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 888 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Fulton MacGregor
My question is a wee bit different. I probably did not explain it right. The complainer should have a choice as to whether to give evidence in court or not, but do you ever come across a situation where a complainer would prefer to give prerecorded evidence or evidence on commission—in this example, it would probably be prerecorded evidence—but feel that they are more likely to be believed, for want of a better term, if they do it in court? My question was more about that. If that is an issue—we do not want to go back to the stage 1 evidence, as the convener will probably remind me, so I link the question to today’s discussion—could an amendment be lodged to address that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Fulton MacGregor
Good morning to both witnesses. My question follows on from Sandy Brindley’s point about the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. The cabinet secretary has said that she proposes to lodge an amendment around the opportunity to give prerecorded evidence. What exactly would you like the amendment to say? What should it look like? It is an important amendment, which will come before us quite soon. It is important that we get it right—the sexual offences court will not work if it is a sexual offences court only in name; it must have all the right stuff around it.
Sandy, what should that look like, and where should the choices be for victims and witnesses? We were beginning to touch on that a minute ago.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Fulton MacGregor
Do you ever get an indication or feeling from the victims who you deal with that prerecorded evidence could be less effective, so it is important to give evidence in person? If that is the case—I am not sure whether you are going to tell me that you have found that, but I saw Sandy Brindley nod a wee bit—could an amendment to the bill be lodged to try to alleviate that concern?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Fulton MacGregor
Good morning. This is giving me flashbacks to stage 1 and the enormity of the decision. As you heard earlier, it is clear that victims groups feel that moving to the proposed 10 out of 15 would be worse for victims. That is a compelling case, but we have heard another compelling case from you that other systems work effectively with near unanimity. Where do you think the Government got that suggestion? From a lay perspective, it feels like—I am sure that when the Government speaks to us about this, it will tell me that I am totally wrong—it is trying to please both points of view but is running the risk of not satisfying anybody. What is the thinking behind that, from a legal point of view?
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Fulton MacGregor
Your submission discusses the Council of Europe’s Venice principles. How does the SPSO’s performance and structures compare against those benchmarks?
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Fulton MacGregor
What are your thoughts on the ombudsman having an own-initiative power to investigate cases? Would that bring any benefits?
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Fulton MacGregor
Yes. That is my point: what is the ombudsman’s remit in certain situations? Thanks very much. Both of you have given your evidence passionately, as did the other witnesses.
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Fulton MacGregor
That is fair enough.
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Fulton MacGregor
The committee is aware that the SPSO has some very poor Trustpilot scores and reviews, and those have been highlighted by a recent petitioner to the Parliament. Can you give us any indication of how the committee might get a fuller picture of what the public perception is? It is possibly a wee bit in contrast to your own submissions.
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Fulton MacGregor
I do not want to put you on the spot, but are you able to give a practical example of where the own-initiative power might be used?