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: 23 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
I am interested in sections 25 and 26. Concern has been expressed to the committee that trustees’ duties to provide information to beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries under those sections are too onerous and that the extent of the duties is uncertain. Do you want to share your views on the provisions, particularly if you have concerns? I am interested in how you would change the sections to address those concerns.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
I want to move on to section 61 of the bill, which gives power to the beneficiaries and others to apply to the court to alter the purposes of a family trust where there is a material change of circumstances. The section sets out the default position that that power cannot be used for 25 years. Is having such a 25-year restriction the correct approach? We would be interested to hear your views on that and your reasoning.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 23 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
Touching on that point, but more broadly, on 9 May we heard from legal academics including Professor Gretton and Yvonne Evans, who said that, in practice, a solicitor would just “draft around” a 25-year provision. This question may be for Chris Sheldon and Mike Blair: are we worrying too much about it? Would most trusts be drafted to give some leeway in relation to purpose?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 2 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
The policy concern stems partly from the fact that lots of people who interact with trusts might not be familiar with the law and court proceedings. I guess that the point is that, if someone was looking at taking on responsibilities for a small charitable trust or interacting with a trust of relatively modest size, the fact that they might become personally liable could put them off.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 2 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
I will ask a final question about something that I have thought of as you have been answering questions. Would there be merit in putting in the bill an exemption from personal liability when people act in a charitable capacity or when a trust is relatively modest?
11:45Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 2 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
To be absolutely clear, it is a deliberate approach.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 2 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
Thank you for that. I will also ask about the role of the Court of Session compared with that of local sheriff courts. I know that there are some expanded powers for sheriff courts. Will you explain the policy thinking around retaining the Court of Session as the main court for the bill, given that it is traditionally more expensive and less geographically accessible?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 2 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
The submission is on the Parliament’s website, but I am sure that the committee clerks would be happy to send it to you. I am sure that, like me, the committee would be interested if you wanted to review the Law Society’s points. Having seen many Law Society submissions on various bills, I think that its comments on section 65 seem quite strong. We would greatly appreciate any feedback that you have.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 2 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
I want to ask about litigation expenses and, in particular, the Law Society’s concerns about section 65. The Law Society was quite outspoken on that, citing
“a severe danger of a conflict of interest”
and describing section 65 as
“quite a radical provision”,
which, it suggested, may deter people from becoming trustees or lead them to unfavourably settle or to abandon legal proceedings for fear of personal liability. Do you have any comments in response?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 2 May 2023
Oliver Mundell
You would recognise the risk for parliamentarians and the Parliament in seeking to proceed with the legislation. If you read its submission as a whole, the Law Society is generally quite discursive about the bill. When I see words like
“severe danger of a conflict of interest”,
“radical provision” and “real issues”, it starts to worry me that the balance might not be quite right.
The Law Society also points out that non-recovery is a standard risk of litigating. I am thinking of examples where people take on roles in charitable trusts, not expecting that their personal property might be at risk if they proceed with litigation. I hear what you are saying about what the court “may” do, but if someone is taking legal advice it should be clear that there will always be a risk associated with that. I am just trying to satisfy myself that the bill strikes the right balance.