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 1144 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Liam Kerr
Thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Liam Kerr
I will take you back to your amendment 185, cabinet secretary, which you talked about at the start of your speech, because I want to clarify something in my own mind. I was waiting to see whether you would address the point.
Amendment 185 removes the Lord Justice General as the person to appoint judges and inserts the Scottish ministers. My concern is that that could look like a power grab by the Scottish ministers. The approach would be in marked contrast with the position in England and Wales, where the independent Judicial Appointments Commission appoints judges. Forgive me if this is what you were doing earlier, but can you walk me through why it is necessary to give ministers that power and to take it away from the Lord Justice General?
10:00Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Liam Kerr
I do not think that you are taking up too much time. This is really interesting, and it is clear that your colleagues are trying to get to the bottom of what to do.
Am I right that amendment 157 hinges on amendment 155, which we talked about last week and which was not moved? If I am right about that, amendment 157 is consequential, and because amendment 155 did not go through, we ought not to move forward with amendment 157 today. However, amendment 69 is completely separate—it relates to a separate issue. Therefore, colleagues can come to different views on amendments 157 and 69.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Liam Kerr
Yes.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Liam Kerr
I am listening carefully and am very much in support of what the member is trying to achieve. She raised the SCTS letter, and it is absolutely right that she focuses on that. The SCTS said that there might be “significant costs associated” with meeting the proposal. If I assume that the amendment passes today, how has the member quantified those costs, and how will she ensure that the Government properly funds that welcome change to ensure that it happens?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Liam Kerr
That is a good point, and it is well made. However, as the member knows, corroboration, which makes us distinct, has changed. As I said at the outset of my submission, the Lord Advocate does not yet know what the implications of that are. In her letter, she specifically says:
“the full implications of these decisions are still being considered”.
The problem, it seems to me, is that we have to make a decision today. I absolutely concede that, because we have things such as corroboration, we will not be absolutely mapped to the system in England and Wales. However, I come back to the fact that the safest way to achieve justice is, surely, to mirror as closely as possible systems that are already in place and which we know operate—at least, on paper—well.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Liam Kerr
I am genuinely very interested in what you are saying. What do you suggest that we do? We are faced with a bill that will do things and with various amendments that will change what the bill will do, but you are deeply uncomfortable—as, I suspect, we all are—with some of the proposals, because you do not think that there is sufficient evidence. So, what should we vote for today? If we vote for nothing, we will nevertheless be voting for change.
10:15Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Liam Kerr
You have just said that you are “satisfied” that the jury size can go back to 15 and that that will not make a material difference. Could you tell us on what evidence you base that statement?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Liam Kerr
I am genuinely listening very careful to the debate to work out what best to do here. You talk about the stand-alone court. Do you think that when those many voices spoke in support of a stand-alone sexual offences court, they might have had in their minds that it would be a new building with new people in it, with sufficient resources to deal with backlogs and to deal with cases timeously? Am I not right that, in fact, when we talk about a stand-alone court, it would be in part of the same building and would use the same people, the same processes and the same information technology, such that the outcomes that people are, rightly, desperate for might well not be achieved?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Liam Kerr
The discussion about how things could be seen is interesting. Have you taken any soundings or evidence from the victims groups such as Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and so on that back up your concern about how things could be seen?