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 978 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Rona Mackay
I will repeat what I said last week. I understand your argument, but I do not think that anything different will happen unless the new court is set up, because it has not happened so far. Previously, the need to set up a specialist court for sexual offences was not recognised, but now we have an opportunity to do it. It would be a wasted opportunity if we do not do it—I do not think that there will be a change in how courts operate unless the new one is set up. However, as you said, perhaps that is a difference of opinion.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Rona Mackay
I understand what you are saying, and I totally agree with that. I am now a bit confused about whether you approve of the setting up of a sexual offences court and whether you recognise that it is to be set up because of the very specialist nature of the crime and the huge increase in such crime.
I understand your argument about the same judges being in different courts but, even for representation reasons, do you not agree that setting up a specialist court is our way of saying that something must be done about this? I am now unclear about whether you want the court.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I am listening carefully to what you are saying, but my fear is that if we do not do this, nothing will happen. We all agree on the need for sexual crimes to be dealt with by specialists and recognise the horrific rise in the number of those crimes. Do you not think that it is a step in the right direction to recognise that and to say that we are going to do something about it? I hear what you are saying, but nothing will happen if we keep the situation as it is.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I fully support amendment 233 and am glad that Karen Adam lodged it. Do you agree that the amendment could include Makaton and deafblind communicators?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
You are supposing that. You are not basing that on any facts or any evidence.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I hear your point, but I come back to the point that I made to Liam Kerr. The amendment that you are proposing is far more radical, and there is no evidence of its benefits. We are saying that there should be a balance. We have come to a sensible balance with a jury of 15, so the jury size will not change, and I think that that is a safe road to go down. I think that common sense—let alone any evidence that there may or may not be—tells us that your supermajority idea would make convictions harder to get, so I cannot support your amendment 92.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
There is no evidence for your position, either.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I go back to an earlier intervention that my colleague Katy Clark made on Sharon Dowey, who talked about a lack of evidence. Would you not concede that your position on a supermajority would be a radical change without evidence? You are saying that we cannot make a change because we do not have evidence, but you are proposing a radical change with a supermajority.
You referred to the bill at stage 1 proposing a jury of 12. We now need to accept that we are talking about a jury of 15, with a majority of 10. Getting rid of the not proven verdict is universally popular. Given that, do you not agree that the Government is striking the right balance by keeping the jury size at 15 but requiring a majority of 10? I think that your solution presents a much greater risk of making it much harder to get convictions. It is far more radical than what has been suggested.
10:30Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I have already said, in my intervention on Liam Kerr, some of what I was going to say, but I have a question for Sharon Dowey. On amendment 92, you talked about how unsatisfactory the mock jury research was. Do you know how many people were involved in that? I know that it was quite extensive. I acknowledge what you said about it being a mock jury trial, but there was a lot of research and evidence.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
Just for context, those trials involved 900 people and 64 juries. That is pretty extensive—