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 成人快手 and committees will automatically update to show only the 成人快手 and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of 成人快手 and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of 成人快手 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 1190 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
According to the explanatory notes, the Lord Advocate will decide the sheriffdom. Is that not quite a big departure from the principles of jurisdiction under which we currently operate?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
That makes sense. Does the bill extend the Lord Advocate鈥檚 discretion to go beyond that?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
To be fair, you will see that we are all still using paper here. There is a certain insurance policy in our having paper in front of us.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
I do not want to get into any more complexity here but, based on what you have said, Paul Smith, would it make sense for the committee to separate out the issues in relation to virtual attendance from the issue of national jurisdiction? You are marrying the issues up in what you have said about the only way in which a national jurisdiction could work. However, given what you have said, it would make sense for the committee to scrutinise the full extent of the powers that are being asked for under the national jurisdiction provisions and to look separately at the rules around virtual attendance. Would that be your view?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
I take your point. However, there is still a test, which is not applied automatically.
I think that you have answered my question, and I hear your position on choice. However, the bill does not give people that choice; it simply says that virtual attendance can happen when that is in the interests of justice.
You are answering yes to my question, in that the facilities that you are developing will give reassurance to the court system. It is still important that witnesses give evidence in certain conditions. Even if the bill is passed without amendment, it would perhaps meet the test that the court will have to apply, which is that giving evidence remotely can be done if that is in the interests of justice.
Adam, did you want to respond?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Yes, but the bill does not say that. I have been ploughing through the explanatory notes and I am more confused than ever. I cannot see where the bill sets that out. The bill treats them as though they are separate provisions. I want to ask about national jurisdiction in a bit more detail, but am I right in saying that?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
I am thinking that there is good reason both for national jurisdiction, if it was qualified, and for virtual attendances, if the provision was refined to reflect some of your concerns. Would it be fair to say that?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Again, I will reflect on some of the issues. It is quite clear to me that, under the bill, the Lord Advocate would have complete discretion to decide sheriffdom. If the bill is passed, those powers will be in place.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
I come back to the answer to Katy Clark鈥檚 question on the practice note. As you know, when we revised the time limits on solemn cases in law鈥擨 will need to be reminded what year that would have been, but I think that it was 2004 or 2005鈥攚e changed the test to make it on cause shown.
In good faith, the Parliament did not think that there would be much change, but, as I am sure that you would agree, there was significant change. In the context of the bill鈥檚 national jurisdiction provisions, is it fair to say that, if we dealt with those concerns with only a practice note, the same thing will happen as happened in 2004? If we do not put something on the face of the bill that provides some framework for what the limitations would be, a practice note could be completely ignored.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Is there a middle ground? Is there something other than a practice note?