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 556 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I get the sense that there is a strong view on the efficacy of the proposals. Could you say a bit more about that? It is pretty stark to say that there will be “significant unintended negative consequences”.
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I see—right. If you could speak to your colleague and ask them what they were getting at, that would be great.
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I will not get too drawn on Maryhill fire station, even though it is the one that was closest to me when I grew up. I totally understand your point, which is that you do not want to get drawn into pitting one area against another. However, do you accept my point that, given that we have a national service, with all its advantages, the national picture and how areas interact with one another should be part of the equation when it comes to service redesign?
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I have one other area to raise on service redesign. You mentioned the need to provide dignified facilities and to address the presence of RAAC, which is an issue at Cumbernauld fire station. Clearly, there are constraints around capital—I do not mean for the service; I am speaking in general terms about the pressures on the Government as a whole—and, to be even-handed, you have recognised and cited that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service understands the issue of RAAC and the need for dignified facilities.
On service redesign more widely, the world has changed. You yourselves have set out in the “Firestorm” report that the service might need to be redesigned and thought through. You will probably not be able to get into too much detail, given the time that we have, but can you set out some of the high-level points that would require to be addressed as part of a review or change to the service provision?
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I will just make sure that that is your evidence and that I have not misattributed it to you.
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
It is your submission, for sure—it is the response to question 7.1.
My question was whether you could expand on your written response, but perhaps I am putting you on the spot a little. You could maybe come back to the committee in writing.
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Good morning. My questions are predicated on the written submissions that we have received, so they will probably be quite specific to individuals.
My first question relates to notification requirements and monitoring. I was struck by what Scottish Women’s Aid said in setting out its view on those proposals. Its submission states:
“after consultation with colleagues across the system, we are not confident that this element of the proposal would actually make engagement with the justice system safer, and we see significant unintended negative consequences.”
That is pretty stark. On the specific question about safety, the Scottish Women’s Convention submission states:
“protective orders which are imposed without requiring victim-survivors to initiate legal action can reduce safety.”
Again, that is a pretty stark thing to hear. I ask Marsha Scott and Agnes Tolmie to expand on the specific points that their organisations have made.
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Agnes Tolmie, will you comment on your point about a reduction in safety?
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I have questions on domestic abuse education in schools. We all understand that it is broadly a good idea to put that in place. However, again, Scottish Women’s Aid had some pretty stark comments on the specific propositions in the bill. The written response says:
“The proposal as stands raises some alarms for us—the implications for children and parents who choose to withdraw their child, for children in the class who disclose abuse in a setting not properly trained to respond safely for the child are two scenarios we worry about.”
That speaks to the point that, sadly, given the prevalence of abuse, there will be kids in the classroom who have witnessed and experienced it, so there is clearly an inherent danger of retraumatisation. How do we deal with that in the school environment?
Maybe Marsha Scott can go first, given that I cited her submission, and then others can comment.
Criminal Justice Committee 3 December 2025 [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Jamie Hepburn
The general question to you all is on the issue of the potential traumatisation or retraumatisation of children. How would that be dealt with?