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 4236 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 30 November 2023
John Swinney
I wonder whether Mr Kerr could name an example of an area that he is concerned about.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 30 November 2023
John Swinney
Has the committee given any consideration to what role it might perform, in the event of the bill passing, in considering the operation of the licensing arrangements to provide wider and broader satisfaction with them or in raising issues about how they are operated?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 November 2023
John Swinney
In relation to the research work that you undertook, I would be interested to hear whether any differences in perspective or substance of view on the question emerged between the jurors in the sexual assault mock trial and those in the non-sexual assault trial.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 November 2023
John Swinney
Our panellists have commented on the unanimity provision that exists in certain other jurisdictions. I am interested in understanding why our tradition is one of majority rather than one of unanimity.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 November 2023
John Swinney
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Government’s proposal prevails and that the majority would have to be eight out of 12. You have expressed some reservations about whether that is the appropriate balance. The question that I am airing is: would the committee need to be mindful of other issues, if the Government was intent on pursuing that approach, in order to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 November 2023
John Swinney
That is exactly what I am getting at.
11:30Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 November 2023
John Swinney
Can I interrupt you for a second, Professor Leverick? That is not what I am asking—
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 November 2023
John Swinney
I totally accept that you cannot do that, but I am interested in what issues we have to consider to ensure fairness to all parties—I stress “all parties”—to a trial.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 November 2023
John Swinney
Based on your observations of the mock trials, your research suggests a multiplicity of views as to what the verdict means, whether it is that the Crown did not prove its case sufficiently or that the juror wants to send a signal to A N Other.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 November 2023
John Swinney
That is helpful, and it brings me to the other area that I want to discuss. To broaden out the topic, I want to address the interaction and the relationship—which your research in your evidence paper helpfully draws out for the committee—between the size of the jury, the question of majority versus supermajority and the presence or absence of the not proven verdict.
I am interested in the relationship between those three factors. One might take the view—for all the arguments that Mr Keane gave us a moment ago—that the not proven verdict does not help us to have a clear criminal justice system. However, the implications of that need to be carefully considered in relation to the impact on the other two questions: what is the optimum size of a jury and what are the arguments for a simple majority versus a supermajority?
Can you air some of the dynamics of the relationship within that triumvirate of jury size, a simple majority versus a supermajority and the presence of not proven?