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: 22 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
That makes sense. Thank you.
My final question might be more difficult to answer. We are wrestling with who does what and the complexities of the interactions between different authorities. The bill’s whole purpose is to simplify the system for the public, but what differences will the public see as a result? Are some parts of it worth highlighting to the public?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 22 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
It is interesting that you have chosen that. From the start of our consideration of the bill, I have always seen it as something that we should have, because it should be enshrined. I presume that police officers are trained in such duties and that they are covered in recruitment processes. I have to say that I am unaware of any particular issues involving police officers not investigating; I have just seen the provision as something that we should have on the statute book. What you have said implies that you have had some problems with police officers, and I have never heard that.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 22 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Thank you. The convener will be happy.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 22 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Does that mean that someone decides the line between excessive force and assault before the complaint goes to the PIRC?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 22 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
So, you would not look at a simple allegation of assault. You would just send it up to the PIRC.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 22 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
In other words, some evidence that there was an assault.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 22 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
What is the right point in time?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 22 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
I am sorry—yes. She has had many jobs.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Before we get to stage 2, would it be possible to get some information about the cases that have been before the criminal appeal court and any information about what is in the pipeline? It would be useful to know how many cases we might be dealing with.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 21 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
The chain of wrongdoing that we have discussed today is a long one, indeed. It goes beyond the Post Office to include the Fujitsu engineers and officials who knew that they were abusing the system in order to get accounts to balance.
James Arbuthnot played a pivotal role in helping sub-postmasters to achieve justice. He never gave up and was never brushed off. Katy Clark and other MPs at the time were well aware of the controversy, so why were others unaware of it?
Fergus Ewing and Jamie Greene are correct to say that lessons must be learned. As Alasdair Allan highlighted, for hundreds of otherwise law-abiding people—who ran small businesses up and down the country and were important figures in their communities, helping people with their pensions, savings and benefits—the very role that they played in those communities was the one that hurt them, because of this unlawful scandal.
Sub-postmasters signed contracts to make good any losses. Why would 800 or so of them then defraud themselves of thousands of pounds, knowing that they would face criminal proceedings? That does not make a great deal of sense.
Even the helpline that was set up to help sub-postmasters to deal with the Horizon computer system was said to be an utter nightmare. People were kept on hold for hours on end when they were trying to learn how to use the system and could not get the money to balance. That was a tell-tale sign, in itself.