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 1562 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
That is fine.
Even in the unlikely scenario where a section 46 offence was deemed relevant by the police for the purposes of a level 2 PVG—protecting vulnerable groups—scheme disclosure, the individual would have the right to request a review of that or other relevant information before it is disclosed to an employer. Inclusion of such information is subject to a statutory test.
I need to reiterate that the new Police Scotland approach prioritises women’s safety and routing them to support, as opposed to criminalising them, and convictions for such an offence are therefore less likely to be accrued, given the general policing approach to such behaviour. I can provide further information on that. The same approach applies if an individual is asked by someone, for example, an employer, to self-declare their convictions. A section 46 conviction does not need to be self-declared once it is spent, regardless of the time of disclosure or the role. A system of disregards could be considered, which would introduce a process whereby convictions could be removed entirely from ever having to be disclosed in the criminal records check. However, that would have to be developed for the bill. It could be considered, but it is not something that we have been doing any work on. That would have to be for the member in charge.
A level 2 PVG disclosure, which is commonly referred to as a “PVG scheme”, is a legal requirement for people in a regulated role with children or protected adults, such as a teacher, a nursery or day-care worker, a volunteer, a childminder, a social worker, a doctor, a dentist, a sports coach or an adult care-home worker. A PVG scheme shows any unspent convictions, certain spent convictions, any notification requirements, unspent cautions and other relevant information that is held by the police. Those who are on a barred list for work with children or adults or who are under consideration for inclusion on the barred list for work with children or protected adults, or who have been served any prescribed civil court order, are members of the protecting vulnerable groups scheme, and members of the PVG scheme are subject to continuous monitoring in that situation.
I can move on to level 2 from the barred list check. Do you want me to keep going, convener?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
One of the things that the member has acknowledged is the increase in online prostitution. If it is 80 per cent now—
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
I have raised those concerns previously. There is an evolving world online. We face challenges today that we did not face a decade ago, and there will be new challenges in 10 years’ time. When the Nordic model was introduced in Sweden in 1999, the online business that we have now did not exist, so that was not taken into consideration. It is a huge worry that we have to be on top of these days.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
Yes, but I have raised concerns—there are elements that we agree with and elements that we want further detail on. It would be premature for me to be dismissive of Ms Regan’s bill at this stage and to say that we will commit to carrying it over into the next parliamentary session. I am not against doing that and would be happy to do so if the SNP were in government in the next session, but that commitment would have to come from the First Minister. However, I can commit that there will be on-going work on how we can legislate in the future is this bill does not pass.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
We engage regularly with Police Scotland, especially on operation begonia, and also with the Crown Office. I will bring Jeff Gibbons in, as he is the one who has those discussions.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
Yes.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
I would have to see the detail. At this stage, I am staying neutral and will not commit the Government to supporting the bill. Once I have the detail, I will consider it.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
I had a briefing last week from Linda Thompson from the Women’s Support Project. She does a snapshot every year and she gave me a preview of last year’s snapshot, which looked at about 100 women across Scotland. It goes into the complex areas of poverty, drug addiction and mental health issues. It is a very good report, and I think that the committee would benefit from seeing it.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
Based on our conversations with Police Scotland and the work that it is doing at the moment, I think that the police are not targeting the women; they are targeting the men.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
Siobhian Brown
I think that I have touched on that. I have concerns that they are not realistic. We need to have more detail, especially with regard to the support aspect of the bill. I do not know how much that would cost; I think that the suggestion is that the money would come from the funds for the equally safe strategy, which have already been allocated. The member must supply more detail if we are to work out how much the bill will cost. We want legislation to be affordable and workable.