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 łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of łÉČËżěĘÖ 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 1673 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
To clarify, what is an “IDEC”?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
I do not agree with the cabinet secretary’s defining of this issue as being one of great magnitude, and certainly not when it is compared with the example that she just cited, which was the proposal to anonymise the child victims of murder. That is a whole different ball game and raises all sorts of issues related to freedom of speech and what is and is not in the public record.
I understand that the amendment would present practical difficulties for the judiciary. Having raised the issue on multiple occasions over the past 18 months or so, I also think that the Government has been talking to the judiciary. I do not think that we have had any formal feedback on that; it sounds as though it has all been fairly unofficial.
However, my position now is that, rather than trying to do the right thing but doing it badly, I will not press amendment 78 today. I do not intend to take up the cabinet secretary’s time if doing so would be fruitless or futile, but if there is scope for a brief discussion between stages 2 and 3 to see whether there is a way of bringing the matter back in an acceptable way, that would be very welcome.
Amendment 78, by agreement, withdrawn.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
Ah, it is A. I am sorry, I misheard that. I thought it was an E and I could not work it out.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
I am not wholly convinced by the argument that amendment 78 would create a whole lot of difficulties for justice and the administration of the courts because it is entirely discretionary and the Lord President or the sheriff principal would make a decision based on what is in front of them. That same argument also would not fly if a case was in a different level of the court system where, once again, that would be entirely discretionary.
I am encouraged, as I am sure that victims will be, to hear that there have been workshops and to hear about the various other bits of work that the cabinet secretary has referred to. That is good, but, if I am reading the cabinet secretary correctly, it sounds as if the judiciary do not like this one bit and might not be minded to proceed with something similar, even if it is non-legislative.
I have to decide whether to press amendment 78. Is there any scope for the cabinet secretary to give the idea some consideration between stages 2 and 3 and perhaps for a conversation in which some of those matters could be discussed in greater detail to see whether there is any common ground for some form of amendment that might attempt to go some way towards addressing this very important issue?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
I will just finish this up, then I will give way, if that is okay. The amendment requires the Lord President only to “have regard to” the same sheriff or judge sitting in both sets of proceedings. It does not compel him to do so.
For victims whose suffering is made worse by legal system abuse, amendment 78 is necessary, and I also think that it is fairly straightforward.
I am happy to give way.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
Absolutely. It is part of the difficulty being faced by victims and complainers in such cases. We have also seen in the civil courts how one of the parties—in some cases, the male abuser—can have access to funds and is able to pay for legal representation to pursue cases that might not, on the face of it, have much merit, simply to weaponise the process against the person with regard to whom they are facing criminal allegations. In those cases, the female victims often struggle to find the resources—whether it be legal aid or their own—to defend such actions, which might relate to, say, small claims or to divorce or child custody matters.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
Will the member take an intervention?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
Can you share it with us?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
On that point, I have been raising this directly with you, with the Government and with others for almost two years. As an MSP, I do not have the capacity to launch a consultation. The legislation in front of us is supposed to be a victims bill and if there had been a will from Government from the outset, perhaps some of that work on amending the legislation would have been done by the Government. The Government has done that in the past and we have seen quite dramatic amendments to other legislation, often at the last minute and without consultation. It seems to me that there is no real appetite for this.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2025
Russell Findlay
If you would like, yes.