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 1673 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Good morning. I am not sure whether this is declarable, but I have previously been a witness in Lord Matthews’s court—
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
That is actually very pertinent to another point about section 275 applications. Some of the rape complainers said that, in their cases, the defence had not formally sought a section 275 order, but that they introduced character or sexual history evidence by stealth, by simply stating it. The presiding judge then told the jury to disregard it, but the complainers were of the view that the damage had already been done at that point.
Does that happen frequently? Is there any sanction for doing that? Do you think that, if independent legal representation in relation to a section 275 application became enshrined in the law, there would be more likelihood of such tactics?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I have a very quick question. The bill picks the age of 18, but the age differs in other jurisdictions. You say in your submission that that is potentially the most contentious element of the proposal, and you suggest—colleagues may agree—that we should seek further evidence from children’s rights experts. That brings me back to the earlier point about the need for greater scrutiny. I know that you do not want to delay anything, but, given that you are not settled on 18, if I understand you correctly, do you believe that we should take more evidence on that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I think that the proposal that 16-year-olds can stand as MSPs has been binned, but yes.
12:30Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I ask because I think that that information would help the committee to understand the judicial thinking. In respect of some of the other proposals, there is a lot more certainty or specific detail on the breakdown of opinion. For example, the vast majority oppose the not proven verdict being retained.
In the senators’ 2022 submission to the Scottish Government, the breakdown is two to one in respect of abolition of corroboration, which is no longer on the table. From your evidence earlier, the senators’ view in respect of not hearing murder cases in the proposed new sex crime court seems to be unanimous.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
—on three occasions, I might add, and I have no complaints about the trauma-informed experience.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
On that particular issue, which Pauline McNeill spoke about, that seems to be the case throughout the system, from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to the Crown and the judiciary.
The proposed juryless rape trials seem to be the most contentious issue across the board. Last week, we heard from Tony Lenehan KC, who said:
“The fact that someone sits on the bench and takes the oath is not a guarantee of an absence of hidden bias, or an absence of character defect; there are recent examples of people who have clearly smuggled character defects through the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland to end up on the bench.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 24 January 2024; c 66.]
He was referring to the case of a sheriff who trains and judges judges, and was appointed to do so by the First Minister, but was latterly convicted of a criminal offence. He also said in his evidence—I will summarise here—that certain sheriffs are known to be more likely to convict or to impose lighter or heavier sentences. That appears to be, according to Mr Lenehan, common knowledge among defence practitioners.
My question is, given those realities, is that not an argument against getting rid of juries?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
This is more of an observation and an extension of Mr Lenehan’s point. The senators’ submission is candid in accepting that the make-up of the senior judiciary is quite homogeneous, which might be an argument for maintaining juries.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
If it is half.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I want to pick up on your earlier answer about the evolution and the developments that you have seen in your time on the bench and in the profession. The committee heard some evidence from rape complainers who all waived their anonymity because they were moved to do so because of—in most cases—the poor experiences that they suffered in the justice system.
I do not know whether either of you saw their evidence, but it is worth seeking out the transcript of the committee meeting. What they seem to want from lawyers on all sides—whether Crown prosecutors, defence solicitors or members of the judiciary—is clear communication and, essentially, basic standards of respect and courtesy.
Given that there have been so many horror stories spanning so many years—albeit that you say that things have improved significantly—why does that not already happen? Why do we need to legislate to ensure that trauma-informed practice becomes standard?
10:45