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 3310 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
The next group concerns the establishment of a sexual offences court. Amendment 76, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 155, 156, 26 to 52, 56 and 58.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
The question is, that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
I want to make some final points. I agree with colleagues on the committee that this has far and away been the most difficult decision on the bill. It has felt like a conundrum, as Pauline McNeill described it. I am not ashamed to admit that I have been grappling with the issue for the past year, as I am sure my colleagues have, and I am grateful to them for considering the provision in what I feel has been a thorough, robust and respectful way. Ultimately, we all want to do the right thing, because we do not underestimate the implications of the decision and, indeed, other decisions that the committee will make for our constituents and the people of Scotland.
I agree with Ben Macpherson that we took a significant amount of evidence from stakeholders at stage 1. My sense, then, was that they wanted change; as we know, the system as far as the experience of victims is concerned is not good enough. We considered some evidence on this matter.
Following the publication of our stage 1 report, I read with interest some commentary on the committee’s position on jury size and majority requirements. I do not know whether it was meant as criticism, but there was commentary about the way in which we had reached our decision, and our feeling that there was not enough research on which to base a position. A view was expressed with regard to committee members’ willingness to come to a decision on a matter of personal principle, and that stuck with me. The question is: what do we feel is the right thing to do?
I have listened to the points that have been made and agree with many of the comments about the implications of corroboration and the removal of the not proven verdict. We will be making this decision shortly, and perhaps we do so with some blind spots, but we are all in that position together.
I want to comment on other points that committee colleagues have made. I am not comfortable with Liam Kerr’s point about mirroring another jurisdiction, no matter how close that system feels. I have always been anxious about making comparisons where the models that we are comparing are not aligned, even if they are only slightly not aligned. That concerns me.
With regard to Sharon Dowey’s amendment 92, I note the comments that the cabinet secretary made to the committee at the end of February on the supermajority proposal. They stuck with me, and I find myself agreeing with them. On her concern about a supermajority, she said:
“When we consulted on the bill—I appreciate that that was some time ago—there was low support for near unanimity in a reformed system. It was something like 13 per cent. It also feels disproportionate to go from a system that requires a little bit more than 50 per cent to convict to one that, in the context of a majority of 13 out of 15, would require 87 per cent.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 26 February 2025; c 5.]
I find myself aligned with that concern.
11:00With regard to Pauline McNeill’s points and her amendments on research, I am comforted and reassured that provision is made on research in amendments that we will consider later. I am reassured by that provision, and I think it right that it is included.
In conclusion, I have found myself moving from a position of being quite troubled by the magnitude of the decision to feeling more comfortable and reassured and to thinking about my decision as a matter of principle. I feel more at ease with the Government’s proposal of retaining a jury size of 15 but with a majority requirement of 10. I feel that that is an additional safeguard, and I am persuaded by it.
I call the cabinet secretary to wind up.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
We will have to work through the amendments one by one, but I acknowledge the update that you have provided.
Amendment 27 not moved.
Section 38 agreed to.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
The question is, that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
I remind members that, if amendment 74 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 148, 149 and 150 because of pre-emption.
Amendment 74 not moved.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
I call amendment 92, in the name of Sharon Dowey. I remind members that if amendment 92 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 148 to 150 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 92 moved—[Sharon Dowey].
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
The question is, that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
I call Karen Adam to wind up and indicate whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 233.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Audrey Nicoll
That might be a clue that we should have a short break.
11:16 Meeting suspended.After section 34