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
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Other members are interested in your points about definitions, but you also spoke about the review process. The bill proposes two tiers, if you like, of process in that the review oversight committee would make the initial assessment and judgment, I presume, about which cases would then go to a case review panel. That sounds relevant, given the potentially expanded number of cases that might fit within that provision. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the proposal to have an arrangement in which there is an oversight committee and a review panel.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Unless members have more questions about definitions specifically, which was something that we covered in the first session this morning in some detail, I will move on to the actual process.
I have a question on your written submission, Professor Devaney, which relates to the possibility of a joint review process. I am quite interested in that. You correctly referenced the fact that the bill promotes consideration of the possibility of a joint review with mutually agreed terms of reference and you—I think that it was you—set out thoughts on the importance of terms of reference because, sometimes, their absence really compromises a review process. I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts about a potential joint review process, perhaps also pulling in the importance of terms of reference.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Liam Kerr has a quick follow-up question before we finish.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
That it is a helpful clarification.
I have a final question for Detective Superintendent Brown. The police submission seems to raise some concern about section 20, which places a duty on the chief constable to co-operate with the review process. Would you care to share a wee bit more on that particular point?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Okay. I will flip the question on the scope of the review around a wee bit and ask whether there are relationships that are not included that you think should be. Based on what you have said already, I suspect that the answer is no, but it is worth asking the question.
11:30Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you—there are some really interesting points there. We may be straying slightly from the provisions, but you are helpfully circling them back to the review process that is being proposed.
With that, I bring in Liam Kerr.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
That was really helpful. A clear theme is emerging around the practicalities and cost implications.
I have one follow-up question, and I would welcome hearing from anyone who wanted to come in on it. Last week, we took evidence from, among others, Stuart Munro of the Law Society of Scotland, who referred to a piece of work that is supported by a working group convened by Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar. It is looking specifically at the development of a virtual custody process to address the concerns that had been identified in the pilot of that process. Are any of you involved in that working group?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
That is super. I take it that you are involved, too, Laura Buchan.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you very much, Neil. Those were helpful opening comments.
I want to link the point about learning lessons with the question of what the experience of other jurisdictions has been. First, I will go to John Devaney and then I will jump back to Neil Websdale. Are there similar review systems in other jurisdictions that could inform our approach to considering the process of learning lessons from reviews? Do you think that the bill reflects what is necessary in that space—if that makes any sense?
12:00Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you. I will bring in Professor Neil Websdale. I hope that you can hear us okay. We are interested in your initial thoughts on the proposals on the domestic homicide and suicide review process.