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
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I am just trying to illustrate exactly what you said there, cabinet secretary鈥攚e all have to use our judgment. It is hard to decide whether to support the new option on the table; I find it confusing that some support it, but not the two-thirds majority. The senators support it, and you have gone with that, but some still support the 12-juror approach, and others want unanimity. It is really difficult to see a way through all that.
Where we agree鈥攁nd I think that the committee agrees with this, too鈥攊s that, given all the options, if we think that the system, with corroboration and the three verdicts, was reasonably balanced, we will need to find out how we ensure fairness for everyone in a new system. I welcome what you have done with juries, but I just wanted to illustrate that view.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I am not asking for that. You know my position on the sexual offences court, which is that the issue could be resolved by making the sexual offences court a division of the High Court and of the sheriff court. We would then not need to go into the mechanics of who represents whom. However, as you are creating a new court, I would have thought that we would all be interested in making sure that the representation aspect is not diluted by the new court. It would be helpful if you could clarify that point.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
You referred to the mock trials. Was it that data that made you conclude that 12 was the number of jurors to go with?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I was just trying to ascertain the Government鈥檚 position on why that is a fairer approach. It was a two-thirds majority before, and it is a two-thirds majority now. The Government received representations from the senators before it drafted the bill, but it has now changed it because, as you have said, it has to be fair for everyone. Presumably, that is your rationale. If you are saying that you are changing it because many people support such a change, that is surely not a rationale for doing so, because it does not really matter who supports what if you are trying to achieve fairness.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
We know who does not support it, but I just wanted to give you a chance to say who does.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I turn to rights of audience. I thank your team for all the work that they have done in responding to the committee鈥檚 concerns on that, but it might be helpful to put some of this on the record.
My understanding is that you have tried to address the question of rights of audience because, if a case is prosecuted in the High Court, it will attract not only an advocate depute on behalf of the Crown but counsel on behalf of the defence. You have tried to replicate the current position as best you can and to get the right approach in relation to anything that is likely to attract a sentence of more than five years. However, I do not think that you have said anything about who would prosecute those cases. As you know, in the sheriff court, it is procurators fiscal who prosecute cases, but advocate deputes prosecute in the High Court. Is there still a gap in relation to who appears in the sexual offences court?
If you solve the question of rights of audience to ensure that the accused is represented by counsel in the same way that they would have been had the case gone to the High Court, correspondingly, you need to ensure that there is an advocate depute prosecuting the cases that were previously prosecuted in the High Court. We are talking, for example, about non-rape cases involving serious sexual offences that would attract sentences of more than five years.
I do not know whether you have said anything about that, but it has occurred to me that that needs to be resolved as well.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
At the moment, the Lord Advocate would appoint advocate deputes, but, with sheriff court cases, there is no requirement for that, and procurators fiscal would prosecute those cases. If you do not prescribe for the prosecution, you could have a disparity. Does that make sense to you?
11:15Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
We do not have any data to rely on to know whether a majority of 10 to five would achieve, as you have set out, fairness to victims and the accused. It is a bit of a shot in the dark.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
However, the same data would be used to determine whether 15 was fairer, too. Do you see where I am going with that?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Beyond that, would the normal rules apply?