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: 4 October 2023
Pauline McNeill
Thank you, convener. Dr Louise Hill said that a lot of the legislation that we had passed here had not been implemented. I was trying to establish what measures are currently being used in court.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2023
Pauline McNeill
Just to be clear, you have had cases in which special measures have been applied for but not implemented by the court.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2023
Pauline McNeill
Okay. I was just asking because of the evidence that was given. That is fine.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2023
Pauline McNeill
Would non-harassment orders be included in that list?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2023
Pauline McNeill
I understand that point, Sandy. However, given the range of cases that we are talking about, are you saying that special measures should be applied in every case, such as divorce proceedings or anything else, that has not been heard in the criminal courts and where no conviction has taken place? I am trying to get clarity on that.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Pauline McNeill
If such a thing could be done—the timescale could be two years following the death, which I do not think is unreasonable—and families felt that they would get answers within 24 months, they might feel less concerned about getting immediate access to information. Do you agree?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Pauline McNeill
That is some good news.
The second question that I will ask relates to the recommendation for unfettered access to information following a death in police custody, which is critically important; it is a question that I put to the cabinet secretary at the time. Given what you said about the exclusion of the Crown—in the case of Alan Marshall, as you are aware, the Crown took a decision not to prosecute any of the 13 officers who held him down before he died in an attempt to get answers at the FAI, but it took seven years to get there—is it possible for that unfettered access to happen? Families want to go in and get information; they do not want to be told that they cannot go in or collect belongings or see what happened.
I thought that the recommendation was interesting, because, if there was a police investigation into a death, how could that commitment be made? However, the cabinet secretary made it. Is it possible to devise such a system? In this case, the family’s view was that there was a cover-up. They would have preferred to have found out exactly what had happened so that they would at least have had their own answers before the FAI. Would it be possible for that to happen without the Crown’s involvement?
10:30Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Pauline McNeill
Reading the letter takes me back to an issue that the committee raised previously, which was that the legislation felt really rushed. The relationship between football banning orders and the legislation should have been clear. Far be it from me to say it, but surely the role of lawyers and Government officials when they are drafting legislation is to match it up with all other legislation. There is an obvious relationship in this case, and we are asking the question with hindsight, and the minister is having to answer that question.
Although the minister is correct to say that it is a matter for the courts, it is for the Parliament to determine what it wants when it legislates. I would have thought that, to a party and to a person, what we wanted was to give maximum powers to arrest people for use of pyrotechnic devices at football matches, which is extremely disruptive. We are now trying to fix the issue with hindsight. It probably should have been drawn to the committee’s attention that the legislation might have a relationship with a pre-existing act. It would not have occurred to me.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Pauline McNeill
Following what Rona Mackay has said, I would be interested in spending more time looking at the stalking charges. That offence is broader than domestic abuse and there are issues, with victims having reported failures in the system in relation to the law on that—but that is for another day.
Are we to assume from the paper that the changes under item 3 have already happened or been agreed? The list includes
“creating a standard condition of bail … placing a restriction on granting bail”
and
“allowing certain ... evidence”.
The paper says:
“The 2018 Act created a new offence of engaging in an abusive course of conduct ... For example, when a child sees, hears or is present during a domestic abuse incident.”
That is the point that Russell Findlay raised. It then says, “Further changes included” and lists changes. Are we to assume that those changes have all happened?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Pauline McNeill
Thank you very much.