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 1003 contributions
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft] [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Karen Adam
Given that the coming home implementation plan has now ended, what mechanisms exist to hold decision makers accountable for the lack of progress?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft] [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Karen Adam
Cathy would like to come in.
11:15Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft] [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Karen Adam
We move on to questions from Paul O’Kane.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft] [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Karen Adam
We move to questions from Marie McNair.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft] [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Karen Adam
Thank you. We move on to questions from Evelyn Tweed.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft] [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Karen Adam
Thank you. We move to questions from Maggie Chapman.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft] [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Karen Adam
Thank you very much for that powerful opening statement.
Before we move on to questions, I advise members that, if we direct our questions to Jan Savage, she will direct us to the person that she wishes to respond.
I will start the questions. The report highlights a
“gulf between the rhetoric of taking a human rights-based approach and the reality of putting that into practice.”
It says that the coming home implementation plan fails to comply with the right to independent living. What is the consequence if the Scottish Government fails to comply with that right? Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the Scottish Government’s commitments to deinstitutionalisation are met?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft] [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Karen Adam
We have come to the end of our public session as members have asked the questions that they wanted to ask. I thank our witnesses. We have had a powerful evidence session, and I assure them that the strength of their message and the urgency of their advocacy has come across.
We move into private session to consider the remaining items on our agenda.
11:32 Meeting continued in private until 12:34.Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Karen Adam
Amendment 233 aims to remove the barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from serving on criminal juries.
The goal of amendment 233 is to ensure that jurors with communication differences who are deaf and require a British Sign Language interpreter can fully participate in jury deliberations. That would foster more inclusive and accessible justice systems for all.
The current challenge is that only jurors are allowed to be present during jury deliberations, which excludes people who need communication support such as BSL interpreters from fully participating.
For a bit of background, in 2018, a group chaired by Lord Matthews recommended considering the issue; the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service echoed that call in December 2023, recommending that legislation be amended to allow approved persons, such as BSL interpreters, to support jurors during deliberations.
11:30The amendment seeks to insert the proposed section 88A into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, enabling the court to appoint a communications supporter for jurors who need assistance due to a physical disability. The supporter would be present during deliberations, ensuring that the juror can participate effectively. The amendment also seeks to ensure that multiple supporters can be appointed if needed, and that they can take an oath to preserve the integrity of the trial.
Before appointing a supporter, the court would have the opportunity to hear from the prosecution and defence on whether the case was appropriate for the juror—for example, if the case involved audio recordings where hearing the tone was important, a deaf juror might not be suitable.
Amendment 233 seeks to empower judges to decide on a case-by-case basis, which ensures flexibility and judicial discretion. It does not mandate the appointment of a supporter in every case but provides the option for judges to consider communications support where appropriate. That ensures fairness and accessibility when needed.
The SCTS’s letter to the committee raised concerns about space constraints in courtrooms. If operational difficulties arise, such as the size of the courtroom, and the court cannot accommodate supporters, the court will not appoint a communication supporter, and the juror could be excused. Although operational concerns are valid, the vast majority of courtrooms cannot accommodate multiple communications supporters during deliberations. The flexibility in the amendment ensures that, if a court faces any difficulties, the judge can decide to excuse the juror, or the juror can be informed in advance of any issues with that accommodation.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Karen Adam
Yes, absolutely. It is for anybody who has a physical disability that impairs their ability to communicate and who needs to have supporters present with them. The supporters would have to take an oath during the deliberations and fully accept the inclusion of all signed support.