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 2046 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
I will be very brief.
I am sorry if I have this wrong, but I think that Cindy Morrice suggested that discretion was applied for and granted on only five occasions in the past year. I am sorry if I have that number wrong—it would be helpful if she could restate the number.
What work has been done to estimate how many times discretion could have been applied for and might have been granted, when that has not happened? I know that there is no exact science to this, but I would like to hear an estimate or a ballpark figure or to get a feeling for how far there is a lack of applications, even though those could be successful. Is there any more data that you could put on the record so that we can see the extent of the challenge under the current criteria?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
The committee will, of course, reach out to the Government on when that part might eventually come into force. Does any witness have any insight into when implementation might happen? Since no one does, I will say thank you.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
Thank you. What I really want to ask about is also for you, Sophie, because I think that it was mentioned in the Govan Law Centre’s written evidence. Does part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, with its key role for the police in enforcement, represent a viable alternative to the old system of civil protection orders? Part 1 of that act has not yet been enacted. The Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is looking at why that is the case, but my understanding is that the key aspect is that it is not the victim/survivor who would apply for such an order and that they would not bear the cost but that Police Scotland could take that forward. Could you say more about the importance of that and about the barriers to fully implementing part 1 of the 2021 act?
10:30Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
For clarity, I will go back to my verbatim notes. I was trying to set the context. My notes on what we have established from the committee’s call for evidence say that, when a victim has to apply for a civil protection order, drawbacks include the potential cost to the victim of doing so and the limitations of the legal aid system in alleviating those costs. I want to ensure that all the witnesses agree with that as a matter of fact and to check whether you want to add to that before I move to my final question.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
That is helpful for my clarity. Sophie, what do you think that the issues are in relation to applying for legal aid for civil protection orders?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
Do those same flexibilities exist for civil protection orders?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
My question is in two parts. The first part has probably just been answered by Colin Lancaster and Sophie Berry but I will check that. There seems to be consensus on the importance of civil protection orders, but there are issues with regard to the cost for victims and the limitations of the legal aid system to show flexibility in relation to that. Can I check that that is the general consensus among all the witnesses?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
I will clarify and you can supply more information in writing, because I have sprung this on you today. Everyone seems to agree that there is a reluctance to apply for discretion, which may be because of a lack of awareness or because of a lack of consciousness that it can be applied for, but do we know the extent of the problem? Have solicitors been surveyed? Does the Scottish Legal Aid Board have a feeling for how many times discretion should be being applied for? At the moment, no one is quantifying the extent of the problem. If you do not have that information today, please let the committee know, because that is important.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
That is helpful; you have put on record that resource for the police is a key issue in the delivery of that provision and that that should be a priority. That is what we want to establish and put on record.
Do other witnesses have anything to add in relation to the importance of part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 being brought into force?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Bob Doris
We have spoken about civil protection orders, but there are drawbacks to applying for those. There is potentially a cost to victims and the legal aid system is limited in its ability to alleviate those costs. I think that I heard you mention aspects of that, Colin, and Sophie certainly did. Is there consensus among the witnesses that that has to be looked at again? Rather than asking a specific question about what the issues are, I am checking whether we have established that that is a fact—that that is the view.