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 3 of 10.
“That might have been the first time that Tim Eagle has spoken in a WASPI debate. For his sake, I would suggest that he might want to make it the last time that he speaks in a WASPI debate. I thank my friend Bill Kidd for lodging the motion that we are debating this evening. I also thank the WASPI campaign and Age Scotland for their briefings in advance of the debate. I want to speak this evening in a spirit of solidarity with WASPI campaigners and to address the injustice that they face. The more than 336,000 women in Scotland, and, indeed, the more than 3.5 million women across the UK, who are affected by the failures of the Department for Work and Pensions deserve more than warm words and procedural delay. They deserve fairness, they deserve dignity and they deserve compensation for the hardship that they have endured.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any potential impact of its draft budget 2026-27 on the college sector. (S6O-05546)”
“We face challenges; the cabinet secretary was right to set out that Scotland is not a state party and is not signed up to international treaty obligations. We are not responsible for the entry and egress of air traffic through Scotland. It is not unreasonable to criticise the Trump Administration—I have certainly done that—but it is unreasonable to demand things of the Scottish Government that it is unable to do. That is why I will support the Scottish Government’s amendment. 15:30”
“Ross Greer: Will Mr Hepburn take an intervention? Jamie Hepburn: I will probably not be allowed to, because I am in the last minute of my speech. Is that right, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You can do what you want, but you will not get any time back. Jamie Hepburn: Well, if I will not get any time back, I will do what I want and continue. On the matter of upholding sanctions, I observe that, just last month, BBC verify reported that dozens of sanctioned Russian tankers have been able to sail through the English Channel unimpeded. There is much more that can be done within the law on this side of the Atlantic to ensure that sanctions are being properly applied. It is right that we consider how our assets and infrastructure in Scotland are being utilised by international actors.”
“The only people who should determine the future of Greenland are the people of Greenland, and if there are concerns about the manner in which a state is operating—there clearly were concerns about the manner in which the Venezuelan Administration was operating—the solution cannot be to unilaterally remove the head of state and hold them captive in another country. Murdo Fraser’s point about Russia using Venezuelan oil is not unreasonable, but we should also reflect on what Donald Trump has said since the intervention in Venezuela. He has been clear about utilising Venezuelan oil for the benefit of American companies. In mid-January, he said: “We’re going to be extracting numbers in terms of oil like few people have seen”. Therefore, a wider debate is needed about the motivations in that region.”
“Donald Trump and his Administration should rightly be criticised for his rhetoric on Greenland, the manner in which he intervened in Venezuela and the unilateral removal of the captain and the first officer of the MV Bella 1 when, as has been mentioned, the Court of Session had imposed an order banning the removal of its crew from Scottish jurisdiction. In each case, the First Minister has been clear that it does not seem as though the norms of international law have been respected or followed, and I agree with that perspective.”
“They were perfectly entitled to lodge the motion, and I have a lot of sympathy with much of it. Donald Trump’s posturing and his repositioning of the United States through a mixture of an aggressive and assertive form of the Monroe doctrine and the threat of American isolationism in relation to Europe should be of the utmost concern to us. The prospect of the upending of long-held arrangements on mutual defence would be alarming at any time, but it is especially so at a time of crisis in eastern Europe.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I understand that not everyone in the chamber believes that we should be debating a subject matter of this nature. That is clear from Murdo Fraser’s opening remarks and his amendment, and it was clear last month when the Tories absconded from the debating chamber when the First Minister made a statement on the MV Bella 1. Ironically, if they had remained, they would have heard that the statement related directly to matters of devolved competence. We should be prepared to debate, discuss and deliberate on this subject matter in the chamber. I do not dismiss the motion as student politics. Our national legislature should be prepared to take a position on international matters, so I thank the Greens for lodging their motion to enable this debate to take place.”
“Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on when changes to the parole system under the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 will commence? Angela Constance: The 2025 act provides that, when considering release, the Parole Board “must”—rather than “may”—consider whether a prisoner has disclosed the location of the victim’s remains and consider the safety and security of any victim or a victim’s family members. A Scottish statutory instrument was laid on 11 December 2025 to begin the process of commencing those provisions. Another SSI was laid before the Parliament on 13 February this year to make the necessary changes to the Parole Board rules. Those changes will come into force on 25”
“For all those reasons, and more, this is a budget to be welcomed and is one that we should be supporting. 16:27”
“I know who will welcome that: the many thousands of commuters who travel daily from my constituency, many of them going into Glasgow to work, and who rely on rail transport and will not have to pay any more than they do right now. The fifth and final thing that I specifically welcome, which the cabinet secretary mentioned, is the funding being deployed towards providing breakfast clubs in all primary and ASN schools in Scotland. That will benefit 25,000 children in North Lanarkshire, where my constituency is. When we talk about the budget, we tend to talk about millions, but I want to bring down the numbers a little and talk about thousands. There are 25,000 children in North Lanarkshire who will benefit from that funding. Craig Hoy does not see fit to welcome the funding, but I welcome it and families in my area will welcome it.”
“I used to have the privilege and pleasure of being the minister with responsibility for further education and I was able to go around seeing the tremendous work that our college sector does. I know that colleges need additional funding, because that will enable them to be more responsive and adaptable to meet social and economic need. I am pleased to say that we see excellent college provision at New College Lanarkshire in my constituency, and I know that that funding will go a long way towards helping that college to continue doing its good work. The fourth area that I welcome is that, building on the abolition of peak rail fares, there will be a freeze in rail fares for the coming year. That is something else that Craig Hoy does not think is worth welcoming.”
“Secondly—this has been mentioned already, but I want to refer to it again—there is an extra £2.9 million for the hospice sector. I recently spoke with Mags McCarthy of the Scottish hospice leadership group. She is also the chief executive of Strathcarron Hospice, which is not in my area but serves it and carries out absolutely outstanding work. Jamie Greene was right to say that we all know about the excellent work that hospices do in our localities. That money will make a massive difference to those organisations, but that, again, is something that Craig Hoy thinks is not worthy of welcome. Thirdly, there is a 10 per cent uplift in funding for colleges, which is another thing that Craig Hoy does not think is worth welcoming.”
“I never took him for much of a dancer back in the day, but I certainly would have thought him capable of telling the cabinet secretary that he would like to continue the conversation. That is a very weak line of argument, Mr Marra. I think that there are many things to welcome in this budget. Craig Hoy says that there is nothing to welcome, so I will pick up on a few things that we can welcome. First, there is the funding for GP walk-in centres, which is something that Craig Hoy clearly does not welcome. Those are already being rolled out: there is one in Wester Hailes. I am engaging with my local health board because I would like to see one in my area. I would have thought that GP walk-in centres are something to welcome.”
“I would go as far as saying that not attempting to shape the budget is an abdication of responsibility. Michael Marra: Will the member give way? Jamie Hepburn: Mr Marra is looking very exercised, so I will give way to him. Michael Marra: I appreciate the member giving way. He is making a fine point to those on his Government’s front bench, telling them about the process, and about how to negotiate and come to a position. When people go to them and they say that they will get back to them, they should probably get back to them. Jamie Hepburn: I have known Mr Marra for the best part of three decades, going back to our university days. He has never struck me as someone who would be shy in coming forward and saying, “Are you going to get back to me?” On Mr Marra’s line about it taking two to dance, as I say, I have known him for a long time.”
“I welcome the approach that some are taking to the process of pulling together the budget—particularly the Liberals, but also the Greens, who are actively engaging with the Government to help shape what might come out of the other end of the budget. That is the approach that should be taken. The inability of others to engage seriously with the process of shaping and forming the budget baffles me, because it shows that, through the process of engagement, we can make a change and influence what is in the budget. Any party that seeks to engage with the Government will always be able to say that the budget does not contain absolutely everything that they would like to see in it, but this is about the art of compromise that Jamie Greene was speaking to.”
“We should have a sensible, considered and mature discussion that is based on the commission’s evidence and the report that we have seen, to ensure that we get a balance where justice is served for victims, public safety remains paramount and our prison population is sustainable.”
“As the independent commission examined how Scotland can achieve a sustainable prison population, does the cabinet secretary agree that the report’s recommendations can serve as a useful contribution to a wider societal discussion about how we can achieve that end? Angela Constance: In short, yes, I do. Although the steps taken by this Government have been necessary to provide immediate relief to ensure that prisons are safe and effective, I have always been clear that a long-term change in our approach to custody is needed to strengthen the justice system and align Scotland with other western nations that have tackled the issue successfully. This is a complex subject to which there should be no knee-jerk reaction.”
“The club is interested to see a repair there and has identified people who might be able to do that, but it seems to be caught up in bureaucracy—the people who can do it are not an accredited provider with the council. We should be working around such things. We should be trying to make sure that things can happen for clubs such as Kilsyth Athletic, Cumbernauld Colts and— returning to Daniel Johnson’s case—Edinburgh South. They are important institutions, in terms of their contribution to the sport of football and their wider community contribution. They deserve our support. This summer, we will see the pinnacle of football: the world cup, which, thankfully, Scotland will play in. However, let us remind ourselves that football starts in the community and that we must do everything that we can to support community football clubs. 13:03”
“We should also recognise that the club gives so much back to the town—if it were not there, there would be a significant hole to fill. The other club that I want to mention is Kilsyth Athletic, which was founded in 1999 and which, again, supports hundreds of players from across the local area, ranging from youth football right up to a first team competing in the west of Scotland league. The club is based at Kilsyth sports field, where there are challenges. The site is not being maintained well enough by North Lanarkshire Council; effectively, it is used as a flood plain for the Garrel burn. Such things need to be managed, but that impacts on the ability to use the playing field. Simple things such as the car park being in disrepair cause problems for the club’s ability to use it.”
“The first is the aforementioned Cumbernauld Colts, which, as I said, was formed in 1969, primarily as a youth club. As Edinburgh South does, the club supports hundreds of players across all ages and abilities, right up to a first team in the Scottish lowland league. I am concerned that, sometimes, the club does not get the support that it should get from the local authority. Cumbernauld Colts, through the cashback for communities fund, was able to get an artificial surface installed at Broadwood. Thereafter, there were tensions between the club and the council in relation to utilising the stadium. That situation has improved a little; however, given that the club was the driving force in getting that surface installed, that should have been recognised a little more.”
“I had a cursory glance at the league table and saw that Edinburgh South’s first team is doing rather well in the east of Scotland league first division, which means that they will not be contesting against any of the four teams that play in the league system that are from my constituency, which is on the west side of the country. I am safe to say that I wish them well for the rest of the season. I want to focus on the part of the motion about recognising the importance of the role of grass- roots football, as it impacts my constituency. Like others, we have a tremendous range of clubs operating at youth and amateur levels, and there is women’s football as well. I place on record my thanks to all those clubs. I will focus on two in particular.”
“We need to see more of that approach across the country. I acquainted myself with some of the activities of Edinburgh South in advance of the debate, and I am impressed by the club’s strong and clear commitment to supporting hundreds of players across all levels and abilities, right up to a first team that plays in the East of Scotland Football League. It reminded me of some of the clubs in my constituency, which I will return to later. In particular, it reminded me of Cumbernauld Colts Football Club, which was formed in the same year as Edinburgh South. The fact that Edinburgh South has the Scottish Football Association quality mark and is a platinum legacy club testifies to its achievement—that is not an easy thing to achieve.”
“I will not start by talking about my own footballing prowess, because you have seen me play, Deputy Presiding Officer, and will be able to adjudicate on that. I will leave that subject there. I am glad to speak in the debate, which reflects the importance of football and its benefits for the social wellbeing and health of our country. Football is also an economic driver and has a central importance to the lives of many in Scotland. There is nothing wrong with us returning to the subject of football, particularly in the context of Daniel Johnson’s constituency interest. I confess that I was not au fait with enough of the detail to feel confident in signing his motion, but I am sympathetic to it, and it has been interesting to hear what he said about Edinburgh South Football Club and Inch Park Community Sports Club.”
“Community wealth building is not a passing initiative but a long-term commitment to reshaping our economy so that success is widely shared and locally rooted. I recognise that there might be more to be done and that the bill might be just the start. However, by passing it today, we will take a decisive step towards an economy that works for people, communities and Scotland. 16:12”
“The bill is grounded in five clear pillars: spending that maximises local benefit; a workforce that is built on fair work principles; land and property that deliver social and ecological value; inclusive ownership through co-operatives and social enterprises; and finance that serves local people, communities and businesses. Together, those pillars form a coherent framework for change. Ultimately, the bill is about fairness, resilience and shared prosperity. It is about ensuring that the wealth that is created in Scotland better benefits Scotland’s people and places. It is about recognising that local partners and communities are best placed to understand their own challenges and opportunities, and giving them the tools and flexibility to act.”
“It will empower democratically elected local authorities to lead meaningful reform without imposing unnecessary bureaucracy on them— striking the right balance between national consistency and local flexibility. One of the bill’s strengths is its focus on anchor organisations. Whether they are public bodies such as local authorities, the national health service, universities and enterprise agencies, or major private and third sector employers, those institutions have deep roots in their communities and significant economic influence. By leveraging their procurement spend, employment practices, land and property assets and, in some cases, legal powers, anchor organisations can stimulate local economic activity, shorten supply chains, create jobs and strengthen regional resilience.”
“When investment supports the resilience of local employers, when good work is created close to home and when profits are reinvested in communities, we help to build an economy that delivers prosperity across economic, social and environmental dimensions. Investment from elsewhere is to be welcomed, but we know that capital can be transient. Making it stay as rooted as possible in local communities should be an objective that the Parliament shares. The bill will ensure that that approach is implemented consistently across Scotland. It places clear duties on Scottish ministers, local authorities and other public bodies to publish and deliver statements, action plans and guidance.”
“In that way, we will help to create the circumstances in which communities and people can own, access and more directly benefit from the wealth that our economy creates. The central aim of the bill is to establish a new and consistent platform for local economic development. It recognises the economic agency of every pound of public money. Public spending is not neutral. It can shape markets, it shapes supply chains and it can shape opportunity. That is why I welcome the placing of partnership at the bill’s core—bringing together the public sector, businesses, the third sector and communities in pursuit of sustainable and inclusive growth. Through community wealth building, Scotland can create the conditions in which local businesses thrive—in which resilience, innovation and local investment reinforce one another.”
“Mercifully, Mrs Hepburn has not yet brought to my attention any TikTok videos about my endeavours, but there might be time yet. At its heart, community wealth building is the simple but powerful proposition that our local economies should work better for the people and communities who live in those areas. When wealth is generated, circulated and retained locally, we create opportunities—there are more good jobs and stronger businesses, and profits are reinvested in the places that produced them in the first place. Therefore, the bill represents an opportunity to address economic and wealth inequality. It will do so not through some abstract theory but through practical action that supports the generation, circulation and retention of wealth in local and regional economies across Scotland.”
“We recognise that there might be merit in exploring whether further steps should be taken. We know that short sentences disrupt lives, including family relationships, housing, employment and access to healthcare— all things that help to reduce the risk of reoffending—and therefore put pressure on our prisons and, in turn, our communities.”
“Although the Scottish Government is taking action to tackle the challenge around the prison population, we continue to see a large number of short-term prison sentences being imposed. What assessment has the Government undertaken on the contribution of those sentences to some of the challenges that we see in the prison population? Angela Constance: Although the longer-term trend has been away from shorter-term sentences, the most recent figures show that 73 per cent of sentences are of 12 months or less, so a high number of short sentences continue to be imposed, despite the presumption against them. As an illustrative example, on 2 February, there were 562 prisoners with an overall sentence of 12 months or less. There are complex reasons for that, and we are working to understand how the current presumption operates.”
“Let us not kid ourselves that consensus is coming on this. 16:53”
“On the point of local control, I agree with the words in the amendment, but they are a little hard to swallow after many years when central Government in Scotland has capped council tax and disrespected the principle of local control, most recently in a way that broke agreements not only with my party but with local government, which the ink was barely dry on when that council tax cap was imposed. I implore the Government and the other parties to accept that consensus is not coming—we are not going to have consensus on this issue. It is very clear from members in the chamber today, and from those who may be in the chamber after the election, that we are not going to get consensus—do not hold out for it. What we need is a majority in Parliament to achieve fundamental reform and the political will to do it.”
“The situation in Scotland is not what I would wish it to be—it is far from perfection—but it is nothing like the brutality that has been seen south of the border. Finally, in its amendment, Labour talks about seeking and building consensus. I say again that that is on us all; we cannot point the finger at the Government and say, “You haven’t built consensus,” because that is not what consensus means. The place of the word “consensus” is something that I want to bring up in relation to the Government’s amendment, because there is a reason why I will not vote for that either. To be clear, I will abstain on the Government’s amendment, although I will allow it to go through, because it is unquestionably a big improvement on the Tory motion—of course it is.”
“Could Labour not have used its influence in this Parliament to say that it will let the budget go through only if a change to the local government funding settlement is implemented? Yet again, for another year, Labour is offering the Government the opportunity for the budget to go through without any amendments. That is an abdication of the responsibility that we all have to exercise the influence that we have been given by our voters to try to achieve change. The Labour amendment talks about the long- term trajectory of local government funding. In truth, local government funding in England was cut by the UK Government by 40 per cent between 2010 and the end of that decade—there was a 40 per cent cut in central Government funding for councils in England.”
“In my simple naivety, I thought that even the Conservatives would not have the brass neck to use the empty canard of saying that Scotland is the highest-taxed part of the UK during a debate on council tax, given that the average band E council tax in 2024-25 in Scotland is £1,421 and in England is £2,171. That is 50 per cent more in England than in Scotland. As for the Labour amendment, just like Mr Marra’s opening speech, there is much that I can agree with in it, but I will set out why I cannot support it. Local government funding is something that Greens have worked for many years to try to protect. Sometimes we have been more successful and sometimes we have been less successful—I acknowledge that—but, for goodness’ sake, could Labour’s budget vote this year not have come with a price tag attached?”
“I support that approach, and I will support the Government’s amendment. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to winding-up speeches. 16:49 Patrick Harvie: I used my opening speech to set out some of the arguments as to why council tax is fundamentally broken and unfair and why it needs to go. I will use my closing speech to reflect on the motion and the amendments. It will probably not come as a surprise to anybody that I will oppose the Tory motion. In my view, the Conservative Party is standing up for unfairness and refusing to recognise that low- value homes are overtaxed and that the homes of the very wealthy are undertaxed.”
“Of course, I look forward to my party securing a majority at the next election, and I am sure that Mr Marra will be delighted, when we have that majority, for us to impose our will in the Parliament. On a more serious note, it is important that we have a balanced debate on the issue. There is nothing wrong with a Government, in conjunction with others, taking forward a process of consultation to see how we can further refine council tax. I recognise that there is a wider debate about whether council tax is the most appropriate or best form of local taxation, but it is here now. While it is here, we should do what we can, as we did back in 2015 and 2016, to refine it and make it fairer. That is being done now through the changes to council tax on properties that are worth more than £1 million.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I see Mr Marra rising to his feet. He took us even further back, to 2007, when—he is correct to say it—my party made a commitment to try to abolish council tax. However, that was not possible, because every other party in the Parliament stood in the way. That is one of the challenges that we face in trying to reform local taxation. Michael Marra: Jamie Hepburn mentioned the consultation in 2015. Is it correct that the SNP had a majority at that time? Jamie Hepburn: Indeed—of course we did— but we tried to take things forward with consensus. With respect, I note that the commission reported in 2015, just as we headed into another election, when, unfortunately, we did not get a majority.”
“They abdicated any responsibility for engaging with the process and coming forward with ideas, because they refused to take part in the commission. We should remind ourselves that alterations to council tax were made as a consequence of the commission. Changes were made to the ratios in the upper bands of council tax, and the work that is being undertaken now flows directly from that work. Patrick Harvie: Does Jamie Hepburn acknowledge that, although the commission agreed that council tax must go, that did not happen? Jamie Hepburn: I recognise that there were wider conclusions from that process. As I said, there is nothing wrong with the process of engagement and coming forward with ideas. The big challenge that we have faced has been in trying to get any form of consensus. Michael Marra: Will Jamie Hepburn take an intervention?”
“Members might recall that, in 2015—although I am increasingly aware that there are fewer and fewer of us who were in the Parliament at that time—a cross-party commission on local tax reform was created. That brought together voices from the Labour Party, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, my party, the Law Society of Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Institute for Society and Social Justice Research and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The commission’s work was also informed by nearly 4,500 members of the public who contributed their views through the process of consultation. I note that the Conservatives did then what they are doing now.”
“I will begin by considering the work that has been undertaken and committed to on council tax reform. For context, it is important to note that that work is not being undertaken solely from the centre, without engagement with others. Reform is being pursued in partnership with local government through engagement with COSLA and local authorities. Even more crucially, it is being pursued through engagement with the public, as we are enabling them to submit their views on how we should reform council tax. That is a perfectly sensible way to do things. We should take informed decisions through the process of consultation. Mr Hoy’s motion seems to view consultation as something of a concern, but there is nothing wrong with engaging in consultation.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated in its draft budget 2026-27 to support local authorities, including North Lanarkshire Council, to provide universal breakfast clubs from August 2027. (S6O-05466)”
“In closing, I go back to the fundamental point that, if there had been more time for us to consider the bill, I might have been able to stand here and say that I was satisfied beyond doubt that the bill would not put women selling sex in jeopardy. However, we did not have the time to do that. I think that we need more time to consider the matter fully, and on that basis I cannot support the bill at this stage. 16:52”
“Would the member and the committee have been able to satisfy themselves on that point a little bit better if they had not engaged with the lived-experience panel that was against the bill but had engaged in person with the survivors who are for the bill? Jamie Hepburn: The committee made efforts through an organisation—I cannot remember its name, and I am not going to guess what it was. There was an effort to seek to engage with that group of women, and we were informed that it was difficult for them to come forward. I see Ms Regan shaking her head, but that is what we were explicitly told. If the question is whether I would have liked to hear directly from those voices on the same basis, the answer is yes, I would. However, we were told that that was not possible.”
“They have stated that on the record. Ruth Maguire: Will the member give way? Jamie Hepburn: I am afraid that I will not be giving way to Ms Maguire. The arguments as to why they fear that to be the case have been well aired, and I will not rehearse all those arguments. They are all on the public record. Those concerns require to be taken seriously and not dismissed lightly, but, in the limited amount of time that we have had, I do not feel that we have been able to scrutinise this area adequately. I cannot earnestly say that I have been able to satisfy myself beyond any reasonable doubt that the bill would not make women who are selling sex less safe. Ash Regan: This is directly on that point.”
“In my personal experience, it can never be made safe.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 October 2025; c 5.] The question that I was grappling with was whether the terms of the bill would make it more or less safe for those women and girls who are involved in the sale of sex. In considering that, the committee has been confronted with different points of view. That which I considered to be the most important came from the women who had lived experience and who took their time to engage with the evidence- gathering process. I am grateful to them for doing so; it would not have been an easy thing for them to do. There is, at the very least, a perception among some of those who remain involved in the sale of sex that the provisions in the bill would make it less safe for them, and they have said so publicly.”
“The stated purpose of the bill, as it is set out in the policy memorandum, is to reduce the amount of prostitution in Scotland, because of the evidence of exploitation and the harm that it is causing. I think that we all instinctively support ensuring the safety of women, who make up the overwhelming number of those who sell sex in Scotland. That is what we should strive for. It should be our collective aim, and it has been the starting point from which I have approached consideration of the bill. I was taken with the point that was made in one of our evidence sessions by a witness who supports the bill and who said of prostitution: “The Nordic model does not proclaim that it will make it safe.”
“There was a period of two months between the final evidence being received and the publication of the stage 1 report, on 23 January. What was going on in those two months, which could have been used to address some of those things? Jamie Hepburn: What was going on was consideration of the wide-ranging evidence that was provided to us, including the evidence that has been cited. All of that evidence is available for any member of this Parliament and the public to draw on. It has all been published and is publicly available. One of the challenges that we faced with some of the international evidence was the fact that there were competing points of view on that evidence. I will come to that again if I have time.”