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 1264 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Cabinet secretary, I am honestly quite confused about what you said to me about the reason why the SPS has announced that it will no longer give us data on which estate transgender prisoners are in. Is it general data protection regulation that we are talking about? If so, has the legal advice changed? Can you give that advice to the committee? I would like to understand where this is coming from.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Okay. If we have the same GDPR law and it has not changed, why has the legal advice to ministers changed, all of a sudden?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Why did you reconsider the position?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Good afternoon. I want to return to Russell Findlay’s question to Teresa Medhurst. I found your answer helpful, Teresa, but I want to ensure that I understood correctly what you said to the committee.
The policy is that a transgender woman who has been convicted of an offence of violence against women or girls and poses a risk to females will not be admitted to the female estate. The confusion arises with the phrase “and poses a risk”. I want to examine that.
I think that you told Russell Findlay that you could not envisage a situation in which the fact that someone has been convicted would not be seen as their posing a risk. Is that right?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
It is clear, then, that any transgender woman who has committed an offence will not go to the female estate. That is what you have said.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Am I right in saying that the Prison Officers Association did not sign off on the policy?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
I have one further question for Teresa Medhurst and then one question for the cabinet secretary. Professor Jo Phoenix, of the University of Reading, wrote to the SPS as part of the consultation; I am not questioning why you did not speak to her, because we do not have time. Sharon Dowey has already laid the foundation for this, and I think that, in response, you accepted the nature of women’s offending and that we have dealt with women offenders very well over the years—we are agreed on that.
What Professor Phoenix has said—and she is not the only person to say this—is that the policy is “not evidence based” and that it
“does not adequately provide for the safety of female prisoners”,
who I think you accept are a vulnerable and marginalised group. Do you agree with that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Just finally, cabinet secretary—
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
What has changed in that period? Has the law changed, or something?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 11 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
I am trying to tease out what those exceptional circumstances are. You did not say that to Russell Findlay. Does that mean that there would be no requirement for any transgender woman to go before a multidisciplinary panel if they have committed such an offence, given that, effectively, you have said that there is more or less a blanket ban on any transgender woman who has committed such an offence going to the female estate?