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 1264 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
You referred to the mock trials. Was it that data that made you conclude that 12 was the number of jurors to go with?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I was just trying to ascertain the Government’s position on why that is a fairer approach. It was a two-thirds majority before, and it is a two-thirds majority now. The Government received representations from the senators before it drafted the bill, but it has now changed it because, as you have said, it has to be fair for everyone. Presumably, that is your rationale. If you are saying that you are changing it because many people support such a change, that is surely not a rationale for doing so, because it does not really matter who supports what if you are trying to achieve fairness.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
We know who does not support it, but I just wanted to give you a chance to say who does.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
I will do my best, but the problem is that there is a lot of complexity in the bill. I want to try to understand what the Government is writing into the bill.
My question should be fairly succinct and is on the broad provisions to allow virtual attendance for any proceedings. The Lord Justice General has powers to say that someone can attend virtually. How is that process kicked off? My reading of the bill is that the court can overturn that, which I presume is on an individual case-by-case basis. What would prompt the Lord Justice General to make such a decision in a case that they are not directly involved in?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Why is the subsection needed, then?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
The explanatory notes referred to a court “dealing with a case”. Up to what stage does that mean?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Does that mean, then, that this subsection applies up to full committal?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Beyond that, would the normal rules apply?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
Right. It is important to get that on the record, as you said, cabinet secretary. I am sure that you agree that there is a balance to be struck between the operational matters and a fair legal framework, in which the default position is physical appearance but virtual appearance is allowed when the case can be made for it.
On the specified locations, I have a similar line of questioning to Liam Kerr’s. Does the bill specify requirements in relation to setting? Does the appearance have to be from a specific approved place?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Pauline McNeill
My next questions are the same as those that I put to the Scottish Criminal Bar Association and relate to the subsections of the bill that deal with how far the approach can go after the first appearance. When I raised the issue with the association, its position was that, on the face of it, the bill will allow the court to go much further than a custody hearing.
I will tell you what my concerns are in that respect. If we take the bill as a whole—that is, the national jurisdiction elements, with sheriffs being able to sit anywhere, virtual attendance and that provision, which, as I understand it, means that the approach can go well beyond the first appearance—does it give the court system an awful lot of power to determine many things beyond the first appearance? I had thought that, in the way that it was presented, the bill would apply only to certain hearings, but the provision seems to allow things to go much further, if the court thinks fit. That gives me cause for concern.
I accept the cabinet secretary’s point about letting the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service run the courts, but there are principles of fairness and established things such as jurisdiction, where people are tried and so on that could be overturned. First of all, though, can you tell me whether the bill does that?