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 1586 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. You have answered Sharon Dowey’s question, and mine was on roughly the same area. You have removed those two offences because the police are not using fixed penalties for them. Is that right?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
Oh, right. I presumed that it was from 2004—
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
Is there a policy such that two years is the time after which you would review something? I honestly thought that you would say that those offences had not been used in 20 years—and I could see that—but in two years’ time—
09:45
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
Why does that matter? If it is an NHS issue regardless, when the police officer takes the person to the NHS facility where they can best be treated, why would that police officer not simply say, “Well, we’ve done our job, so it’s over to you”? Why would that not be the case in every circumstance? You are saying that you think that the police have some responsibility, at that point, to wait to find out what the diagnosis is.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
Does that mean that no progress has been made in filling that gap? It seems to me that you are talking about something that is currently intangible.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
I do not feel that we are getting anywhere with what you are saying, to be honest. Our papers say:
“The taskforce is also looking to build training to give police officers and staff the knowledge, skills and confidence to support that balance around the care, support and monitoring in day-to-day policing.”
It sounds to me as if you are still going to rely on police officers to fill that gap.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
You have talked about the work to scale things down so that we are making some progress, but that is not in the area where the gap is. It is where there are two competing models when someone has a mental health problem and a diagnosis that needs to be addressed. You have made progress in that area—is that right?—but that is not where the gap is.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
What you have talked about is exactly why the committee is conducting its inquiry. However, the truth is that not much progress has been made. This morning, we have heard from witnesses that a gap exists, which has fallen to our police force to fill. That is what David Threadgold said. Do you agree that not very much progress has been made?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
I understand. For thoroughness, if that situation arose again, perhaps it would be worth asking the police why they were not using the fixed-penalty approach for certain offences. I had understood that that is what it is for. Would that mean that the police would then charge people with those offences in the usual way?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2026
Pauline McNeill
I will conclude with this question. I would like to think that, if this situation happened again, the Government would ask more questions about why the police were not using the scheme for an offence, so that a committee could make a more informed decision and not simply say, “The police are not using it. Well, that is that—just strike it off, then.” The offence was on the list in the first place for a reason, so the scheme was meant to be used. I just make the point that, in future, it might be worth interrogating the police—