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 ˿ and committees will automatically update to show only the ˿ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ˿ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ˿ 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
My next questions are the same as those that I put to the Scottish Criminal Bar Association and relate to the subsections of the bill that deal with how far the approach can go after the first appearance. When I raised the issue with the association, its position was that, on the face of it, the bill will allow the court to go much further than a custody hearing.
I will tell you what my concerns are in that respect. If we take the bill as a whole—that is, the national jurisdiction elements, with sheriffs being able to sit anywhere, virtual attendance and that provision, which, as I understand it, means that the approach can go well beyond the first appearance—does it give the court system an awful lot of power to determine many things beyond the first appearance? I had thought that, in the way that it was presented, the bill would apply only to certain hearings, but the provision seems to allow things to go much further, if the court thinks fit. That gives me cause for concern.
I accept the cabinet secretary’s point about letting the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service run the courts, but there are principles of fairness and established things such as jurisdiction, where people are tried and so on that could be overturned. First of all, though, can you tell me whether the bill does that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Yes—thank you, convener. It is a question for Katie Brown. I thank you for introducing to the conversation the importance of effecting change. I just want to understand the funding for equally safe. Is there national funding for the programme? I know that it is not rolled out in every school, as we would hope.
To be clear, as you mentioned it, is the bill the right place in which to address the finances of all programmes like equally safe?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
No. I just raised that because Katie Brown mentioned it in her opening statement. She also mentioned the financial memorandum. My only other question is a yes or no supplementary. Does the funding have to be addressed in the financial memorandum?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
I agree.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Is that intended for public officials?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
As a parliamentarian, I am asking you to persuade me to pass this particular provision. What can you tell me about the conditions? I would not be happy if I did not know that both the Crown and the courts system would have a specific place or a designated set of circumstances. Without that, how can I possibly be satisfied that a trial will be fair? Do you see what I mean?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. First of all, so that you understand where I am coming from, we are all agreed that virtual attendance can be helpful to the court system when everyone is content with its use. I am trying to drill into the detail of the balance between the saving of time and the fairness of the processes. That is what I am interested in.
This might be a question for Laura Buchan or Malcolm Graham. Defence agents have raised a lot of concern about the importance of their ability to talk to their clients, which needs to be tied up. I attended a virtual custody session in Glasgow sheriff court about 18 months ago and could see that there were lots of issues. In fact, the sheriff had a break and said to me that that was just what it was like and that it was impossible, which speaks to the importance of the quality. To be frank, I could not even identify the accused on the screen from what I could see. We all want to be in a different place from that.
We all know how stretched defence agents are. Simon Brown gave evidence last week that they cannot easily be in two places—a virtual hearing and one that is not virtual. How will you ensure that defence agents can deal with the virtual attendance of accused persons?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
Have you now discussed with defence agents whether they think that that will work?
10:30Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Pauline McNeill
I agree with that, but I am also concerned about those provisions. To be honest, it looks like a case of “We’ll take all these powers just in case we need them.” Your assurances are really helpful, but, as Katy Clark said earlier, we must deal with the black letter of the law, and, as it stands, I am not entirely comfortable with a subsection that says that only one person decides the jurisdiction and that the case can be taken in any court. I would want reassurances that pleadings could be made to apply the common sense that we have had all along, on the grounds of special reasons. The bill really opens up that power.