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 1956 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
I have seen a range of communications between you and Kirsty MacDonald.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
But you do not say that. At no point in the email that you sent at 9:57 am on 20 December do you ever mention the unions.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
Let us look at some of the things that you emailed Kirsty MacDonald about and asked her to redact. This comes from pages 60 and 61 of the SATH survey:
“They need to open up questioning and criticism instead of gaslighting and removing contracts from anyone who challenges them. If you speak out you are not getting invited to return, regardless of how good you are as a marker, because the SQA does not like being questioned. Ask teachers. Ask the markers. Stop listening to the echo chamber that the organisation operates in.”
That seems to be more critical of the SQA than of an individual staff member who is not mentioned there at all and it does not seem to be something that any union representing an individual staff member would be worried about.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
But we are not hearing it. We are being told that it has to be redacted.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
I am sorry, Ms Stewart, but those quotes do not mention an individual member of staff. They are critical of your organisation, but they are not critical of an individual member of staff.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
It is in the plural.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
I am sorry, but I am just asking whether it is a team of one.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
Well, I would like an answer.
Ms Rogers—
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
Ms Rogers, are you able to enlighten us?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Douglas Ross
As I understand it from SATH, it has had no correspondence on its multiple drafts of an apology and the further redactions that have been requested since it appeared before the committee.
What is your view, Ms Stewart, as the interlocutor between the union, an individual member of staff and the survey? SATH has made clear its view; it held its hands up, and Kirsty MacDonald was very honest with us and said that it was wrong that the name was included, but it is not willing to redact those comments that I read out, because it does not believe that they identify an individual member of staff. Given that there has been no communication—as I understand it; please tell me if I am wrong—since SATH appeared before the committee, what can be done with the survey now?
I think that you, Ms Rogers—correct me if I am wrong; it might have been Ms Stewart—said that you wanted to get that out into the public domain and that it should be shared. What can SATH do now, if it is not hearing anything further from you, and given the concerns that you previously highlighted that the apology was not accepted by the member of staff and they wanted changes, and that redactions are still required? Where are we with that?