The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 567 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
We can broadly apply that across the justice portfolio.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
We have certainly been sent evidence from the Swedish jurisdiction that would suggest that there has been a substantial reduction. I am not arguing against that, although we did have evidence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland that suggested that what they have done in Northern Ireland has had a limited impact.
The figures that you have set out are appalling. Any rational person would understand that. However, you have made the point yourself, as did our very first panel of witnesses, that, even with the bill, we will never be able to make the selling of sex truly safe. The bill will not make it truly safe, but the question is, will it make it less safe? I have heard your perspective, which you have set out very clearly. You have talked about all the stakeholders that you have engaged with. When you have engaged with those who are opposed to your bill, and in whose perspective it would increase the likelihood of selling sex being less safe, what have they said?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
That is helpful to understand.
10:00Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
There is a figure of £5 million. Approximately how many prison officers would that pay for?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Good morning. I have asked this question of everyone who has come before the committee to give evidence for budget scrutiny, so I will ask you the same question. What has been the impact on your organisation as a consequence of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Is that to 2031?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I would like to pick up on the issue of safety, which has been a substantial concern for me and, I think, all of us on the committee. In one of our evidence sessions, someone made the point—which I was very taken with—that you can never make the selling of sex truly safe. The fundamental question for us is whether the bill makes it less safe for those involved. There has been conflicting evidence but concerns about safety have definitely been expressed—at the very least, there is a perception that the bill could make things less safe. Is that your uppermost concern?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
That is certainly my uppermost concern. It has been difficult because of the conflicting evidence that we have heard, as you said, but that concern has definitely been expressed.
Before I turn to your remarks about the need for substantial amendments, I would like to pick up on Liam Kerr’s questions. The bill is predicated on reducing demand, and he asked about the international evidence in that regard. In your letter of 29 July, you cite the Irish experience and the fact that the Irish justice minister set out that their review highlighted that demand had not decreased under the model. Has there been engagement and dialogue with other jurisdictions to try to understand what their practical experience has been?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I have one final question. You mentioned concerns about the provisions on quashing convictions. I know that other colleagues want to ask about that, but I have a specific question. A contrast will be drawn with the situation regarding the Post Office’s Horizon system. I want to better understand what you meant in your letter of 29 July, when you said, in relation to the Post Office case, that those convictions
“could not be considered as safe”.
Perhaps I can set out my understanding and see whether that tallies with what you have said. Putting to one side for a minute whether we think that there should be convictions under section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982—of course, that is the fundamental question, but it is the law as it stands—is your position that convictions in those cases can be considered safe?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Jamie Hepburn
My question is a follow on from the answer that you gave to my question about what types of substantial amendment would be required. Minister, you mentioned the type of assistance and support that should be provided for in the bill. There has been widespread support for on-going support and assistance for those who are involved in the selling of sex so that they are able to exit the selling of sex. It has not always been clear precisely what that should constitute, beyond its having to be available evenly across the country. I take the point that it is largely for the member in charge of the bill to answer about what is intended, but do you have any sense of what that support should look like—perhaps informed by the support that is available through operation begonia, for example?
I have an associated question. We all understand that the provision would be predicated on trying to get women out of the selling of sex. However, a perspective has been articulated—including by those who oppose the bill and by one or two people who have given evidence who support the bill—that support should be available for those who are not immediately leaving the sale of sex. Do you agree with that as well?