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 1838 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 October 2024
Pauline McNeill
Thank you.
I am in the same position as Katy Clark, in that I think that the amendments in this group are really important, regardless of how they have been framed.
There are a couple of things on which I would like further clarification. Cabinet secretary, have you had any discussion with the Scottish Police Federation or other police organisations about the implications of the duty of candour being applied to off-duty officers? Katy Clark talked about various scenarios, and one of the difficulties with the bill lies in trying to apply its provisions to scenarios that we know very little about. One scenario that I can think of involves an off-duty officer who is out socialising and witnesses something. Does the duty of candour apply in that scenario? Are there any circumstances where it would not apply—for instance, if an officer is involved as a witness, which could compromise them in some other way—or is the duty absolute?
Secondly, in relation to the framing of the bill, I want to understand the language used in amendment 10, which says
“subject, in particular, to the reasonable assertion”.
Perhaps the officials will need to help to answer that. Why is the amendment framed in that language, with the phrase “reasonable assertion”? Does that suggest that there are circumstances where the privilege against self-incrimination would not apply?
I have a third point of clarification to raise. Cases where a police officer has been confirmed as a witness illustrate an important aspect of the duty of candour versus the issue of self-incrimination. Am I right in thinking that there is no requirement for the duty of candour to be applied until the point at which the officer concerned is confirmed as a witness and not a suspect? Would there be any scenarios in which that might change—where an officer might go from being a witness to being a suspect, but has already spoken without any privilege? I was wondering whether those things had been discussed when you framed the provisions.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 October 2024
Pauline McNeill
I want to be clear before the vote. This is not a new vetting procedure.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 October 2024
Pauline McNeill
On a point of information, I am not trying to be difficult with the Government on this. Cabinet secretary, you have said that these are the timetables that we have to work to, and that is true, but, having dealt with quite a lot of legislation over the years, I know that it is not usual for the Government to introduce a substantial procedure at this stage. I know that you said that it was not a new procedure, but it looks to me as though it is, and I am going to be asked to vote on it in five minutes. I think that it is a new procedure, and we have not consulted on it, so it is not fair to represent the process of legislation in that way.
We are probably all dissatisfied with regard to how fast the process is. However, it is unusual for the Government to lob in an entirely new process at this stage. We are not really sure about the effect that it will have on people. You said that you consulted the federation, but the committee is confused, because we have been told that you have not done that. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Government would even concede that it is not normal to lodge a three-page amendment to a procedure when we have had no discussion of that amendment.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 October 2024
Pauline McNeill
I acknowledge that. I thought that you could draft something that would allow for an extension of that. It is really about the principle of not having a completely open-ended investigation. Something should go in the bill that tries to ensure fairness. Without revision, an investigation could just run on for years and years, as some have done.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 October 2024
Pauline McNeill
To be fair, I did not expect you to answer that. It is just that we are going to vote on the matter shortly, so I want to be sure about what “reasonable assertion” means.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Pauline McNeill
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports regarding the number of young people aged 11 to 14 who are involved in violent crime. (S6F-03394)
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Pauline McNeill
Police Scotland data indicates that almost 14,000 violent crimes were committed by children in 2023-24, but, worryingly, there is a sharp rise in the number of children in the 11 to 14 age group being involved or armed with weapons such as knives, blunt objects and bottles. Knives were the most common weapon that was used or present. Concerningly, the chief constable told the Criminal Justice Committee last week that
“the number of assaults on officers by under-18s is on the increase.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 September 2024; c 34.]
Does the First Minister acknowledge that cuts to youth services could have made the problem worse?
YouthLink Scotland and other organisations have criticised the lack of data available. Given the severity of the crimes, what exactly is the Government doing to engage with that age group? On the face of it, it does not appear that the Government is doing much at all.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 18 September 2024
Pauline McNeill
I thank Ross Greer for giving way, and I very much respect his contribution. I have always respected people who have a different perspective from my own. However, is it not fair to say that even pro-yes commentators said that the failure to present an economic plan and to be clear about the currency of an independent Scotland were the reasons why independence failed in 2014? Does the member accept that, and has that question been resolved?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 18 September 2024
Pauline McNeill
On my last visit to HMP Stirling, I was made aware of some women offenders who have psychiatric conditions; the prison is not equipped to deal with them. That seems to be the key reason why the local people that Mark Ruskell mentioned are experiencing shouting from the prison.
I am also aware that the Government has responded to questions that I and others have raised about Carstairs hospital having no female places. In view of that, is the Scottish Government assessing the various needs of women offenders serving a sentence who require specialist psychiatric services?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 12 September 2024
Pauline McNeill
Behind the recording of crime statistics are real victims, such as the women who had to sit through court proceedings last year and hear the rapist referred to as a woman. I do not think that the First Minister can ignore responsibility. As Rachael Hamilton said, Police Scotland has said that that is consistent with its values, but the Government needs to be clear whether it is consistent with the Government’s values. If a message is to go from the First Minister today, does it not make a mockery of the Government’s violence against women strategy if violent male offenders can present as women and that could be accepted by the police? It is that critical.