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 367 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
I will move us on to sections 65 and 66, which cover expenses of litigation. The Law Society has raised concerns about the current policy underpinning section 65, which provides principles to determine how legal bills are paid for in trust cases. It says that section 65 will deter people from becoming trustees and may lead trustees to unfavourably settle or abandon legal proceedings for fear of personal liability.
Some of the witnesses might have heard our discussion about that with the previous panel of witnesses. We would be interested to hear from the witnesses who are not representing the Law Society whether they share the concerns that it has raised with us or can offer the committee any reassurance. We would also be interested to hear from all panel members whether the availability of insurance might help to mitigate the risks that the Law Society identified.
Would Laura Dunlop like to kick us off?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
As I understood it, the proposal was not to instruct but to include a clarification, for the avoidance of doubt. Are you saying that you do not think that that would be necessary, or that it would be unhelpful if it was included in the bill?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
Are there changes that you would like to be made, based on that concern?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 9 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
I have a follow-up question. Would amending the bill in line with that approach mean that the definition would automatically be updated when it was updated in the 2000 act? Is it a more streamlined option for future proofing the bill—if, instead of having a set definition, it refers to the definition and interpretation in another act?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 9 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
Ms Evans, when it comes to practical ways of amending the bill, would the statement that you mentioned be in the form of a “for the avoidance of doubt” clause? How do you see it working in practice?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 9 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
Thank you.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 9 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
I think that it does. The issue that the committee is grappling with is how we might allow for separation to be a factor without excluding people in similar circumstances to the examples that were given by Professor Paisley, where the surviving spouse is not normally living with the deceased. There are a whole range of situations in which that might occur. How do we define separation without it merely being geographical? There are many circumstances in which people might be physically separated but still together, as it were.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 9 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
No problem. I want to look at the right of a spouse or civil partner to inherit under the part of the bill that deals with succession law. Various people who responded to the call for views—including Ms Evans, who is here today—have said that a distinction should be drawn between spouses or civil partners who were living with the deceased person at the time of their death and spouses or civil partners who had previously separated from the deceased person but had not divorced or had the partnership dissolved.
The committee is interested in the views of other witnesses on that. How easy is it in practice to draft legislation making separation a key factor in the scope of section 72 when, sometimes, in practice, whether a couple has finally separated for good might not be entirely clear at any given point in time? How can legislation address that?
11:15Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 9 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
Thank you.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 9 May 2023
Mercedes Villalba
I will move on to sections 65 and 66, on the expenses of litigation. The Law Society, although supportive of the bill overall, is very concerned about the policy current underpinning section 65, which provides principles to determine how legal bills are paid for in trust cases. The Law Society says that trustees should not find themselves personally liable for the expenses of litigation where there is insufficient trust property. The Law Society thinks that section 65 will deter people from becoming trustees and may lead them to unfavourably settle or abandon legal proceedings for fear of personal liability. Do you share those concerns or can you offer the committee any reassurance in that regard?