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: 13 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
Good morning to the panel.
I want to go back to something that Stuart Munro said in his previous answer. It is something that we have certainly heard before in taking evidence over the past number of weeks. He said that there is no difference in outcome between the not guilty and not proven verdicts. For the benefit of laypeople MSPs, if there is no difference, why do we need the extra verdict, considering that no other system has it?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
That brings me on to my second question. All three of you have talked about balance. Do you have a fear that, if the Parliament gets rid of the not proven verdict, either the number of wrongful convictions will increase or the opposite will occur and more people will walk free when they are actually guilty? You have talked a lot about the not proven verdict being needed for balance, but what would happen if the balance, as you are calling it, was taken away?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
You said that some of your American colleagues were shocked about our system and wondered how it achieves acquittals. I want to make a point about the Scottish jury research—I am trying to find the information so that I get the figures right—which I know that other colleagues want to ask about. According to the study, undertaken in 2019, when juries had two verdicts available to them, they returned three out of 32 convictions, and when they had three verdicts available to them, they returned four out of 32. Acquittal is very high, it would seem.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
Okay. Thank you for that. So that I do not feel the wrath of the convener, I will just give Stuart Murray an opportunity to answer my earlier question.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
That brings us back to Russell Findlay’s point that a lot of this lacks, for the reasons that you have outlined, research and data, and we are not able to understand what juries think. As Russell and others have said, the committee has, over the past few weeks, begun to feel the weight of the decisions that are being put on us now. These are significant changes, and one thing that we do not want to do is make things worse for people who use the justice system, particularly victims and witnesses.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
Good afternoon to you both. This has been a really interesting session so far. The conversation has moved on, but I want to go back to provide you with an opportunity to clarify the position for the record and for me, so that I understand it.
You have stated clearly that you are worried about an increase in the number of acquittals under the current proposals. I seek clarification on that, because, in the previous evidence session, we heard about the number of convictions, acquittals, not proven and not guilty verdicts. Are you worried about those that are currently not proven, or are you also worried about the numbers that are currently being convicted? Can you clarify the point on the increase in acquittals?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
Good morning. I have a follow-up question to the convener’s line of questioning. Joe Duffy, as you said, the two verdicts mean virtually the same thing: not proven—
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
Yes, not guilty.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
I know that this will be hard to say definitively but, based on your experience of working with people in and around the courts, do you think that, if the verdict is removed, it will lead to a higher number of convictions for these sorts of offences?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2023
Fulton MacGregor
Thanks, convener—that is very generous.
We have heard some argument that the system of regulation and complaints handling that is proposed in the bill is too complex. What do you say to that, minister? Do you believe that it is too complex or do you have another view?