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: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Did the review group foresee the reaction that has come from many in the legal profession? In asking this, I am perhaps straying into issues relating to the bill and what happens next, but if practitioners do not participate—as they have threatened—how could that then happen?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Your review also recommends that complainers should have access to independent legal representation in the event of a section 275 application. However, concerns about how that would work have been raised by many, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Law Society of Scotland and even your senior judicial colleagues. In their submission to the committee, the senators of the College of Justice say that the measure
“will create a considerable amount of extra work”
and
“considerable potential for delay and churn”.
The Crown Office and the SCTS also use the word “churn”, and the Law Society cites a risk of potential extra cost. Given those concerns, did the review group perhaps not give adequate consideration to the potential unforeseen consequences that are now being warned about?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Four pages of the Crown’s submission to the committee related directly to the practicalities of dealing with section 275 issues and independent legal representation. In essence, would you say that you are supportive of the proposed changes, but that you take the view that the bill could potentially be amended or streamlined?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
It is a very quick question about the proposed sexual offences court. You said earlier in your evidence that you did not think that tinkering would be sufficient. However, the Faculty of Advocates submission to the committee is quite robust. It says that
“there is no single feature of the proposed court which could not be delivered rapidly”
through existing mechanisms. What are your views on that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
The Lord Advocate referenced a particularly horrific case that took place just six months ago in Fife. It involved an individual who ultimately murdered his female partner, but the evidence that was led was a huge catalogue of violence and abuse against her and many other female partners. Would your position be that that sort of case should remain a High Court case rather than a sexual offences court case?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I have a fairly general question to kick off with. Over the past few weeks and months, we have heard some very strongly opposing views in relation to the proposed legislation. The head of Rape Crisis Scotland told us that it is
“obvious to anyone—guilty men are regularly walking free.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 6 December 2023; c 9.]
The Faculty of Advocates, of which I assume you are a member, said that the system works “ostensibly”.
You have been very clear today about the need for radical and profound reform, and about legislation being the only way to achieve that. Do you think that the proposed legislation will achieve the reform that you believe is needed?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
In respect of the sexual offences court proposal, some people have already asked about who will be able to practise there and so on. One issue relates to the bill extending the court’s proposed remit to other crimes, including, for example, murder. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service says that that could result in much greater cost than is suggested in the financial memorandum. On the basis of your review, do you think that the sexual offences court should deal only with crimes of a sexual nature?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I also want to raise an issue about judge-only rape trials that we have not yet touched on. Judges would be required to provide written reasons for their decisions, which is unusual in the Scottish criminal courts. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has warned that that might generate a significant number of appeals and it said that the measure risks adding to victims’ distress. Again, that would be at odds with the bill’s trauma-informed intent. Does the Crown Office have a view on that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 10 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Good morning. I have a few questions, the first of which is about juryless trials. Your review group consists of all the key players in the Scottish justice system, but they could not reach a consensus on the issue, as you have told us. Given that that is perhaps the single most contentious part of the bill, I would be interested to know what your position on the matter is.