Hepburn is the minister for parliamentary business, and this has been a really good debate, so will he consider in future scheduling more debates that raise the tone and substance of our debate in the Parliament? Jamie Hepburn: I say to Ms Young that I am pretty sure that every debate that I schedule is designed to do that. It is then over to colleagues to deliver on the rest. However, I am always willing to hear what topics members might like to be brought forward.”
“We should recognise the challenges that we face, but Adam Harley made an important point: that the general experience of being involved in politics is a good one. Just as he spoke of, I like nothing more than to engage with the constituents I represent in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. By and large, that is a positive experience. I enjoy very much being able to go out and meet the individuals and organisations that I represent. However, we should be aware of, not pretend otherwise and shy away from, the fact that the level of abuse and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives is unacceptably high. I agree with Stephen Kerr that we should consider that, for some people, that acts as a disincentive in the first place from coming forward to stand. That should concern us all, and we should respond.”
“I recognise that there is a particular challenge with the intimidation that women in politics face. We are providing funding for Engender, which has worked with other members of the Equal Representation Coalition to develop the equal representation in politics toolkit. We have also provided funding for Elect Her, which is working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to host workshops to provide female councillors with a space to share resources and advice for women who are considering standing for public office. I hope that that is helpful by way of updating on some of the activity that the Government is undertaking, but I recognise that there will always be more to be done, and we should work collaboratively in that regard.”
“There is new time for inclusive education and digital discourse resources to help provide teachers with information and strategies to address the effects of online hate and disinformation, in response to some of the challenges in public life. I remind colleagues that, in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, we—or, I should say, colleagues in the previous parliamentary session—collectively made provisions to bar those found guilty of offences involving intimidation of campaigners, candidates and elected representatives from being able to stand for office as a member of the Scottish Parliament or as a councillor. We also created a new disqualification order that would apply to those who are guilty of offences involving intimidation of electoral workers.”
“The call to action was published in February and includes recommendations for individual parties and politicians, as well as the Parliament and the Scottish Government, to consider. It may be useful to provide an update on some of the activity that the Government has undertaken in response and, indeed, some of the work that was already under way in education. We would all recognise that ensuring that our young people are properly informed is an important and critical element of the activity. Last week, Education Scotland published guidance for schools on responding to far-right extremism and racism in current events, which I think is particularly pertinent and important. It picks up on Carol Mochan’s point about responding to the immediate challenges that are before us.”
“I believe that all of us in public life strive for that and that we have all been motivated to enter politics for those reasons. Maybe that is a reminder of the point that David Linden made about the common ground that exists between us all. We have different perspectives on how to achieve those ends, but that is what we are all driven by, although I cannot say that I intend to play tennis with anyone in the chamber at any point—I resist the invitation that I am getting from the sidelines. Members have noted the important work of the Jo Cox Foundation. My predecessor, Graeme Dey, met representatives of the foundation in October last year as they were developing the recommendations for “A Renewed Call to Action for the Devolved Nations” to address abuse and intimidation in politics, which Jenny Young noted.”
“We should also remind ourselves that their deaths were not just individual tragedies in that sense; in effect, they were an attack on democracy—a reminder that democracy can be fragile and is often under threat. I did not know Jo Cox, as others have said, but it is very clear from all that I have seen and read about her and from what has been said in the debate that she brought clear intelligence, energy and compassion to the pursuit of the type of society that we would all want to see, where our communities and our democracy are strengthened by connection, trust and respect. As we have heard, those themes have become her important legacy and are evident across all that she did during her career, which was dedicated to improving the lives of those in need.”
“I begin by doing what all members have done and thank Jenny Young for securing the motion for debate in the Parliament, and I congratulate her on her first members’ business debate, on what is clearly an important subject. In the spirit of our discussion, I agree with Stephen Kerr, which I do not do often, that Jenny Young’s contribution was outstanding. Indeed, we have had a range of important and well-informed contributions, for which I am grateful. The debate has provided us with an opportunity to acknowledge the 10th anniversary of Jo Cox’s terrible murder and to reflect on what she stood for. We should remember that she and, indeed, David Amess were killed as they undertook and discharged their responsibilities as parliamentarians and constituency representatives.”
“Transport Committee Membership: Willie Rennie, Lloyd Melville, Zen Ghani, Collette Stevenson, Iris Duane, Donald MacKinnon, Graham Simpson. The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Decision Time 17:18”
“Public Audit Committee Membership: Neil Bibby, Dawn Black, Alan Brown, Miles Briggs, David Kirkwood. Public Petitions Committee Membership: Paul Sweeney, David Torrance, Marie McNair, Julie MacDougall, Cara McKee. Public Service Reform Committee Membership: Bob Doris, Michelle Campbell, Alex Kerr, Max Bannerman, Lorna Slater, Joe Fagan, Murdo Fraser. Rural Affairs Committee Membership: Mark Ruskell, Andrew Baxter, Laura Mitchell, Emma Roddick, Dawn Black, Jamie Langan, Finlay Carson. Social Justice, Housing and Local Government Committee Membership: Craig Hoy, Thomas Kerr, Steven Bonnar, Kate Campbell, Gary Bouse, Mark Griffin, Morven-May MacCallum. Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Membership: Jenni Minto, Tim Eagle, David Linden, Mark Simpson, Jackie Baillie.”
“Education and Gaelic Committee Membership: Karen Adam, Katherine Sangster, George Adam, Patricia Gibson, Duncan Dunlop, Angela Ross, Laura Moodie. Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee Membership: Katie Hagmann, Meghan Gallacher, Collette Stevenson, Fulton MacGregor, Holly Bruce, Amanda Lindsay, Carol Mochan. Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee Membership: Patrick Harvie, Senga Beresford, Colin Beattie, Keith Brown, Pauline Stafford, Jenny Young, David Green. Finance and Public Administration Committee Membership: Clare Haughey, Alan Brown, Pauline Stafford, Michael Marra, Kim Schmulian, Liam Kerr, Liam McArthur. Health, Care and Sport Committee Membership: Helen McDade, Jack Middleton, Paul McLennan, Heather Anderson, Joe Long, Adam Harley, Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill.”
“The bureau is therefore satisfied that we can progress on that basis. I move, That the Parliament agrees the membership of committees of the Parliament as follows— Climate Action Committee Membership: Stuart McMillan, Ariane Burgess, David Barrett, Martyn Day, Claire Baker, Sanna Dijkstra-Downie, Douglas Lumsden. Criminal Justice Committee Membership: Alyn Smith, David Linden, Marie McNair, Maggie Chapman, Pauline McNeill, Amanda Bland, Stephen Kerr. Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee Membership: Calum Kerr, Q Manivannan, Colm Merrick, Amanda Lindsay, Paul Sweeney. Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee Membership: Duncan Massey, Daniel Johnson, Kate Campbell, Gary Bouse, Martyn Day, Kristopher Leask, Rachael Hamilton.”
“Those include the preferences and interests of individual members and whether members have other parliamentary commitments that might conflict with their committee duties. In achieving a degree of gender balance, we are also reliant on the overall balance of members who are elected to the Parliament at the start of the session. The overall balance between the number of men and women in the Parliament is not the same as the balance in some of the individual parties that are represented here. Taking account of all those factors, there have been significant challenges in achieving gender balance at the individual committee level. However, I inform members that memberships across all 16 committees are strongly reflective of the gender balance across the Parliament as a whole.”
“I will move and speak to the motion, Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer: Go on—why not? Jamie Hepburn: I hate to disappoint Ivan McKee, but his speech was not the last speech before the world cup. I will also undoubtedly disappoint other members given that we are looking to get out, but I will not take too long. Members will be aware that standing orders require the Parliamentary Bureau, when establishing committees, to normally ensure that the proposed membership reflects the gender balance of the Parliament. Where that is not the case, any member of the bureau is required, when moving the motion on committee membership, to explain the reasons why that has not been achieved. Alongside ensuring gender balance when identifying committee members, parties must take several other important factors into account.”
“Their parties contest the same seats. They seek support from the same electorate. They fight the same elections. Therefore, it is surely reasonable to question whether any inquiry and any committee constituted under those conditions could be independent or, at the very least, could be held to be independent. I believe that there is an obvious conflict of interest in parties investigating each other in this way. When conflict of interest is baked into the very structure of a proposed parliamentary inquiry, no amount of procedural formality can remove that partiality or, at the very least, the perception that such an inquiry would fail to meet the test of impartiality.”
“We all recognise that it has led to some people calling into question a sense of trust in our political system. For that very reason, it is my belief that the Parliament must be disciplined in its response—a response that must not be about protecting any single party and must not be about promoting any other; rather, it must be about protecting the integrity of the Parliament itself. Let us be very clear about what is actually being proposed. We are being asked to agree to conduct an inquiry, presumably through the convening of a parliamentary committee comprised of elected representatives of competing political parties, to scrutinise the internal financial operations of one of those competing parties. Every single member who would sit on such a committee has a direct material interest in the outcome of its findings.”
“In the interests of transparency, I place on the record that my wife is presently employed by the Scottish National Party and has been since April 2023. I begin by stating emphatically and clearly that what Peter Murrell did represents a serious breach of trust. His guilty plea makes that beyond dispute. Over more than a decade, he used his position of privilege to embezzle more than £400,000 from the Scottish National Party—my party—and from the many dedicated members and activists who placed their faith in him: people whom I and other SNP politicians know and have campaigned alongside for many years. That is a matter of settled record that has, quite understandably, shone a spotlight on the relationship between the public and elected representatives.”
“It was “Cry Me a River” from Craig Hoy. How desperate and sad it was. It is no wonder that the Scottish Conservatives are a reduced rump in the Parliament. The Parliamentary Bureau has spent the past few weeks discussing and agreeing the committee remits and convenerships. We have done so collaboratively and collegiately. We have done it together without rancour and division. Yes, there has been debate and it has resulted in the proposals that are before the Parliament. The number of members from each party on the committees is largely based on d’Hondt calculations, to try to ensure fairness across committees. That has been the method used since devolution. The reason that I say it is largely based on d’Hondt is that one party would have been entitled to more committee places under that formula: the Scottish”
“I, James Douglas Hepburn, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.”
“Peace is the end destination that we all must aim for, but it must be real and it must be meaningful. A settlement that rewards aggression, that involves ceding territory at the barrel of a gun and that is without security guarantees risks not ending the conflict but merely pausing it. History teaches us that unstable peace can sow the seeds of future war. Our message today should be clear: Ukraine must be supported not only in defending itself today but in securing a just and lasting peace tomorrow. That requires sustained assistance, unity among allies and a recognition that the stakes extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. We should affirm not only our solidarity with the people of Ukraine but our commitment to the principles that underpin peace and stability across Europe. 13:11”
“In this debate, we must confront the wider implications for countries across eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Moldova. This war has understandably triggered profound concern. They consider the history—they look at Ukraine and ask, if aggression is rewarded, who might be next? That is why concerns about the future cohesion of long-established arrangements for mutual defence cannot be dismissed. Donald Trump’s various utterances about Europe and Greenland have raised doubts about the unconditional nature of collective defence. If that guarantee becomes conditional or transactional, the credibility of deterrence is weakened, and if deterrence is weakened, the risks to peace increase. On the issue of peace, Kenny Gibson’s motion also speaks about the nature of any future peace.”
“Those who have come here, as others have come from other conflicts, are welcome to be with us as long as they need, although I am sure that we all hope that they will be able to return home safely soon. In that vein, I was pleased to meet and speak with Zhenya Dove when she was at the Parliament as part of the Ukrainian community in Scotland as they brought their exhibition entitled “The Weight We Carried” to this place. Being confronted with the question of what I would take if I had to pack my life into one suitcase was a stark demonstration of the reality that many Ukrainians have had to face in dealing with that question through their lived experience rather than through the hypothetical scenario that was put to me.”
“Last month, President Zelenskyy, whose courageous leadership has rightly been recognised across the globe, said that 55,000 Ukrainian combatants had been killed. Others put the figure higher—indeed, Kenny Gibson cited another figure. Some 200,000 or more Russian military personnel have been killed. Again, others put the figure much higher. More than 15,000 civilians have been killed and more than 40,000 injured. That is a senseless waste of human life. Millions more people have been displaced within Ukraine or forced to flee their country. In Scotland, we have seen that human impact directly as thousands of Ukrainians have found refuge in our communities. That solidarity speaks to our fundamental values.”
“I pay tribute to and thank my friend Kevin Stewart for his many years of public service and wish him all the best for the future. I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the motion, in the name of Kenny Gibson, marking four years since Russia’s full- scale invasion of Ukraine—an event that has reshaped that nation’s future and reverberated across our continent. We should, of course, be clear that the conflict did not begin in 2022—Kenny Gibson made that point—but has its roots in the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the destabilisation of eastern Ukraine through proxy war in Donetsk and Luhansk. What we have witnessed since is not an isolated event but a sustained assault on sovereignty, international law and the principle that borders cannot be redrawn by force. Above all, the human cost has been staggering.”
“Amendment 37 agreed to. Amendment 138 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Amendment 139 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Amendment 38 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Amendment 140 moved—[Martin Whitfield]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 87, Against 23, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 36 agreed to. Amendments 136 and 137 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Amendment 37 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer : The result of the division is: For 86, Against 23, Abstentions 0.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I had been hoping that all members were back in the chamber for the vote. The vote that has just taken place should have been one minute long, but it was closed after 30 seconds, and I can see that a number of members want to make a point of order. We will rerun the vote, but it will be a 30-second vote. To be clear, the question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer : There will be a division.”
“That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill. I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon. 18:52”
“I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity. I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be.”
“Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking. I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt- out. That would have been a helpful provision. I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt- out for medical professionals.”
“The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals. I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change. However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to.”
“The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly. That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important.”
“I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine. I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision. I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage.”
“I have a very straightforward question. Does Stephen Kerr agree that the cabinet secretary’s amendment 113 would achieve what he is seeking to achieve in a much more straightforward manner? Stephen Kerr: I am sticking with my amendment. I thank Jamie Hepburn for the invitation to “do a Daniel Johnson”, as I think that we will now call it, but my amendment is equally clear. Neil Gray is conveying his opinion through his facial expressions; I am sure that we will hear from him shortly. I lodge my amendments on the basis of what I can see has been put on the daily list. On that basis, I was trying to be helpful.”
“However, I was not taken with Jeremy Balfour’s comment that that requirement could be dealt with in a way that would allow the conversation to be moved on, because that is not what his amendment says. If we are going to legislate, as is proposed in amendments 245 and 246, for a range of disciplinary and criminal sanctions against doctors, we need to protect doctors. There would be a real danger of causing significant challenges and difficulties for the medical profession if we were to agree to proposed new paragraph (a), inserted by amendment 243, under which the doctor would have to end that conversation. That would cause real problems.”
“I will move on to amendment 243, in relation to which I intervened on Jeremy Balfour. I should say that, broadly speaking, paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) of the proposed new subsection that amendment 243 would insert make a lot of sense. However, I am concerned about proposed new paragraph (a), which would require the immediate cessation of a conversation with a patient who is under the age of 18, who almost certainly will be vulnerable and distressed. In those circumstances, if they look to speak to their clinician about assisted dying, it would be articulated in law that the clinician must immediately cease the conversation. Jeremy Balfour is quite right that it is for us to make the law and that, if we pass laws that prescribe that doctors should act in a certain fashion, it is for doctors to act in accordance with those laws.”
“I cannot absolutely discount that possibility, but it is about getting the balance right. I refer back to my points about the changed nature of the relationship between the doctor and the patient. That is what concerns me. Daniel Johnson: I thank Jamie Hepburn for his comments. Fundamentally, it is important that we recognise that the medical practitioner will not be the only source of possible information, but that they have a unique and distinct relationship with the patient in this context, and that is what we are discussing. To assume that the medical practitioner is the only possible source of information would be to misunderstand what we are considering right now. Jamie Hepburn: I agree with that. That goes back to the point that I made. If we pass the bill next week, people will be aware that they have the right to raise the issue.”
“As I try to make up my own mind on how to vote on the amendments, I wonder whether Jamie Hepburn can envisage a scenario in which some patients might have a consultation with their doctor and come very well equipped with an understanding of all the options available to them, but other people whom we represent might not have that wherewithal. Why would we take this most serious matter outwith the professional judgment of our medical practitioners, on whom we rely so much? Jamie Hepburn: I recognise that point, and that is why it is very much about making a balanced judgment. I am inclined to agree with Brian Whittle’s point that it is very unlikely—although I recognise that it is not impossible—that, if the Parliament legislates for a framework for assisted dying, people out there will not be aware that we have done so.”
“I fully respect and understand the professionalism of doctors and their ability to have sensitive conversations, and I trust them to do that on the basis that the issue has been proactively raised by the individual, understanding that they have that right. It is for that reason and on that basis that I am very supportive of Daniel Johnson’s amendments 18 and 19. They are sensible and proportionate amendments, which I support. The primary amendment that I wanted to speak to is amendment 243, but I see that Màiri McAllan wants to intervene. 18:15 The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): I can see that this is a very finely balanced matter.”