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 ˿ and committees will automatically update to show only the ˿ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ˿ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ˿ 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 1653 contributions
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
I will leave it there.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
I want to explore a bit further the issue of depathologising. I appreciate that the context of private versus state healthcare in Denmark is different, and that we have issues around waiting times that we have well explored. Did that depathologising come across as a really significant shift in the experiences of the trans people you interviewed?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
I will stick with first names, too.
I thank all three witnesses for coming to the meeting and for their opening statements. It has been helpful to hear those in relation to some of the other things that we have heard today and prior to today.
I will ask a couple of questions about the case for change and some of the requirements that we would be removing from the gender recognition process if we pass the bill as it is, which are for medical and psychological diagnosis and for the panel of experts to have an important assessment, or gatekeeping, role.
Sandra, you talked about the polarised concerns that we experience in the UK not being manifested elsewhere. Could you say a little more about how the case for reform that we hear, particularly in Scotland, has been different elsewhere? Where did the catalyst for reform come from elsewhere, if it was not borne out of the same kind of debate that we might be having here in Scotland?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
Good morning, panel. Thank you for joining us this morning and for the evidence that you are providing today. I also thank the SHRC for the written evidence that it submitted prior to the meeting.
I have a couple of questions for the SHRC and Victor Madrigal-Borloz. Victor, in your opening remarks, you said that the requirements for a gender identification process include its being accessible, fast and widely available. You then said that there are other requirements that you would be prepared to elaborate on. Can you elaborate on requirements that you see as being necessary and important if we are to get the process right?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
Professor Sullivan, may I just interrupt you? That is not really the question that I asked. The question that I asked was about the process for getting a GRC, because that is what the bill that we are considering is about. We are not considering how medical records are stored, held or used, or how different lists for different screening processes are managed. Given that there are trans people who do not have a GRC who get—or, possibly, do not get—the medical treatment that they require, why does changing the process of getting a GRC have the impact that you claim that it does?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
Thank you. I have just one follow-up. We heard something in a previous session that I suppose comes down to that question of harm and what has been described to us as the competing rights of different groups. I think that you both mentioned in your introductory remarks that it is important for us to keep in mind the notion of confidentiality linked to the privacy of trans people. We heard previously that the right to privacy for trans people going through an accessible non-invasive process would come with very serious consequences. Are you saying that your assessment is that those serious consequences are not based in objective evidence at the moment? Does your assessment indicate that there will not actually be serious harm and that no serious consequences would arise if we were to pass the bill?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
Thank you, that is really clear.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
No—the distinction that you made at the end of it is really helpful.
Chris, I would like to ask you about your detailed analysis and knowledge of the situation in Denmark. It has been suggested that your research has found that there is a desire in Denmark to make access to medical treatment pathways self-declared, too. Can you say a little more about that? From your analysis and research, what is your position on medical gatekeeping in relation to the different stages of transition that people might go through?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
Thank you, that is helpful.
In your view, is depathologisation an integral part of the bill that we are scrutinising?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Maggie Chapman
Thanks. That is helpful.
A moment ago, you talked about the importance of language, how it is used and the need for it to be clear and not dehumanising. I was struck by one of your earlier comments in response to one of Rachael Hamilton’s questions on data collection and people answering the sex question based on a process of self-identification or self-declaration. You likened it to the age question, and I think that you said that we do not expect people to
“make up whatever age they like.”
Are you saying that people make up whatever gender they like?