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 1278 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
Can I stop you there? I agree with what you are saying; everyone has a responsibility in this regard. However, I am asking you a specific question. A lot of us have done some work on what we think needs to be done in school, but it is a complex question. If the Government is to support a programme of domestic abuse education in school, it must know what the right programme will be. Do you agree that that is complex?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
So they would all be subject to the MAPPA requirements.
Pam, I think that you said that the provision is modelled on the sex offenders register. If you are not able to answer any of these questions, that is fine, but these are the ones that interest me. Have you done any assessment of how effective the sex offenders register has been in improving safety or reducing reoffending?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
You said that you think that the sex offenders register has resulted in a reduction in repeat offences—recidivism.
10:30Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
So, is it both?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. I will start with some technical questions, the answers to which should be short.
I just want to be clear. Charlie, you have already said that the provisions relate to those who are convicted on indictment in solemn proceedings and those who receive a 12-month sentence. Am I right that the 12-month period relates to the sentence?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
So that might not necessarily be jail time.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
Anyone?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
Well, I am going to make a suggestion. I hope that you would agree that we need to have a wider discussion. With regard to your bill, you have said that you think that the solution is telling boys that domestic abuse is wrong—
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
But I am suggesting that—
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Pauline McNeill
That was a helpful exchange. I just want to put on record that I hope that my intention here is not misunderstood—I do support the use of virtual attendance. The cabinet secretary has clarified that, whatever the location, the proceedings will be delivered with solemnity et cetera, which is important. I do not think that the committee should settle for anything less; if this is going to be a permanent feature of the Scottish criminal justice system, we have to ensure that it is done to everyone’s satisfaction. However, we all recognise that it can reduce delays and make things easier for victims.
I should say that it was not me who brought up the issue of locations. The Law Society and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association raised concerns about people giving evidence from home, and it was mentioned by another witness, too. That is why I addressed it. I share their concerns, although I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here, and the cabinet secretary makes an important point when she says that someone could have a specific reason for giving evidence from home. I think that that would be okay, but I am not in favour of people giving evidence at home for the sake of convenience, because I do not believe that that would satisfy the test. I would prefer it if we nailed that issue down at stage 3 so that it is clear in the bill, because at the moment it is, as far as I can see, silent on the matter.
It is important that we future proof this legislation. I presume that, if we improve electronic connection, this approach might be used a bit more, and we have to be clear about when it can be used in the interests of justice.
I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about public officials and the giving of virtual evidence as a vital component of their work. However, I was surprised by the evidence from the police with regard to their concerns about it, for reasons that I think are, once again, related to connection.
I did not comment on Liam Kerr’s amendments at the time, but on his amendment 41, I am not clear about why that provision should apply in all circumstances. I can see why, in some circumstances, you might not publish the location. The location could be checked, for reasons that we have already discussed. In any case, I am not too clear about that; after all, if you give evidence in court, you are giving evidence in a known location with a known address.
I do support what was said about Liam Kerr’s amendment 43. If there is to be a report, it has to be about more than just gathering data. There are some reservations about whether virtual attendance is all that it is said to be, and I hope that the Government will consider what might be done to give us the kind of report that will mean something, given that this is a substantive—indeed, permanent—change. We did what we needed to do during the pandemic, but the fact that we did something then as a necessity to get through trials should not be an argument for continuing to do it now.
I hope that, before we close the door on this at stage 3, the Government will give more thought to it. That said, I will not be pressing amendment 34.