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 914 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
I will continue somewhat in that vein. In response to the committee’s call for views, the Faculty of Advocates said that it would be desirable to give judicial factors the additional power to seek directions from the appointing court. When the Scottish Law Commission gave evidence to the committee, it suggested that the possibility of seeking advice from the Accountant of Court, coupled with the opinion of requesting extra powers from the court under section 11, was all that would be required. Do you agree with the commission’s position, or do you see benefits to what the faculty is proposing? If you wish, you can explain your views with reference to practical examples of relevant situations.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Mr Pattullo, do you have anything to add?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you very much, guests. My question might be on an issue of contention. Under section 4, the main qualification that is required for someone to be appointed as a judicial factor is that the court considers the person to be “suitable” for the role. It is the court’s decision. In response to the committee’s call for views, some respondents, such as Missing People, supported that approach. Others, however, wanted the bill to be more prescriptive. For example, Propertymark wanted professional qualifications to be specified in some circumstances. The committee heard that the Scottish Law Commission’s position is that the court is best placed to decide who is suitable for the role of judicial factor in a particular case. Does anyone on the panel disagree that that is the way forward? Should there be something different in the bill that limits the court’s discretion, rather than leaving it as it stands?
09:45Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Based on what has been said, it would seem to be an unlikely scenario anyway, but should such a thing happen, is it not already covered?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you for everything that you have outlined. You have pretty much covered this, but on promoting access to justice for breaches of children’s rights—that is a commitment in the plan—who will you approach so that those can be resolved? It is fine—I am not saying that this is what you are doing—to say, “This is wrong and we’re going to sort it out,” but how do you sort that out? Who do you approach to bring on board in legal terms, if it comes to that?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you—that is really useful. I suppose that that fits in with the statement in the strategic plan that the commissioner’s office will work
“as an Independent Children’s Rights Institution”.
There needs to be a focal point and a place that people know that they can go to. They need to know what their rights are, and if people or organisations breach those rights, they need somebody with expertise to know what direction to head in to resolve that. Is that the approach that you will take in order to uphold children’s rights? Do you have an idea about timescales?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Bill Kidd
Thank you very much. That is helpful.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 April 2024
Bill Kidd
That would be useful; we could perhaps delve a bit deeper into that.
Staying on caution, in response to the committee’s call for views, the University of Aberdeen and R3 said that they thought that the threshold for requiring caution in section 5 is now too high. Do you have any comments on that? For example, does the phrase “exceptional circumstances” fit with the general policy desire to make judicial factors a solution for the families with missing relatives? Do you see the link there?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 April 2024
Bill Kidd
My question is about the Accountant of Court, a role that you have talked about quite a wee bit this morning. There seems to be a differentiation between the SLC’s draft bill and the current draft bill that is not so much about the role but about who and how qualified that person is. In relation to sections 35 and 36 of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland commented on what it regards as a significant departure from the commission’s draft bill and a watering down of the level of legal and accountancy knowledge that is required for the accountant and the deputy accountant roles. The SLC’s draft bill said that they were to be
“knowledgeable in matters of law and accounting”.
However, in the current draft bill, they must be, in the opinion of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service,
“appropriately qualified or experienced in law and accounting”.
The policy memorandum to the bill also makes it clear that formal qualifications are not necessarily required.
What does the commission think about that approach to sections 35 and 36? Do you share the Law Society of Scotland’s concerns about that differentiation?