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 502 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
More broadly, though, it is not the Scottish Government’s position to move towards as much codification within the civil law as possible.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
In the same evidence session, we also heard concerns that people might try to draft around the provision or include clauses to create the flexibility to make changes outwith that period. Multiple witnesses at that session seemed to agree that that would not be desirable. Do you take that point on board?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
Thank you.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but for clarity, you think that it would be worth restating that in the bill. You are willing to look at putting something in the bill.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
I want to push back on that a wee bit. It has been recognised that, for many small trusts across Scotland, given the geography, it would cost them considerable time and expense to come to Edinburgh to have their case heard, and that that might be a barrier for them. Have you looked in any detail at creating different thresholds or expanding the choice? Those are suggestions that have been made to us in evidence. The SLC consulted a while ago, before the bill was in front of the Parliament. Is there any room for movement or expansion on that front?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
Are you happy to approach the Law Society directly about wording?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
Okay.
The Faculty of Advocates and numerous other legal stakeholders have said that they think that the power in section 67 to give direction to the court needs to be much wider than it currently is. Having heard those views, do you agree that it would be useful to add to the bill a general power to give directions?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
For clarity, are you saying that you were not convinced by the evidence that we heard from the Law Society, Yvonne Evans or the firm Turcan Connell that a change is needed in that respect?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
I also want to ask about the balance of powers between the sheriff court and the Court of Session. Some legal stakeholders have told the committee that it would be helpful if the bill offered more choice for litigants between the Court of Session and the sheriff court for trust litigation, to suit litigants’ preferences and circumstances. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the strength of those arguments? Will the Government consider altering the bill in any way to reflect the evidence that we heard?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 6 June 2023
Oliver Mundell
Let me push a little further on this question. I am, as I have said in previous questioning, concerned by the Law Society’s written submission. It describes this provision as “radical” with “real issues”, saying that it is not standard and that it creates
“a severe danger of a conflict of interest”.
The Law Society comments on a wide range of legislation before the Parliament, and by its own standards that is pretty strongly worded. Obviously, it is a very significant stakeholder, and I am struggling to get comfortable with the provision, given such strongly worded concerns.
As drafted, the provision does not reach a compromise that the Law Society is comfortable with. I would have thought that the Government might want to look at whether the compromise that the Law Commission has arrived at is the right one, or whether there is room to find something better. That issue should not be left to the committee or to others; the Government itself could take a more proactive role in finding something that all stakeholders can agree with.