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 1213 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
We do not have any data to rely on to know whether a majority of 10 to five would achieve, as you have set out, fairness to victims and the accused. It is a bit of a shot in the dark.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
However, the same data would be used to determine whether 15 was fairer, too. Do you see where I am going with that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I will do my best, but the problem is that there is a lot of complexity in the bill. I want to try to understand what the Government is writing into the bill.
My question should be fairly succinct and is on the broad provisions to allow virtual attendance for any proceedings. The Lord Justice General has powers to say that someone can attend virtually. How is that process kicked off? My reading of the bill is that the court can overturn that, which I presume is on an individual case-by-case basis. What would prompt the Lord Justice General to make such a decision in a case that they are not directly involved in?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Why is the subsection needed, then?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
The explanatory notes referred to a court “dealing with a case”. Up to what stage does that mean?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Does that mean, then, that this subsection applies up to full committal?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Beyond that, would the normal rules apply?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Maybe I have misunderstood. The Lord Justice General can use the power for a class of hearings. I have followed this line of questioning previously and I did not get that answer, although it was not you I was asking. You are saying that the power is for a class of hearings. For example, the Lord Justice General could say that all sentencing hearings will be done virtually.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
In that case, does anyone want to explain what is meant by proposed new section 5B(7) in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as inserted by section 7 of the bill? The explanatory notes say:
“Subsection (7) means that a court which began dealing with a case at the petition stage can continue dealing with it”.
I previously put this question to the Crown. The notes go on to say:
“In practice, because jurisdiction under subsection (5) ends with an accused being fully committed for trial ... subsection (7) is likely to be relevant”.
When I put the question on that, I got the impression that people were asking, “Why do we even need that in the bill?”
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
But the notes about the subsection say that
“a court which began dealing with a case at the petition stage can continue dealing with it”.
Does that not refer to solemn cases, too?