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 936 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
That is quite encouraging, but I am sure that you understand the point that Sandy Brindley was making about agency being taken away from the victim if she is told, “Yes, you have to” or “No, you can’t”. That is traumatising in itself as, again, she is powerless.
It sounds like you understand that. An informed choice is exactly the point—it should be all about choice.
Does anybody else want to comment?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
Right. I think that the problem that we have been struggling with is the lack of evidence. You probably heard that the previous witnesses have concerns about a two-thirds majority. They think that that raises the bar for convictions, particularly in sexual offence cases, for which, as you know, the rate is very low at the moment. Is there anything to say in favour of the provisions in the bill and the proposed amendments?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
Thanks, convener. I will be brief, with a couple of wee follow-up questions.
Good morning. This is a really helpful session. I should say at the start that I am very much in favour of the sexual offences court. Have you had any sort of pushback from victims about the idea of such a court? Will they have the choice, unlikely as it might seem, to say that they do not want to be categorised in that way by using the court?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
Is there a danger of you overthinking all this?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
Again, with respect, we know that sexual offences are, by their nature, unique. Witnesses have told us of their terrible experiences because there is no uniformity in the way that they are treated. A sexual offences court would surely address that. Again, that is what they want.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
Has that not got to do with corroboration, which still exists despite the—
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
The Government has tried to balance the removal of the not proven verdict by moving to the two-thirds majority, as opposed to a simple majority, but in your opinion, that is not acceptable—is that correct?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
There is a bit of hypothesising going on there, but okay.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
I fundamentally disagree with the opinion that a sexual offences court is not necessary. With the greatest of respect, we have been hearing for years about the journey of victims of sexual offences, and nothing has happened and nothing is happening. I have been on committees dealing with this for eight years, we talked about it eight years ago and the position for victims has not got better.
We are talking about a trauma-informed, specialist court that, as you probably heard our earlier witnesses say, is very much wanted by victims. I do not think that it should come down to logistics or money. If we can make it work, we should make it work. That is my view. It is necessary and long overdue.
My question picks up on something that Sandy Brindley said about her misgivings about a judge being able to decide whether a victim should have special measures and whether that should be up to the victim to decide. What are the witnesses’ opinions on that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Rona Mackay
I want to go back to Stuart Munro’s opening argument, which was really comprehensive and which I understood. Obviously, the committee has wrestled with the issue of not having evidence for changing jury size. Am I right in thinking that, with the removal of not proven, you would prefer us to move to the English system? Is that really what you are saying?