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 4575 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you, Ms Gosal. Certainly, there is no doubt about your passion and commitment to the bill. I will kick off with a broad question. As you will be aware, the majority of organisational evidence that the committee has heard reflects a lack of support, to be blunt, about the bill’s ability to achieve the aims that you have set out and that you are clearly passionate about. As succinctly as possible, what evidence do you have that the bill as drafted would achieve a reduction in domestic abuse offences, and reoffending in particular?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
I will bring in Rona Mackay before we move to questions on part 2 of the bill.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
I will conclude that line of questioning.
For Ms Gosal’s benefit, I add that the practice across agencies that are responding to domestic abuse nowadays certainly does take into account the need to minimise trauma and, therefore, a lot of information sharing across organisations is done with consent. I share the concerns that Jamie Hepburn alluded to with regard to the risk that some of the data collection proposals in the bill might compromise trauma-informed approaches.
We move on to part 4, on school education, with questions from Katy Clark. Any other members who wish to ask questions on this theme can indicate that to the clerk.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
The other part of my question related to the fact that existing processes do not necessarily require a criminal conviction for interventions to take place. Part 1 of the bill is obviously different in that regard. I am thinking back to Detective Superintendent Brown’s assertion that the fact that someone has a criminal conviction does not necessarily reflect the full or totality of the risk that someone may face. I am interested in your reflections on that point.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
I am sorry, but I will have to close this down and draw a line under that questioning. We are very much over time, and I think that we have got the gist of the point about the variance in costing.
I thank our witnesses—Ms Gosal and her colleagues—for coming along to what has been a robust session, and we will now move into private session.
11:09 Meeting continued in private until 13:08.Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
Staying with questions on part 1 of the bill, I will bring in Jamie Hepburn, to be followed by Pauline McNeill.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
I will move things on as we have covered that point. I will bring in Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Rona Mackay. We remain on part 1 of the bill.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
Yes, if you do not mind. I will bring you back in when you want to come back with that question.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
If no members want to discuss part 2—I am not getting any indications—we will move on to part 3, which relates to data collection and reporting. You have alluded to that in your opening statement, Ms Gosal, and in your responses to questions.
I have a question about collecting data. In particular, can you clarify the purpose of collecting the data specified in the bill? Is it to improve services for victims, or is it about understanding the dynamics of domestic abuse more widely?
Could you also clarify something in section 24, which is that the phrase
“victims under the age of 16”
refers to children who are experiencing domestic abuse from a partner or ex-partner and to children who are victims of domestic abuse involving their parents? I would be interested to get a little bit more context on the proposition on data that you have made in the bill.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Audrey Nicoll
I want to stay with part 1, which you have just mentioned, and refer back to the evidence that we received on 10 December from Detective Superintendent Adam Brown of Police Scotland. He said that Police Scotland was not supportive of part 1 of the bill for a number of reasons, one of which was that the statutory management of part 1 might
“draw our focus ... away from some of the other processes”
that are already embedded in Police Scotland’s response to domestic abuse. I noted that, in your opening statement, you said that you challenged that assertion. Secondly, Detective Superintendent Brown said:
“A key difference between”
existing
“processes and the proposals in part 1 is that those other processes do not require a criminal conviction for interventions to take place.”
I certainly acknowledge that point as very important. Obviously, in any response, convictions are taken into account but, as Detective Superintendent Brown told us, they may not necessarily reflect
“the totality of risk that a perpetrator poses.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 10 December 2025; c 4, 5.]
Have you had time to reflect on Police Scotland’s comments and how you might amend part 1 of the bill to take account of its views? From a personal perspective, I think that they are important in this context and worth further consideration.