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 1169 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
My amendment 58 would require the Scottish ministers to publish a one-off report within a year of section 6 coming into force on the impact of the permanent increased scale of fiscal fine penalties. That report would cover
“an assessment of the number of fixed penalties issued”,
the impact of the permanent higher sum on reoffending and on victims, and whether the permanent
“increase in the scale of fixed penalties has a positive or negative impact on the courts.”
The Scottish ministers would also be able to determine other elements to include in the report.
My amendment is intended to complement and tie in with Liam Kerr’s amendment 50 in this group, which would, as we have heard, remove the power of Scottish ministers to increase fiscal fines beyond £500 by regulation. The committee heard some concern about the impact of permanently increasing the level of fiscal fines, such as the ability of certain individuals to pay them. It is important to monitor the impact of the increased scale of fiscal fines on reoffending rates and on victims.
We support the permanent increase in fiscal fines, in line with the general support from stakeholders and recognition of inflation. However, it should be monitored to ensure that the fines are used effectively. In its written submission, the Scottish Women’s Convention noted that it holds “strong reservations” about the permanent increase. It stated that the majority of those who receive fiscal fines
“reside in the most deprived areas in Scotland”
and it believes that,
“in most cases, fines worsen an individual’s outcomes, placing many into further financial hardship.”
Adult justice services at the City of Edinburgh Council indicated support for the permanent increase in fiscal fine penalties, but acknowledged that there must be
“a realistic prospect that a fine imposed will be paid, otherwise the proposal could increase pressure on the justice system.”
In recent discussions with the Law Society and Victim Support Scotland regarding the bill, both stakeholders indicated support for my amendment to monitor the use and impact of the permanent increase.
Amendment 58 would improve our understanding of the use and impact of fiscal fines, address concerns that stakeholders have raised, ensure that we measure the impact that the increase has on reoffending and ensure that the use of those fines gives justice to victims.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
My question was whether the restitution order replaces compensation orders.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
The police, as a victim.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
Are remand prisoners offered the chance to go on a course?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
It does. In fact, on your comment on the SPS survey, I see that it recorded that 240 respondents wanted help for drug support and 201 wanted help for alcohol support, but did not receive it prior to leaving custody.
I return to your submission, Ms McFall. You wrote that help
“varies significantly depending on which establishment one is in.”
It also mentions
“being transferred to a prison where there was no recovery support available.”
Your submission goes on to note that
“Not all prisons in Scotland have specific staff allocated to supporting and embedding a recovery-oriented approach”.
Do you have any comments on that? Can you say why that is not happening?
It is such an issue that the committee has decided to do an inquiry into it. It has been brought up by the Scottish Parliament people’s panel. We already know what the issue is, so why is there such a range of services available in different prisons and why do some seem not to give any support at all?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
Is the barrier the resources to do it, or are some of the barriers the culture and that you cannot get a recovery cafe into all the prisons?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
So, a victim would get paid from a compensation order.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
Right—you will come back to that.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
So, would the police not get a compensation order, as the victim?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Sharon Dowey
Would the police still be entitled to a compensation order?