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 MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs 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 3352 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
The people’s panel recommended that
“All services should be able to refer to each other”
and that funding should be in place to allow that to happen. You said that you listened to the evidence from the previous panel, where there was discussion about the services in local areas not necessarily being connected in the way that they need to be. We welcome the Government’s response to that recommendation, which states:
“We will explore this further to better understand the specific barriers the court service and police have in referring to third sector organisations.”
Can you provide the committee with a wee bit more detail on what that will involve?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
That is super. Thank you. We might be able to come back to that if there is time later in the session.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
The people’s panel recommended
“a guaranteed and protected five year minimum period of funding for community and third sector services”.
That theme has been discussed across the Parliament this year. Can you provide the committee with more detail on the fairer funding pilot scheme that you mention in your response to the people’s panel report? Does the Scottish Government intend to go a wee bit further than its current commitment of providing funding and grants for two years?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
In your response, you refer to data sharing, which is a crucial part of the effectiveness of referral and other processes. I am interested in hearing a wee bit more detail on what you are looking to do to improve data-sharing mechanisms and the robustness of the data that is collected.
10:30Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Good morning. My question touches on points that were raised earlier, particularly by Helen Douglas and Alison Weir. It is all very well for things to be in place, but are they working properly? Perhaps this is an opportunity for us to look under the bonnet a wee bit, to see what needs to change.
James Allan, your report made three recommendations under the justice and law reform theme. One said that
“All services should be able to refer to each other”
and that funding should be provided to support that. I am interested in hearing about any evidence that that is not currently taking place. What are the barriers and obstacles to that happening properly?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That is appreciated.
We will move on to part 2 of the bill. I will begin by asking a question about the proposed definition of domestic abuse. You have helpfully outlined why you have settled on the definition that is set out in the bill. However, as you have acknowledged, we heard a range of views on the proposed definition, including that it is too broad and is out of line with Scotland’s current definition. One recent witness, Dr Emma Forbes, described it as borrowing
“too much from other jurisdictions when we should be setting our own path.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 27.]
Could you add a little more detail on the thinking behind the range of situations that might be subject to a domestic homicide or suicide review?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
We have a bit to get through, so I am keen to encourage succinct questions and answers—I should have asked for that earlier. I will bring in Pauline McNeill.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you. I note the provisions in the bill that say that a case review panel could be instructed to carry out its review in conjunction with another form of review. That is reassuring.
I am conscious of time, so I will bring in Fulton MacGregor. We will then move on to part 1.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
I will now move us on to part 1. I will go first to Liam Kerr—once he is ready—and I will then bring in Pauline McNeill.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Audrey Nicoll
A couple of members still have questions, but I just want to ask about digital productions and the authentication of electronic copy documents. In relation to digital productions, some concerns have been expressed that the original physical item—the physical production—might be disposed of before the potential evidence benefits of retaining it have been fully explored. What work is being done on a retention and disposal policy? Given some of the evidence that we have heard, might there be scope to make the position clearer in the bill?