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: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Could it be longer than 12 months?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Does the PIRC have to take into account the point that, if it takes longer than 12 months, the officer would need to get a form of representation? They might not be covered by the Scottish Police Federation if they have left, for example.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
My next question is another way of looking at an area that Sharon Dowey has pursued. I have looked at cases where there are allegations of assault. That is a criminal matter and it can take quite a time to get to court. We know that those periods are getting shorter, but Police Scotland often proceeds against officers when there have been no criminal proceedings on the same facts.
That seems to be a waste of police resources if the court has decided that no guilt attaches to the officers. I could understand there being civil proceedings for gross misconduct or misconduct if there were other matters. Is it your view that Police Scotland should not necessarily automatically hold disciplinary proceedings where a not guilty verdict has been given on the same facts?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Yes, but it is still the same facts.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
That is what others have said, but I do not really understand it. I could understand if there were also matters other than the assault. In other words, in my view, Police Scotland should not conduct a mini civil trial about an assault being committed if there are no other matters. It should not be automatic, because it could be construed as Police Scotland not being happy that it lost the case. It just seems odd that, in all cases, it would still proceed against police officers who have been tried in a criminal court in a case that could have taken two or three years to come to court.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. There is quite a lot to get our heads around because of the mechanics of the different organisations. I am glad that it is not just me.
I have been trying to pursue some lines of questioning around what difference the public would see and to make things a bit real for myself with regard to the difference that the proposals would make on the ground. Today, we received a helpful briefing from Victim Support Scotland that sets out different categories of complaints and gives a couple of examples. I will mention one of the examples because, when I read it, I thought that I remembered the case, which concerns a complaint that Victim Support Scotland supported against a police officer who had shared WhatsApp messages, including details of injuries. The incident was investigated by the anti-corruption unit on the basis of criminal charges, and 13 officers were referred to the national conduct unit. There were no criminal proceedings in that case, but the officer concerned resigned. It struck me that Police Scotland could investigate that on the grounds of gross misconduct using the 12-month rule, so I ask myself why it was not pursued on the grounds of gross misconduct in the first place. Would that be right?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Thank you. I want to come to another point, which involves public complaints about, for example, belongings not being returned and misconduct allegations of some kind being made. That can be an issue in high-profile criminal cases involving victims and their families. I do not think that there are any time limits when the public complain and it goes to the PIRC. Am I right in saying that? The reason that I think that there are no time limits is because Victim Support Scotland quoted a person who had been affected by crime as saying:
“PIRC should have stronger powers to insist within the statutes of law that Police Scotland return responses within the time limit.”
Actually, that says “the time limit”, so there might be time limits.
We have been discussing time limits with regard to the conduct of police officers, but I am thinking about what happens when the public complain. I would have thought that that was quite an important thing to address, given that one of the purposes of the bill is to give the public more confidence when they make complaints.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
I believe that those who complain are not entitled to information about the outcome of a misconduct investigation.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
That is helpful.
In relation to the proposed 12-month time limit in the bill, have you considered fairness for officers who have left and gone on to other employment and might be unaware that there is a complaint? I am concerned not about officers who leave when they know that there is a complaint but those who, having no knowledge, are caught within the 12 months. Following that, they would have the right to defend themselves and appeal against the decision.
I am not minded to support extensions of that 12-month limit, especially if it is the limit for the time when you can pursue an officer, so it could be a much longer time before the proceedings are held, after which the officer could appeal the decision. Have I misunderstood how that would work?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
So there is a bit of gate keeping in deciding which cases will be pursued but it is not in the bill that the PIRC can do that up to 12 months.