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 1175 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
Thank you for that—perhaps you could send that data to the committee. As I said, in the consultation, expert organisations have told us that that evidence is not there, so that would be helpful.
The current situation is that the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse in Scotland gives people the right to ask about the background of their partner and find out whether someone has a history of domestic abuse. It also gives Police Scotland the power to tell people that they may be at risk; they do not even need to ask.
That raises a question. What would the introduction of the notification and monitoring requirements in your bill add to the current landscape?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
Before he does, I note that your answer suggests that any issue with the existing scheme is due to a lack of knowledge and awareness of what is already there. If that is right, surely what is needed is not more legislation that arguably does a similar thing but better knowledge and awareness among people about what to do and where to go if they find themselves in a certain situation.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
I am grateful.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
Several highly experienced organisations, however, have responded to your consultation and suggested that, if a law such as the one that your bill proposes were to be brought in, it could compromise safety and even increase the risk of violence against those involved. How do you respond to that? Is there at least a possibility that similar legislation has driven practices underground—that prostitution has not decreased but has simply been driven underground where it is not so known about—which could explain the statistics that you have just adduced?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
That data seems crucial to me. If the data exists—
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
On that exact issue, Pauline McNeill has talked about implementation of good, well-meaning schemes. However, I think that we can all agree that the failure to implement the Caledonian scheme—which Rona Mackay asked about—is deeply regrettable. Pam Gosal mentioned earlier that the 2021 act cannot be implemented because it was poorly drafted.
Is there a risk, therefore, that bringing in further legislation in that context that layers on further safeguards and provisions—which are very important—would simply mean that we would have more schemes that, ultimately, would not be brought in fully? That could be more negative than not bringing the bill forward at all.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
Ash Regan, I completely understand the point that you made in response to Rona Mackay’s question much earlier in the session about the quashing of convictions, which is dealt with in sections 4 and 5, but there is a lot of writing from a legal perspective around lex temporis, which means that the law at the time of the offence should govern the legality. For me, the logical progression of that would mean that quashing convictions retrospectively could undermine legal certainty, authority and trust in the legal system and that it could undermine the law’s neutrality and make it more of a moral judgment. How do you respond to that challenge to sections 4 and 5?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
Good morning. Ash Regan, I can entirely understand the premise of what your bill seeks to achieve, and I find myself sympathising with an awful lot of what you have said in your set-up.
According to your policy memorandum, your bill will
“reduce the amount of prostitution in Scotland”.
However, that begs a question. What evidence can you provide to the committee that your new offence and the repeal of the existing offence will reduce the number of people who are involved in prostitution?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
Correlation is not causation. However, if you could supply data that shows France bringing in legislation and then having a decline in prostitution, that would be very helpful for the committee.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Liam Kerr
Pam Gosal, on your point that the provisions in your bill would act as a deterrent, I note that you based the notification requirements on those in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Some organisations, in their responses to the consultation, have said that there is no evidence that those requirements have had an impact on the behaviour of offenders, and thus your proposals would not reduce or prevent domestic abuse offending. How do you respond to that? Do you have evidence to show that your proposals would have such an impact?