Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
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.
Searching by different views
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
- Report: this is the whole Official Report for a particular meeting of a committee or Parliament
- Item of business: this is each individual agenda item in an Official Report. For example, Portfolio Questions would be the item of business in a Meeting of the Parliament report
- Contribution: this is each time someone has made a spoken contribution to a meeting.
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.
Search by MSP
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.
Searching by keyword
There are two types of keyword search:
- A keyword search without quotation marks will look for every instance of each word used and rank the results by frequency and proximity. It will also include variants of the keywords using “porter stemming”. This is when the search looks for the “stem” of a word regardless of its ending. So, for example, a search for [salmon farm] will return each instance of “salmon” and each instance of “farm” as well as potentially including results for “farms”, “farmed” and “farming”.
- A keyword search with quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase used. So, for example, a search for “salmon farm” in quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase.
Combining search filters
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.
More complex keyword searches
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
- a search for “salmon farm” AND “Loch Lomond” will return only results which include both exact phrases
- a search for “salmon farm” NOT “Loch Lomond” will return results for “salmon farm” but exclude results which also include “Loch Lomond”
- a search for “salmon farm” OR “Loch Lomond” will return all results for “salmon farm” and all results for “Loch Lomond” regardless of whether they appear together
Searching by date
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:
- Current session (all Official Reports since the current sessions started)
- Last 6 months
- Last 12 months
- each of the previous sessions of Parliament. (Selecting the information icon above the “Select a time period” menu will give you the exact dates for each session.)
- All sessions
- You can also choose to select a custom date range, although adding a Start or End date will mean the search automatically defaults to this option.
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.
Criathragan Hide all filters
Displaying 1264 contributions
|
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
The policy note says that the financial impacts are
“anticipated to be unchanged as a result of the implementation of restitution orders.”
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
Is that possibly why there have been only 103 restitution orders?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Substance Misuse in Prisons
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
I will follow up on what you talked about, Tracey, which has also been a running theme. We have all these documents and strategies and lots of things that we are doing really well but the prison regime is completely overcrowded—we are not unusual in that in Scotland, because England has the same problem. That overcrowding is stressing out the staff who run the services and is impacting on prisoners, most of whom, according to the survey, do not even get out of their cells for more than an hour a day and some of whom are doubling up—I do not know what that looks like, but that is the regime in which we are operating—so it is not easy. You said to Sharon Dowey that there is no consistency there.
It is shocking that a prisoner who has opted to go on a programme and is in recovery could be transferred to another prison, when everybody wants that recovery, including the community and the individual. That begs the question that I will ask Tracey first: instead of all the endless documents, is it time that prisoners had a categoric right to continue their rehabilitation or recovery? I am sure that other members feel the same. I get many letters from prisoners about the waiting list for rehabilitation. They cannot get on the list and they say, “I want to do things to get into recovery.” Is it time to take a different approach?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
As you said, cabinet secretary, whether to impose restitution orders is a matter for the courts to decide. We have heard that there have been 103 such orders and that in a given case the court can impose either a fine or a restitution order. From what I have read, it seems that the amount of any restitution order should be broadly the same as that of any fine that the court might have imposed. Does that mean that the courts have complete freedom to decide which of those options they want to apply? Is there guidance on when a restitution order should be used, or are there any criteria for that?
10:15Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
I had not appreciated that a restitution order could be imposed as well as a fine. I have not looked recently at the repayment figures for fines. I know that, in the past, there have been problems with collecting fines—I do not know whether that is still the case. I would think that someone’s ability to pay might be a consideration. If a court imposes a fine and is thinking about making a restitution order, presumably it would use some kind of self-imposed criteria to decide whether the offender could afford that, otherwise we would not get the return on it.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Substance Misuse in Prisons
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
You said in your submission that provision depends on what prison someone ends up in. Do specific prisons not provide recovery programmes, or is it random? Are there specific prisons that you could point to and say, “If you get moved to that prison, you will not get a programme of recovery”?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Substance Misuse in Prisons
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
Is it down to governors?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Substance Misuse in Prisons
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
Thank you. I take the point that we are clearly locking too many people up, given that those on remand are a quarter of the prison population, but I am interested to hear that they do not seem to get access to the same treatment while they are there. I understand that there are some legal aspects to how remand prisoners are treated, but when it comes to support, if they have started taking drugs while they are in jail—the number of prisoners who do so is high enough—there surely should be no distinction between prisoners and remand prisoners? What do you think, Gemma?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Substance Misuse in Prisons
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
I am glad you added that in, because I have a case exactly like that in Glasgow right now.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
Cabinet secretary, I just want to check that I have understood what you said about what the courts can do. I agree that there should be more encouragement to use the orders, but the Scottish Government policy note says:
“We anticipate that in a given situation the level of financial penalty imposed by the courts is likely to be the same regardless of whether it is a restitution order or another financial penalty such as a fine. The financial impact on the offender and their family, and any resulting impacts, are therefore anticipated to be unchanged as a result of the implementation of restitution orders.”
My reading of that is that, if a court were considering applying a restitution order, that would not necessarily be in addition to a fine, so that would not be a barrier. However, I thought that you said that it can impose both. Did you mean that if it does impose both, the financial penalty should not be higher than it would have been had the court applied only a fine?
