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 914 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
On that basis, once the court has made the decision on who the judicial factor should be, after looking into the background of the case and what it is about, what happens if someone disagrees? Is it possible for anyone to challenge that decision?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
That seems perfectly sensible—somebody has to do it, do they not?
We understand that, when the court appoints a judicial factor in relation to a solicitor or a firm of solicitors under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, it is typically the Law Society’s in-house judicial factor who is appointed. In other words, it is the society’s director of interventions—that is you, Ms Grandison. However, the Faculty of Procurators of Caithness has suggested that the current system does not always work and that the judicial factor in such cases should always be wholly independent of the Law Society.
Ms Grandison, I think that you should answer this question first, and then anyone else on the panel who wants to comment is welcome to do so. Does the Law Society—or anyone else who wants to comment—believe that the current approach, with an in-house factor, is the correct one?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
We talked earlier about how long some judicial factories can last. Do you think that the average judicial factory lasts long enough that there needs to be concern about the nature of the investments? You have said that there are new kinds of investment that might not have been thought of before. Will some judicial factories last long enough to cause concern, even though they did not cause concern at their start?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Is there a general perception that, actually, it gives comfort to people who are in those circumstances?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
The case has to progress so, once the elements of contention have been considered, the court will make its final decision, basically.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you—that is really useful. I suppose that that fits in with the statement in the strategic plan that the commissioner’s office will work
“as an Independent Children’s Rights Institution”.
There needs to be a focal point and a place that people know that they can go to. They need to know what their rights are, and if people or organisations breach those rights, they need somebody with expertise to know what direction to head in to resolve that. Is that the approach that you will take in order to uphold children’s rights? Do you have an idea about timescales?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you very much. That is helpful.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you for everything that you have outlined. You have pretty much covered this, but on promoting access to justice for breaches of children’s rights—that is a commitment in the plan—who will you approach so that those can be resolved? It is fine—I am not saying that this is what you are doing—to say, “This is wrong and we’re going to sort it out,” but how do you sort that out? Who do you approach to bring on board in legal terms, if it comes to that?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 April 2024
Bill Kidd
I thank the witnesses for their responses, which have been very helpful.
Section 5 of the bill would abolish the requirement to find caution, save in exceptional circumstances. One policy justification for that is that, when a professional is appointed as a judicial factor, they will have professional indemnity insurance. However, in response to your discussion paper in 2010, the Accountant of Court said that she thought that the scope of accountants’ professional indemnity insurance might not be as broad as is generally thought, and that it might not cover embezzlement by accountants. If you remember that—I know that that is going back a bit—did the commission resolve that concern when it was raised when developing its policy on section 5?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 April 2024
Bill Kidd
That would be useful; we could perhaps delve a bit deeper into that.
Staying on caution, in response to the committee’s call for views, the University of Aberdeen and R3 said that they thought that the threshold for requiring caution in section 5 is now too high. Do you have any comments on that? For example, does the phrase “exceptional circumstances” fit with the general policy desire to make judicial factors a solution for the families with missing relatives? Do you see the link there?