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 1112 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
I could do, convener, but, with respect, I think that you just need to call the amendments. You proposed putting the question to the amendments en bloc, and I have objected to that.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
I am grateful for the intervention, but I do not think that the amendment would create that duplication. First, it would allow the statement to be made when the court has remitted a case following conviction, and secondly, it would allow the passage of time to be observed. We should remember that the amendment would give the victim the opportunity to make a victim impact statement, instead of imposing an obligation in that respect. That choice will still be there, but the amendment provides an important right to the victim. Should they need to update any previous victim impact statement as a result of, say, some post-traumatic event, it gives them the opportunity to do so.
As I said, I am grateful for the intervention, but I think that I have answered the point in my response.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
Help me to understand something on amendment 91, minister. The court that initially puts a non-harassment order in place has a victim impact statement to assist it, but, because the Government intends to vote down amendment 206, the panel might not be able to avail itself of the same level of information. Am I reading that right?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
Is it correct that a victim impact statement will be available in one forum but not the other?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
Something occurs to me that follows on from Willie Rennie’s well-made point. Has the minister considered the possibility that the solution might be to remove the sections, have the round table and bring the provisions back in a final format in whatever the next vehicle is—the next bill that comes forward—in order to get it right, rather than to pass something that may need to be reviewed later?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
I do.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
I would like to clarify something. Earlier in your statement, and particularly during your response to Martin Whitfield, you said that you were “confident” that the courts will do something, that one of the amendments will possibly “impact on ... rights” and that you think that the
“amendment distorts the existing legal protections”.
Can you help the committee to understand whether you have received any formal legal advice that gets you to that position to reject the amendments, or is that just what you think?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
Thank you.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
Again, with the committee’s indulgence, I will speak to amendment 206, in Russell Findlay’s name. Mr Findlay apologises for not being able to be with us today due to other committee business.
Victims must be heard. Recently the Criminal Justice Committee heard powerful and moving accounts from six rape survivors. Those women described being
“treated as a bit of evidence”,
“not respected”, “treated with contempt”, feeling as if “I did not matter” and feeling like “collateral damage”. They also described the court environment as “threatening”, and one said:
“the justice system failed me more than the perpetrator”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 6, 37-8.]
It was astonishing testimony about what were all recent cases.
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 gives victims of certain crimes the right to make a statement on the crime’s impact, to be submitted to court after a conviction and prior to sentencing to inform the judge or sheriff in their sentencing decision. That has since been extended, with victim impact statements now commonplace.
As I said last week, more serious cases will be dealt with by the panel, and the number of cases will inevitably increase with the raised age limit. One would think it obvious that a victim should be heard, regardless of whether they have been assaulted by an 18-year-old sent to a panel or someone older who is in court. Looking back, therefore, I would say that the arguments for victim impact statements as a principle have been made and accepted. Victims must have their say, regardless of the forum, and amendment 206 would ensure that their voices are heard and that important rights are not seen to be eroded.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Liam Kerr
Before you move on, can I intervene? I will not get a chance to sum up, so I offer an intervention.