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 825 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
When the Scottish Law Commission spoke to the committee two weeks ago, there was some discussion of the requirement on the accountant, under section 38, to refer the judicial factor to their professional body in certain circumstances.
Section 38 appears to bypass the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which is the usual gatekeeper for complaints. Also, in respect of a referral to the Law Society, it may apply a higher threshold for referral than the main threshold appearing in the general legislation on regulation of the legal profession.
For the benefit of the committee, can you outline the approach that you take now for solicitors? To which body—if any—do you refer a solicitor at present and in what circumstances would you make that referral? Does the wording of section 38 give you any practical or policy concerns?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Tim Barraclough, did you have something to say on that?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you for that, because it broadens out the discussion. Are family members regularly considered, or considered enough, by the court to be suitable persons? Could it be that, sometimes, the court might think that there are potential or perceived conflicts of interest among family members that might mean that appointing an independent person might be the best route to go down?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you for those responses, because they are bringing something to life. It is very easy to fall into legal speak.
Section 4 of the bill sets out the qualifications that are required of a judicial factor, the main one being that the court decides that the person is “suitable” for that role. In Missing People’s response to the committee’s call for views, you supported the general idea that suitability for appointment does not come down to specific qualifications or other criteria. You said that families have to deal with practical concerns. For the benefit of the record, what barriers are there to a family member being appointed under section 4, and what steps can policy makers take to remove such barriers?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
The then Accountant of Court expressed concern about whether accountants’ professional indemnity insurance was an adequate substitute for a specialist bond of caution, saying that it might not cover such elements as embezzlement. Do you think that the Accountant of Court’s concerns have been resolved during the policy development process? Can you offer any information on the scope of contemporary professional indemnity insurance?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you. Does section 5, as it stands, cover that successfully?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you for that. You are happy with the situation as it stands just now anyway, and it is not something that you have to deal with very often.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
It might therefore be a wee bit over the score to change it for the sake of it anyway.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
The committee has heard evidence from the legal profession suggesting that the proposed threshold for requiring caution is now set too high, and that alternative forms of security to a bond of caution should be considered where those are required. Do you have views on that?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 30 April 2024
Bill Kidd
That makes sense.
As things stand, under current law, a judicial factor has to find caution, which is a specialist bond from an insurance company to protect against wrongdoing by the factor and specifically theft from the estate, which you mentioned. Under section 5, there is a policy change to abolish the requirement on a judicial factor to find caution, except in “exceptional circumstances”. The committee has been looking into that. Do you think that a family member of a missing person should also be required to take out a bond of caution?