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 [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I will do my best, but the problem is that there is a lot of complexity in the bill. I want to try to understand what the Government is writing into the bill.
My question should be fairly succinct and is on the broad provisions to allow virtual attendance for any proceedings. The Lord Justice General has powers to say that someone can attend virtually. How is that process kicked off? My reading of the bill is that the court can overturn that, which I presume is on an individual case-by-case basis. What would prompt the Lord Justice General to make such a decision in a case that they are not directly involved in?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Why is the subsection needed, then?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
The explanatory notes referred to a court “dealing with a case”. Up to what stage does that mean?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Does that mean, then, that this subsection applies up to full committal?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Thank you very much. That was helpful.
I want to ask about the costs, but perhaps you cannot answer this question. I think that Liam Kerr tried to get an answer from you about it.
You said in the letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee that £4.2 billion is being invested across the criminal justice system, but I am interested in what amount of that £4.2 billion is being allocated for modernisation. Most witnesses who believe that this is a good thing will still say that it cannot really do what it is supposed to do unless there is some investment in the technology. I believe that a sheriff court went down yesterday, because the connection was so poor. Indeed, I have seen it myself—it happens all the time.
We have seen this before with promises that we will be able to work out the costs once the legislation is passed. However, I have concerns about passing laws that substantially overturn existing practices without knowing what the Government will spend. Even the police are saying that they would love to have the flexibility of not physically having to attend court but, under the current arrangement, that is not practical. The Government needs to give us an answer on what investment it will make and how quickly it can make it.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I totally understand that. Obviously, you have to start somewhere. Notwithstanding what you might say about its being a matter for the courts, though, surely it is still a matter for you, as cabinet secretary, to be satisfied that the courts, using the powers that you will give them, are rolling out the virtual system at the point at which everyone feels content that it is the quality that it should be.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Maybe I have misunderstood. The Lord Justice General can use the power for a class of hearings. I have followed this line of questioning previously and I did not get that answer, although it was not you I was asking. You are saying that the power is for a class of hearings. For example, the Lord Justice General could say that all sentencing hearings will be done virtually.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
In that case, does anyone want to explain what is meant by proposed new section 5B(7) in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as inserted by section 7 of the bill? The explanatory notes say:
“Subsection (7) means that a court which began dealing with a case at the petition stage can continue dealing with it”.
I previously put this question to the Crown. The notes go on to say:
“In practice, because jurisdiction under subsection (5) ends with an accused being fully committed for trial ... subsection (7) is likely to be relevant”.
When I put the question on that, I got the impression that people were asking, “Why do we even need that in the bill?”
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
But the notes about the subsection say that
“a court which began dealing with a case at the petition stage can continue dealing with it”.
Does that not refer to solemn cases, too?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Right. It is important to get that on the record, as you said, cabinet secretary. I am sure that you agree that there is a balance to be struck between the operational matters and a fair legal framework, in which the default position is physical appearance but virtual appearance is allowed when the case can be made for it.
On the specified locations, I have a similar line of questioning to Liam Kerr’s. Does the bill specify requirements in relation to setting? Does the appearance have to be from a specific approved place?