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 959 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Rona Mackay
That is very reassuring.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rona Mackay
It absolutely does. I want to ask you about when reviews are carried out in parallel with criminal proceedings and with regard to preventing prejudice. The Lord Advocate would have power to pause or end a review to prevent prejudice in those proceedings. How often and in what types of situations would that power be used?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rona Mackay
Good morning. I will ask about the determination of when and whether to hold a review. Where there is a reviewable death, the oversight committee would still need to decide whether to hold the review. I guess that that would mean determining, for example, whether lessons could be learned from the situation.
Could you say a wee bit more about how that would work in practice? To get an idea of the context and scale of numbers, in what proportion of cases where there is a reviewable death do you anticipate a review being carried out?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rona Mackay
I want to follow on from the convener’s question by asking about electronic signing of documents in criminal cases. That approach has been broadly supported and welcomed, but there has been a bit of discussion about the potential for digital exclusion in relation to some members of the public. Can you provide any reassurance in that respect to people who are not au fait with that technology?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rona Mackay
That was helpful. Do you agree that victims should be informed when a case has been dealt with by way of a fiscal fine?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rona Mackay
It is encouraging to know that the review would be speeded up for the families involved. That would definitely help to comfort them.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Rona Mackay
Moving on to the subject of fiscal fines, is the Government content that the powers of the prosecution to offer fiscal fines have been appropriately used and that the ability to impose higher fiscal fines has not given rise to problems in relation to people’s ability to pay and so on?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Rona Mackay
Good morning, Fiona, and thank you for your submission; I am pleased that you are very supportive of the bill. In your submission, you say that, in England,
“inquests provide a structured investigation into deaths.â€
How would you compare what we are proposing with what they have in England?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Rona Mackay
That is helpful—thank you. In your first answer to the convener, you mentioned anonymity. Will you expand on that a wee bit, including on the importance of anonymity and what you mean by it?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Rona Mackay
Good morning. So far, we have talked a lot about resources and finance, and I understand the importance of that. That said, I would like to take issue, Katie, with what you said at the start about the equally safe fund being depleted and not serving local needs. Frankly, I just do not believe that. Some £19 million has been given out to local authorities to work on such needs and on the preventative strategies that you said were not happening. I am just going to take issue with the premise of that. We might argue about the amount of it, but I would say that that fund fits perfectly into what we are trying to do here.
So far, all that I have heard about are barriers to the bill. If we could just go back to the bill that is in front of us, I am unsure whether any of you support its introduction. If we take finances out of the picture for a moment, do you support the previous witness’s view that there has been a long-standing gap in Scotland? England has a system in which families and victims are served better and that is what we are trying to do here. If you could clarify whether you support the bill, I would appreciate it.