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: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
We can discuss that later.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I have a follow-up question that I am going to push you on. What is in the public domain might or might not be the same as what we hold in private, but it could become part of the discussion that takes place in the chamber, which is a meeting in public. Do we need to be concerned about that? I am comparing that with the data that we might process, hold and be aware of, which we would deal with under a system that has been thought through. What is the challenge around those two points?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
It will be case by case, but it will be sitting on a transparent process of what we have to do in terms of data protection and other things. That is helpful.
Does Graham Simpson have any questions on this point?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I thank the witnesses for an interesting session. As always, I ask you to feel free to contact the committee if something comes to mind after the meeting. I will reciprocate and say that we might well come back to you. Thank you for your attendance today.
I now move the committee into private session.
11:04 Meeting continued in private until 11:26.Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I am sure that we will get to the point of considering how a number of local authority areas might come together and interact. Do you see costs and registration being a particular challenge if a number of local authority areas, and various people, were to be responsible for a petition and its next steps, if the proposals were to go that far?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Thank you, Peter. Robert Nicol, may I come to you?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I suppose that the purpose of my question is to find out whether that individual needs support, in primary legislation, to make those decisions. In some areas, one could see there being conflicting views on such decisions. Perhaps having very open, strong guidance—even just on a minimum number of sites—would reinforce and support those decisions without opening the petition officer up to criticism.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
From an administrative point of view, the mechanics suggest limiting it, but—I do not want to use the word “automation”—electronification of electoral registration may make it easier. Would it be reviewed at that stage?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Those provisions should apply to the petition process, the subsequent regional poll and/or a by-election. That is probably easier with regard to constituency by-elections, but the point should be made specifically in relation to regional polls and behaviour during the petition period.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Under the proposal in the bill, the question in the petition is, in essence, a finite one and, when the 10 per cent threshold is reached, there will be a recall. Should we simply rely on that finite question and, when it is answered, say, “There will be a recall,” or have you seen from previous examples any value in a petition staying open, given the constraint that people can say only, “Yes”?