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
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Russell Findlay
The other issue that I wish to discuss is to the use of pre-recorded evidence. That does happen now, but the new legislation will make it the default. Some new research by Professor Cheryl Thomas KC at University College London, which came out a few days ago, found that, across all crimes, the rate of conviction is 10 per cent lower when pre-recorded evidence is used. In respect of rape crimes, it is 20 per cent lower. That is not absolute, and it may not wholly apply, but I wonder whether that research, which I am sure that you are aware of, has surprised you in any way. Has it given you any cause to rethink the whole-hearted support for those arrangements in the bill? If not, what might be done to mitigate or fix that anticipated decrease in conviction rates? That might be one for Sandy Brindley to address.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Presumably, the Crown and the courts have information about conviction rates where that approach has been used, both for crimes of a sexual nature and for crimes of a non-sexual nature. That is something that we should consider.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Russell Findlay
With regard to single-judge and non-jury rape trials, I note that Rape Crisis Scotland’s submission talks about the conduct of “unsympathetic and unreceptive judges” towards rape victims and suggests that, even with training, they might hold biased views. In fact, a judge in a recent case misdirected a jury, resulting in a child rapist walking free and adding to the victim’s trauma—and that happened in much more enlightened times. I wonder whether the bill goes far enough in respect of the requirements on the judiciary to ensure that, especially with judge-only trials, judges get sufficient training.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I presume that, if you had had some form of legal representation, you would have been able to respond to that.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Yes.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Russell Findlay
On the part about presenting a risk to women, if it is deemed that someone like Isla Bryson, or another male-bodied sex criminal, was deemed in an SPS assessment not to present a risk, they could go to the women’s estate.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Okay. So, under the new policy, a male-bodied criminal with a history of violence could move to the female estate.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I am sure that I speak for many łÉČËżěĘÖ and members of the public when I say that today’s session was pretty frustrating and fell short of really meaningful scrutiny. That is no criticism of the convener or the clerks, given the time that we had available, but, ultimately, the SPS policy puts the rights of male prisoners who identify as women above the rights of voiceless and vulnerable female inmates. It allows for an acceptable risk of harm to women, and it is a retread of the previous flawed policy.
If I understand it correctly, SSI 2023/364 allows staff to disclose information about prisoners’ trans status in the execution of their duty, which seems to be entirely proper.
On SSI 2023/366, although the default rule is that a trans-identifying male prisoner would be expected to be searched, or could be searched, by a female prison officer, the SSI allows for a prisoner of that definition to seek to be searched by someone of their birth sex. That is not in itself controversial. However, what is much more concerning in relation to the searching issue is that, despite repeated attempts, I was unable to elicit from the Scottish Prison Service today an answer as to whether prison officers in the female estate will have an opt-out when it comes to searching people who are male-bodied.
Obviously, we do not have a vote on the policy in its entirety: if we did, I would vote against it for all the reasons that we have touched on and many more that we have not had time to touch on. However, I do not intend to move the motions to annul the two SSIs.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I understand the new procedure, but I think that the short answer in both scenarios is yes—in theory, they could move to the women’s estate.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Okay. Thank you.
The next question is for the cabinet secretary. SPS documents that explain the new policy say that, if prison staff misgender an inmate, that could breach the inmate’s human rights. Article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which relates to inhuman and degrading treatment, is cited. However, not so long ago, Humza Yousaf said that Isla Bryson was “at it”. Nicola Sturgeon refused to say whether she thought Bryson was a man or a woman.
Why should Scottish National Party First Ministers be free to speak that very basic truth while SPS staff and female inmates are prohibited from doing so?