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 1190 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 15 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
You are not alone in that.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 15 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
It is just PIRC officers.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 15 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 15 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. Liam Kerr asked questions about the budget. During the passage of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill you made clear your position on including the role of presenting cases against senior officers. Did you get a response from the Government after stage 1 and stage 2 about your concerns? We are voting on the bill today. Did you get any response?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 15 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Finally, you mentioned the legal costs of the Sheku Bayoh case. Will you clarify for the committee whose legal costs you were referring to?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. I have found all the evidence enlightening and helpful, so thank you for all your evidence so far.
Dr Heyman, you started off by talking about the significant gaps in provision, particularly for those who were intoxicated. I was trying to tie that up with what Dr Steel was saying about the gap. Ben Macpherson referred to having a front-door service to deal with both things. What does that mean for the model that we are trying to create? I am familiar with many such cases, and I agree that, rightly or wrongly, the NHS will not take someone who is drunk, so the police are quite often left with them; otherwise, the person is in danger. Does the service that you are talking about creating deal with those types of cases?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Is that because you can tell that the number of calls has reduced?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Thank you—it was helpful to get that on the record.
In our session with the first panel of witnesses, I quoted the Scottish Police Federation, which said:
“We have evidence that community triage teams are now pushing back on calls from Police Scotland due to a lack of capacity within their area of business.”
I presume that you are aware of that. Is that part of the issue?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
I agree. I, too, would like to see the evidence. However, that is a comment that has been made. I suppose that it is a case of matching up the aspiration with the reality that we are faced with. That is what we are all interested in.
In our session with the first panel, we heard about a model that involves providing another space where the police do not need to get involved, which sounds like the right model. That means that the police get their hours back and the vulnerable people concerned get the right service. However—Sharon Dowey and I have been pursuing this issue—although the NHS and the police work 24/7, not all services do that. Without that being the case, it will be difficult to achieve that model, because a lot of the calls that we are talking about will be made out of hours. I do not know what the numbers show.
I will quote from the letter from ASPS, if you do not mind, to illustrate how far away it thinks we are from that. It says:
“While these initiatives are universally well-intentioned and anecdotally benign in character, none of them has yet to have a systemic impact on the colossal demand felt by policing in Scotland.”
That is just the association’s version of where we are now. Do you want to respond to that?
12:30Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Good afternoon, cabinet secretary, and Lynsey McKean and Alastair Cook.
I want to go back to the central reasons why the committee has set time aside to conduct this important inquiry. We have had strong and encouraging evidence. I will quote from the letter from Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and I would like to hear your response to that. The letter refers to the cabinet secretary’s update letter of 8 August. The first thing that I picked out is probably accepted. The letter says:
“The central issue for policing at a strategic level is that there have been increasing societal issues around the prevalence of mental health and related vulnerabilities. This has led to a “mission-creep” from the core police mission, the demand from which today weighs upon police resources to such an extent that police performance in other areas is suffering badly.”
The recurring theme is the impact of those issues on policing our communities. That is why we are driving this work forward.
The letter from the ASPS also goes on to say:
“Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Cabinet Secretary’s letter to suggest that the Scottish Government truly understands the impact of Mental Health incidents on Police Scotland. It does not acknowledge either the negative impact on core policing functions or describe a need to alleviate the pressure on policing.”
I thought that that was pretty direct. Do you want to respond to that?