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 ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ 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 903 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 25 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
I have quite a lot of sympathy for amendments 1 and 69. From what I picked up, Pauline McNeill and Russell Findlay do not sound as though they are coming at the issue in a hard fashion. Obviously, Pauline will sum up on amendment 1. I think that the amendments are a request to the Government to say more about its thinking in this area, because the committee has had quite a lot of discussion about it.
It goes back to my earlier point. The whole purpose of the scheme is to get folk on to the licence through the training. The fewer barriers that there are to that, the better. It is common sense that the higher the fee is, the more people will decide not to get a licence.
We have to be honest. We are in the middle of a cost of living crisis that is having an impact on all our constituencies. My constituency is very much impacted. I am not an expert on costs and prices or on where the public might be with that, but I agree with Pauline McNeill that £20 to £25 will seem more reasonable than £50 in people’s minds when they are struggling to heat their homes.
Like other members, I am interested in hearing the Government’s thoughts on the issue. I know, from the session that the minister attended, that the Government is very conscious of the issue—it has always been very conscious, across the board, of the cost of living.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 25 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
I cannot support the amendments in the name of Russell Findlay as they stand just now. Having to disclose every offence would be unnecessary and possibly far too intrusive. There are tight regulations on the disclosure of offences, which happens only when someone appears at court for sentencing, say, or in other such scenarios. I also point out that the minister’s amendment 15, which I am minded to support, now means that spent convictions will have to be disclosed, which is perhaps even more important.
However, I think that Russell Findlay’s amendment 74 has some scope, and it is good to hear the minister say that the matter will be looked at before stage 3. There is scope for widening the provision beyond, say, fireworks offences—indeed, we can all think of various offences that might be relevant—but the Government and Russell Findlay will have to do a lot of work on how that might work and whether such a provision might infringe other human rights.
As I have said in relation to the last three groups of amendments, we want people to use the licensing scheme, and if someone with an offence from 20 years ago does not really know whether it will come up, they might well be put off applying for a licence and continue to use fireworks anyway. However, although a lot of work needs to be done, I definitely welcome these moves and think that there is scope to increase the offences to be disclosed.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 25 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene’s amendment 67. On the face of it, it seems to make sense that people in the younger cohort are more likely to be involved in problematic firework use. However, on the other side, moving the age to 21 would perhaps negate some of the benefits of people applying for a licence and going through the training that we have talked about. Actually, that group is probably the one that we want to capture most with the training. Jamie Greene might respond to that by saying that there are other ways to ensure that people are educated, through schools and other methods. However, the licensing gives a unique opportunity for young people to look at the issues and see the consequences.
There is also the issue of criminalisation for 18 to 21-year-olds if they are prevented from getting a licence. Obviously, we want to encourage people to get a licence. On that basis, I am not likely to support amendment 67.
As Katy Clark said, on the face of it, amendment 68 seems fairly sensible, and we heard about the issue in committee. However, I would like to hear what the minister has to say on the amendment, because it raises questions for me. If one person could apply on behalf of a community, could everyone in the community use the fireworks? Who would be responsible for the risks associated with that? There are probably more question marks.
On the face of it, amendment 68 looks quite good, but it probably raises more questions, and I think that the minister is likely to ask us not to vote for it. I will wait to hear what she says on that.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 25 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
I am generally supportive of amendments 60 and 61, in the name of Jamie Greene; at least, I am supportive of the principle behind them, which is an attempt to tighten up the use of licences, which is a big part of the bill.
However, as Pauline McNeill and Katy Clark have said, and as Jamie Greene has reflected on, the amendments might not be the finished article. I am keen to hear whether the minister has any concerns and if so, what they are and whether the possibility of overcriminalisation is one of them. If people are trying to do the right thing, criminalising them would not be the right way to go. However, Jamie Greene has offered to work with the minister with regard to what he is trying to achieve with the amendments, and perhaps we could take that forward at stage 3. That is a sensible approach, because we want to see the licensing scheme work.
I think that Jamie Greene’s fear—which the minister might be able to alleviate when she speaks—is that, if there is a way not to present a licence, then most people will not present one and licensing will not really be enforced. We would like to see it the other way about: if a licence is needed, you need to present one, unless you can demonstrate why you do not have to do so. I will wait to hear what the minister says about that.
I am not entirely clear how amendment 46 would work. I appreciate Katy Clark’s explanation of it, but it would be good to hear what the minister thinks about that, too.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 25 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
I have some sympathy with Jamie Greene’s amendment because he consistently raised the issue, as did Katy Clark, throughout the stage 1 evidence taking and in the stage 1 debate. However, a requirement for review is not needed in the bill. Katy Clark assures us that it would not delay the bill’s implementation. The minister might have different views on that. Any risk of delay is simply not worth it, because the committee has invested a lot in an already truncated timescale, which has been widely debated.
We are talking about there being a possibility that current legislation is not being used effectively. The argument could be made that we need new legislation so that the powers will be used. The new legislation would be in the public eye and in prosecutors’ minds to use. We all want effective legislation.
Perhaps the minister will offer that a review like the one required by the amendment could be carried out anyway. Katy Clark touched on that. The Government could do that and it does not need to be in the bill. Therefore, I am not minded to support the amendment.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
Thanks very much for that and for taking the opportunity to reinforce your earlier point. Bruce Adamson, do you have any thoughts on that area?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
Thanks for that, Bruce. My second area of questioning is on the provision that would make it a criminal offence to make a false statutory declaration or application. I will come to Bruce Adamson first on that, as in his opening remarks he spoke about his worry about the impact that that could have, especially on 16 and 17-year-olds. Could he expand on that and let me know what his concerns are?
I note that in a previous answer Ellie Gomersall spoke about the age of legal responsibility, albeit in another context. I was a member of the committee that took through the bill that became the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019. Given where the country is perhaps trying to go on the criminalisation of children, where does the provision in the bill fit in with that?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
I appreciate that response. You touched on the fact that although there is a great deal of support for the bill, there is also a great deal of worry about it, which the committee is obviously hearing about.
The committee as a whole is keen to bring in legislation that makes it as easy as possible for people to live the lives that they want to lead. Do you not feel that the provisions on the criminal offence provide some reassurance to those who are opposed to the bill based on the concerns that have been raised? We have heard from you and other witnesses that anybody who applies for a gender recognition certificate will have already been living as trans for quite some time, so it is a decision that will have been taken a long time ago. Do you not feel that making it a criminal offence for somebody to make a false declaration will provide reassurance to those who have concerns about the bill?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
Do the bodies for different sports across the country come to you to seek advice on this issue?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Fulton MacGregor
Good morning. I have two broad areas of questioning. The first is on the evidence that the committee has heard in support of the removal of the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Ellie Gomersall, we have already heard your opening statement, in which you made your views and those of your organisation quite clear. Before I come to Bruce Adamson, do you wish to put any other views on that requirement on the record, for the benefit of committee members?