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 łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of łÉČËżěĘÖ 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
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Can I draw just us back to—
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 15 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
So, members would get an insight into not just why an individual was interested in that committee, but also—you have described this eloquently—the process and the approach, and the empathy, that they would bring as convener. In that way, members would understand, even before the committee started, the sort of committee that it would be, and you think that that would be to the benefit of both the chamber and the wider audience.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is excellent. Jenny, do you have any comments in response to that question?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is fine—it is why I asked the question.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
On the understanding that I neither agree nor disagree with the proposal, there is a tension between the information that this committee may want to have in order to reach a decision and how the data needs to be obtained and handled and how long it is preserved for. A challenge exists in the fact that, in the real world, additional information will, no doubt, be available through social media and the opinions and views of people who allegedly have other information that is not being put forward. This committee—along with a number of others—spends a huge amount of time balancing those two aspects.
Then there is the challenge of the existence of things that become disclosable subsequently. Notwithstanding whether I agree or disagree with the proposal, a decision that this committee reaches on such a point would at some stage invariably have to go to the chamber for validation, because we are subservient to the chamber in that regard. The amount of information that then becomes available in respect of that challenges all strong efforts to retain data on the smallest number of people and for the shortest period of time.
I am asking you the impossible question, and you know that it is coming. How do we reconcile the tensions? In reality, information will get out there that could be particularly harmful to an individual MSP but that has been handled as well as it possibly can be under GDPR. Is there a danger that, in achieving that, we defeat the purpose of what we are trying to do? On paper, that is relatively straightforward: it is whether there is an explanation for why someone has not been in attendance.
Discuss. [Laughter.]
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I am sorry, but I am going to rudely cut across you. What the bill is asking us to decide is whether there is a reason for someone not having been present for 180 days. In a sense, it is not about putting the record straight. If other information comes out, the bill does not say that we need to put the record straight. We can sit within that remit of just saying, “This is our view.”
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Peter Stanyon, are there alternatives that we should have on the horizon rather than the recall that is proposed?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I will come back on a couple of points. The petition itself is simply about going in and saying, “As an individual, I’m putting my name here for the recall.” In the—thankfully relatively limited—examples of recall petitions in the United Kingdom, have there been any challenges with regard to delivery? Have people wanted to indicate, “No—I don’t a recall to take place”?
At the moment, you walk through the door of wherever the petition is being signed and everyone knows which way you are voting. Have you had any administrative challenges in that regard or experiences as to how that plays out in real time? I ask Peter Stanyon to respond first.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Therefore, it is not insurmountable in the sense of it being such a big challenge that we should not go there.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is very helpful.