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 1455 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
I thought that you might have read the evidence given by Siobhian Brown last week.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
And that is about risk to victims and the public.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
I think that I understand what you are saying about having the relevant information so that the risk can be assessed and I can only presume that the risk is being assessed because someone has been put on the sex offenders register because they pose a risk to the public, so the information is relevant to the management of that. That is the only way it makes sense to me.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
You would have no control over that if they were—
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
I am broadly content in my understanding of what the SSI is about, and I am happy with the cabinet secretary’s answers to my questions. However, I confess that I feel as though there is too much happening in a short space of time to satisfy myself that I understand everything that is going on here. The home detention curfew issue, for example, is not explained properly in our papers—for me, anyway; I am struggling to get my head around that. Due to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s report, we as a committee need to be satisfied that we are not setting a precedent that we cannot justify.
I am in two minds about this, but other members are not so minded, so I am not too upset about that. I just feel really uncomfortable, as Liam Kerr did at the beginning of our consideration of the SSI, about getting to a point at which I am scrambling around saying, “Have I ticked all the boxes here?”.
I am not trying to give us more work. What has been said does make sense, but I am left thinking that I would have liked to have understood the home detention curfew alignment issue before I arrived at the meeting, without having to spend the whole time thinking it through in my head. For the purposes of being cautious, I would have preferred to defer, but I accept that that is not the view of most members.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
So, it is a requirement.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
Who can change that—the UK Government or the Scottish Government? I would like an answer on that because your chiefs are saying that, if they do not get what they have asked for—we do not yet know the outcome—they are going to run out of money. Some of the organisations have said that. I would have thought that carrying reserves forward would be an obvious thing to consider—unless you do not have the power to allow that. I understand what you said about borrowing powers, but we had flexibility on reserves previously.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
The point that Police Scotland is making is that it put £1 billion back into the Government’s funds, but that, since we created the single force, it is no longer able to carry money over. It gave the money back to you, so maybe it is time for it to keep some to create flexibility, keep officers on the front line and keep the budget healthy. That is the point that is being made; I do not want it to be lost.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
I have some questions about evidence from the Nordic model. You have made specific reference to Sweden, where we know that the number of men paying for sex has halved. What can you tell the committee about what has happened to the illegal sale of sex in a country such as Sweden? I presume that some of that has gone underground.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Pauline McNeill
You said that you had had a discussion with the Lord Advocate about the offence itself. This is from memory, and you probably know it better than me, but my understanding of the evidence that we heard from the Crown Office was that it had difficulty with the offence in terms of evidencing the crime. I think that the Crown Office witness said that there were issues with the offence as framed and that they did not feel that there would be many prosecutions in relation to it—correct me if that is wrong. Will you talk us through that and through the framing of the offence? What evidence would need to be shown?
I have the wording of the provision framing the offence in front of me. It states:
“A person (‘A’) commits an offence if it can be reasonably inferred that A has obtained or intended to obtain for themself the performance of a sexual act by another person”.
The Lord Advocate said that she is happy with how the provision is drafted, but I think that the evidence suggested that there would be difficulty in proving the offence. That is my understanding of what was said.