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 2154 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 15 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Right.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 15 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Good morning. I want to begin by asking you about the lower standard that you mentioned—I think that this is the first time that I have heard about that. Is that contained in law or guidance? Where does that come from?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 15 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
I expect that we will hear from the next panel about what happens after the 90 days. I note that you say in your submission that a distinction should be drawn between
“allegations made while an officer still holds the office of constable”
and
“allegations made subsequent to the officer holding the office of constable”—
in other words, where the allegation comes once they are no longer with the police. Does that mean that you think that there should be some adjustment to the bill?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 15 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Scottish Labour welcomes the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill. Will the cabinet secretary consider that there might be related offences? I am aware of a case in which a sub-postmaster was accused of defrauding £35,000, but, to save his mother from jail, her son pled guilty to taking cash that we now know did not go missing at all, and he was subsequently convicted. Will the cabinet secretary be open minded that that man is as much a victim of the Horizon scandal as his mother was? Will she consider whether there is a way to fix that in the bill?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 9 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
To ask—[Interruption.]
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 9 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
In secondary schools, the behaviour that is most commonly reported by staff as having the greatest negative impact is pupils using mobile phones when they should not be. People commonly assume that smartphones are a problem only in secondary schools, but one of my constituents has raised concerns about his child’s primary school, which has had problems with inappropriate content being circulated on WhatsApp groups and bullying via smartphones.
Is the Scottish Government looking into the extent of cyberbullying taking place in Scottish schools? What policies are being considered to beat the problem?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 9 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service continued to prosecute postmasters when there was evidence that the Horizon computer system used by the Post Office was flawed. (S6F-03095)
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 9 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
To ask—[Interruption.]
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 9 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
Third time lucky. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to issue guidance to schools encouraging them to prohibit the use of mobile phones by pupils. (S6O-03417)
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 9 May 2024
Pauline McNeill
I also welcome the First Minister to his post.
I would ask him to note carefully what I say here. We know that, in 2013, Post Office lawyers came to Scotland to meet senior procurator fiscals to convince them to keep prosecuting cases. However, forensic accountancy firm Second Sight’s interim report was given to the Crown Office and flagged that there were defects or bugs in the Horizon software, giving rise to 76 branches being affected by incorrect balances or transactions.
In an email to me this week, Second Sight director Ron Warmington said that it would have been beneficial if there had been “a little less naivety” from the Crown Office and that, if the Crown Office had at least taken the precaution of checking the report and calling him or the Second Sight offices, the outcome might well have been different.
Does the First Minister agree that, notwithstanding the independence of the Crown Office, it should be fully accountable for the miscarriages of justice in Scotland, because it did not provide the checks and balances that it should have? It chose to continue to prosecute cases for five years and never wrote to a single victim or attempted to overturn any of those convictions until now. Given that, should the Lord Advocate not come to this Parliament and answer further questions?