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 985 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
If you agree that there is nothing wrong with the equally safe at school programme and that it complies with the UNCRC, why would there be a problem with guaranteeing in law that it should apply to domestic abuse education?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
It is good to hear that 23 out of 32 local authorities have rolled out rehabilitation work, and that that could increase to 25. However, Glyn Lloyd from Social Work Scotland said last week that there is
“no consistency across the 32 local authorities.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 10 December 2025; c 15.]
He also said that the Caledonian system is the only accredited programme in Scotland. An election could change that. A new Government that comes in in May could decide that it is not worth rolling out the Caledonian system across the country. If you agree that we could guarantee access to rehabilitation programmes, would it not be better to enshrine that in law so that it does not become a postcode lottery?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
My question was about the sex offenders register and the notification requirements that are imposed by it. Does that register help to keep the public safe?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
If you believe that sex offenders should be required to comply with notification requirements, do you not believe that the same should apply to those who are guilty of crimes of domestic abuse?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
In your letter, you said that you agreed that claims that notification requirements act as a deterrent for potential offenders were “unevidenced”. If so, why is that system still in place for sex offenders?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
I have a couple questions about some other areas. Could you tell us which public bodies collect data on protected characteristics?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
My bill has been in progress since 2022, and I have been talking about data since then. We are three years on. If I am not wrong, you noted in a response to one of the committee’s questions that you would be looking at data next year, which would mean that data has not been collected for the four years since my bill was lodged.
I have spoken to people with disabilities and people from an ethnic minority background, which I myself come from, who have been domestically abused. I know that they are very worried that, when they go into a police station to report a crime, their background or disability is not taken into consideration. Sometimes, they cannot even correspond, in a way. That crucial data is not being collected. Why should the data not be put into statute? Four years on, the Government has not done anything about it.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
Are you satisfied that the equally safe at school programme complies with the UNCRC?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 16 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
I am not convinced by the cabinet secretary’s response in relation to having the right processes and framework in place, so I will move amendments 5 and 6.
Amendment 5 moved—[Pam Gosal].
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 16 December 2025
Dr Pam Gosal MBE
The bill currently presumes that every child, regardless of their age, is capable of forming a view unless proven otherwise. At stage 1, many parents and education professionals raised concerns that that would place unreasonable pressure on younger children and leave teachers to make difficult judgments about capacity without a clear framework. As drafted, the bill risks creating conflict between pupils and parents and placing schools in a difficult position.
Amendment 5 would remove the automatic presumption and replace it with a more realistic test. It would require schools to be satisfied that a pupil can meaningfully express a view, taking account of their age, stage of development and understanding. That would reduce risk for schools, support teachers and still ensure that children’s views are taken seriously where appropriate.
Amendment 6 would address the concern that, under the bill as drafted, a pupil’s objection would normally determine the outcome of parental requests to withdraw. As the committee has recognised, parents are the primary guardians of their children and have legal responsibility for their upbringing and education. Amendment 6 would not remove the pupil’s voice; it would require schools to take account of the pupil’s views, and it would make it clear that the parent’s request should be given effect unless the school is satisfied, having regard to the pupil’s views, that doing so would be contrary to the pupil’s best interests. That is a balanced and proportionate approach. It would protect children where there is a genuine welfare concern while avoiding a situation in which schools are routinely placed in conflict with parents over sensitive family decisions.
10:15