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 1322 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Liam Kerr
I understand.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Liam Kerr
To be clear, on the definition of a domestic abuse offender, your evidence is similar to the evidence that you gave to the committee previously, which is that it needs to align more closely with what is already in the statute book.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Liam Kerr
I understand.
Professor Gilchrist, I will put the same question to you. You talked about the definition of an offence involving domestic abuse. What are your thoughts on that?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Liam Kerr
Glyn Lloyd appeared to be signalling his agreement with some of Professor Gilchrist’s remarks, so I will come to him. Social Work Scotland’s submission highlights that a positive amendment that the committee might consider would be to include a notification requirement on a change of partner relationship. The submission also highlights that many families remain together following a conviction, so additional requirements might lead to retaliatory action. If that is right, is there not a risk that the Parliament might not legislate for fear of what an abuser might do—almost, that it would not do what is right for fear of how an abuser might react? Surely that is the wrong end of the telescope. How might the bill be adjusted to address that possibility, so that it achieves its aims without posing a risk to families?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Liam Kerr
Good morning. I will address my first question to the Law Society and COPFS. For good order, I remind colleagues that I am a practising lawyer and am regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.
If the bill gets to stage 2, it is important that we tighten all the definitions and make the bill as good as it can be so that it achieves its aims. In its evidence, COPFS commented on the definition of a domestic abuse offender, and the Law Society made a similar point about the definition of offences involving domestic abuse. Dr Forbes, what is your concern about that definition? More importantly, perhaps, how might the committee look to tighten that definition through amendments to make the bill do what is intended?
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Liam Kerr
Debbie Jupp, do you have anything to add?
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Liam Kerr
I have a question for Agnes Tolmie. I was intrigued by Pauline McNeill’s line of questioning on the unintended consequences of a register, and there is a thought in my mind that I would like you to clear up for me.
Let us say that we have a victim who is being abused and who reports that. If the partner was prosecuted, they would go on the proposed register, as would happen—as we have seen from our papers—with the sex offenders register. However, this register is different, because the victim might well take the partner back. You will tell me if I am wrong, but I think that that happens in more cases than not. The perpetrator would be on a register, and the victim would have put him there through her report. I presume that there would be a risk that the perpetrator could use that against her—“Look what you did to me.” As you said earlier, it could “make him madder”. If all that played through, would there be a risk of the victim being less likely to report the domestic abuse, as a function of the register being brought in?
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Liam Kerr
Good morning. I have a question for Colin Brown on a not unrelated point. When the committee heard from the SFRS on the service delivery review, the SFRS made it clear that the review and the decisions in that regard were not driven by budgetary concerns. In your written submission, you disagree with that. On that basis, do you conclude that, had different budgetary decisions been taken by the Scottish Government in relation to funding, the service delivery review would have come to different conclusions, and, if so, in what way would they have been different?
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Liam Kerr
Thank you—that was clear. As we are talking about stations and the estate, the delivery review proposes to close eight stations that are described as “long-term dormant”, six of which have been non-operational since before 2016 and five of which are not staffed. Do you agree with the proposal? Given the situation, are you comfortable with that?
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Liam Kerr
You mentioned the second busiest station in Scotland. Just for the record, which station is that?