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 1327 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
Of course, we do not have control over the tech companies that we would like. There is controversy currently around how far the Online Safety Bill goes.
I noted what you said about how to deal with young people and how trauma can be the basis on which people’s behaviour is maybe what it should not be, but there is normalising in schools that is acceptable. Will you come back on that? That is the area in which I think there might need to be stronger messages in the law in relation to the sharing of images because, once images are shared, it is very difficult to get them back.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
I know that Stuart Allardyce might want to answer that question, but I will ask Detective Superintendent Martin MacLean what powers Police Scotland has to delete images. I am not even sure that that is in your jurisdiction. The issue is that there is a grey area around whether what we are talking about is actually contrary to the law, but are there any powers on the deletion of images?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
They consented to the image, but they did not consent to the sharing. It is the sharing aspect of it that constitutes the offence.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
Is it unlawful to share such an image with so many others?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
Yes, that is helpful. I do not have any further questions, but other panel members, such as Stuart Allardyce, might want to answer the same question.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
It is. Thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
I am fully supportive of that notion. My concern is about one micro-element: why would we not want the Scottish Parliament to set the fees? Why would you want the profession to set them? That is the bit that I do not understand. Is that where there is to be parity with England? I get the bit about unlimited fines, which makes absolute sense here.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
I apologise—I meant fines. We are talking about a statutory fine limit.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
As other members have said, it was an excellent visit. John Docherty, who has hosted us twice now, answered thousands of questions, so I found it really informative.
For completeness—I mentioned this earlier—we were clearly told that there were 100 places, and I wanted to note for the record that the note that we have says that it is
“a new national prison for 80 women”,
so there is a disparity of 20 somewhere along the line.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 May 2023
Pauline McNeill
That all sounds perfectly reasonable, but why can the Scottish Parliament not just set an unlimited fine? The point that I am driving at is that the profession itself is going to set the fees for disciplinary matters. Are you saying that because English firms set their fines there is parity there?