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 1090 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Liam Kerr
Do you want to come back in, Malcolm?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Liam Kerr
That is very interesting. I am grateful to you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Liam Kerr
I understand. Thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Liam Kerr
Just so that I am very clear, are you fairly comfortable, then, with the section 9 definitions as they are presented to us?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Liam Kerr
That was very interesting. Thank you both.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Liam Kerr
I will bring in Laura Buchan to comment, although Malcolm Graham might want to come back in, too. What is to be done, in that case?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Liam Kerr
Professor Devaney, you will have heard the concern that was raised earlier about the risk that it would always be the same faces on the review panels in Scotland, so they therefore might not always be completely independent, or they might be seen as not being completely independent. Do you share that concern? If so, how can that be avoided? Is there any element of legislative change that we can make?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 January 2025
Liam Kerr
Good morning. Superintendent Thomas, I would like to explore something that you brought up earlier. Section 2 of the bill allows the court to permit virtual attendance, but the Police Scotland submission suggests that it is not always “practicably possible” for the police to do that, and it notes that the police’s ability to facilitate it is not part of the court’s consideration. The submission also says that the current budget will not allow the police to increase that kind of support without cannibalising from other areas. Do you know how much extra will be required to make the provisions feasible? In any event, does the committee need to amend the bill in any way to, for example, make Police Scotland’s ability to facilitate that a factor in the court’s consideration?
10:15Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Liam Kerr
Good morning to the witnesses. Kate Wallace, you mentioned sections 2 and 7, but you did not mention section 6, which is about fiscal fines. In effect, section 6 makes permanent a temporary Covid measure that raised fiscal fines to a maximum of £500. Victim Support Scotland supported that in your submission. However, you may have heard Simon Brown saying in the earlier evidence session that fiscal fines could, in effect, decriminalise shoplifting, and Stuart Munro went on to say that a fiscal fine could lead to a suggestion that an offence is not taken seriously by victims and in general. What is your view on the principle of a fiscal fine, and do you have any concerns about permanently raising the limit to £500?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2025
Liam Kerr
You raise an interesting point.
Simon Brown, the SSBA submission is supportive of virtual attendance but says that you generally favour in-person attendance at trials, which is the default position. Are your concerns the same as those articulated by the Law Society, and is your general favouring of in-person attendance an observation or a suggestion that the bill should be amended?