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 1227 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
The other witnesses might want to address my follow-up question.
I am trying to understand the proposed legislation before us and all the possibilities. It is possible to create a specialist court, as proposed in the bill. We can decide where that is in the hierarchy, but there could be different levels of representation and rights of audience, and sheriffs appointed by the Lord President would be able to sit as judges in that court. However, it seems to me that there is nothing to say that the pilot would not run in the specialist court as opposed to the High Court. Is that fair to say?
In other words, the specialist court with national jurisdiction, wherever it sits, is not the High Court. It would be possible under the bill to have a sheriff appointed by the Lord President, solicitors or any other representation—there is no ban on solicitors representing accused persons in the specialist court—and a single judge all at the same time. Is that right?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Sharon Dowey asked about victims having access to their advocate depute or legal representative. We spoke with one survivor who had a positive experience of proceedings, and it was loud and clear that that seemed to be because she had meetings with the lawyers before, during and after the trial.
Tony Lenehan, would the profession have any objection to reforms in that area? Some advocate deputes do it and some do not; some just go straight to court and do not talk to the victims, and others do talk to them. Is there a need to prescribe that more, in your view?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Do you have any comment on why the Government would want to include such a provision in legislation?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
It is interesting that your first answer was that it would be the conviction rate. The Government has made it explicit that it is not going to look at the pilot in terms of whether it is more effective, because it says that that is not what it is designed to do, so that would not be a benchmark.
Is it fair to say that it is going to be difficult to benchmark effectiveness?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
I wanted to ask about the jurors that you used in your studies. Had they sat on rape trials, or just trials in general?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
That was really helpful.
I want to ask Professor Chalmers and Vanessa Munro about juryless trials and whether you have a view on how the Government can measure their effectiveness. That has given me some cause for concern. Whether you are for or against the idea, how would you ascertain how effective a single judge would be? What are you benchmarking it against, given that there are no other jurisdictions with single judges? Do you think that it is possible to measure that effectiveness, given that the Government has also said that the intention is not to increase or decrease convictions per se, but to give victims a different experience of the court system?
Vanessa Munro, since you are on screen, do you want to answer first?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
I understand that, and it is a very important aspect of the proposal. However, on that point, you seem to be saying that, if we legislate for judge-only trials, it will be difficult to ascertain their effectiveness, because there is a question of what we would benchmark that against. Is that fair?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but in the case of the defence, presumably the accused would have access to their lawyer or solicitor and there would be engagement with the accused, so there would not be a requirement for any change.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
However, it would apply in relation to the prosecution. The principle of the prosecutor prosecuting in the public interest and not acting on behalf of any victim is the reason why there is a question whether it is appropriate for a victim to discuss with the prosecutor the prosecution of the case and have an understanding of the case.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Tony Lenehan, do you have anything to add?