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 1256 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I will continue Rona Mackay’s line of questioning on whether murder should be included in the sexual offences court. Of course, the Crown does not make a decision—it is not required to make a decision, because it is a requirement of law that a plea of the Crown must be heard in the High Court.
As Ms Constance said, the Crown could make a decision on which court a case should go to. Is there not also an argument that, since murder is such a serious offence and is already tried in the High Court, notwithstanding that there might be sexual offences to prove, murder cases should go to the highest court, because the High Court will still be the High Court? Would that not make sense?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I have to say that I find it difficult to get my head round the issue. My understanding is that, in non-rape cases that are prosecuted in the High Court, there will still be advocate deputes and counsel. In the shift to a new court, you are trying to make sure that accused people have the same representation, but surely you need to make sure that there is the same level of prosecutor. There must be parity, as it were.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. I echo what Ben Macpherson has said: it is important that Parliament gets this right, and we appreciate your attendance at this morning’s meeting.
The current proposal in the bill is for a jury of 12, with eight required for a conviction. You have told the committee that your focus is on fairness, and I agree with that. Why do you think that a majority of 10 to five on a jury of 15 is fairer than what is in the bill?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Why is that fairer than what you had?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Can you tell the committee—the stakeholder, so to speak—who is supportive of this, apart from the senators? Are there others?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I am just trying to illustrate exactly what you said there, cabinet secretary—we all have to use our judgment. It is hard to decide whether to support the new option on the table; I find it confusing that some support it, but not the two-thirds majority. The senators support it, and you have gone with that, but some still support the 12-juror approach, and others want unanimity. It is really difficult to see a way through all that.
Where we agree—and I think that the committee agrees with this, too—is that, given all the options, if we think that the system, with corroboration and the three verdicts, was reasonably balanced, we will need to find out how we ensure fairness for everyone in a new system. I welcome what you have done with juries, but I just wanted to illustrate that view.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I am not asking for that. You know my position on the sexual offences court, which is that the issue could be resolved by making the sexual offences court a division of the High Court and of the sheriff court. We would then not need to go into the mechanics of who represents whom. However, as you are creating a new court, I would have thought that we would all be interested in making sure that the representation aspect is not diluted by the new court. It would be helpful if you could clarify that point.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
You referred to the mock trials. Was it that data that made you conclude that 12 was the number of jurors to go with?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I was just trying to ascertain the Government’s position on why that is a fairer approach. It was a two-thirds majority before, and it is a two-thirds majority now. The Government received representations from the senators before it drafted the bill, but it has now changed it because, as you have said, it has to be fair for everyone. Presumably, that is your rationale. If you are saying that you are changing it because many people support such a change, that is surely not a rationale for doing so, because it does not really matter who supports what if you are trying to achieve fairness.