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 成人快手 and committees will automatically update to show only the 成人快手 and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of 成人快手 and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of 成人快手 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 3360 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
John Mason
I totally agree that that is the aim, and that is where we should be. I am just a bit concerned that we have strayed away from that, at least in some inquiries, and the process has become much more鈥攁nd the public see it much more鈥攍ike a court of law, with one side arguing their case and one side arguing the other case.
Let us turn to the issue of recommendations. You have explained a little bit how the recommendations from an inquiry are put into place. Do you think that we need more of a structure for that? Should there be a Parliament committee to look at that? Alternatively, subject committees could look at different inquiries. Does there need to be more of a process in that regard?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
John Mason
I move on to something completely different. The 2005 act has been mentioned a few times. Do we have complete freedom to change that or introduce a new law, or are we in any way bound by the 2005 act?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
John Mason
Would that be independent legislation to change the 2005 act, even though it is reserved?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
John Mason
Okay鈥擨 will leave it at that.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
John Mason
The member expresses some doubt in her remarks, but does she think that there are enough teachers willing to volunteer to get all the kids who should be going on courses to go?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
John Mason
I am interested to hear what the member in charge of the bill has to say on that area, especially in relation to her amendments 13 and 14, which are in the next group. It is about making it as far as reasonably practicable. One of the reasons that it might not be practicable for a school to send kids on a residential trip is that no teachers, or not enough teachers, are volunteering. I raise that as a question, and I am interested to hear what the member has to say.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
John Mason
I do not wish to labour the point, but would not having enough volunteer teachers in a school for a trip be one of those reasonable reasons?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
John Mason
I did not realise that we were proceeding quite so quickly, convener.
Following my intervention on Pam Duncan-Glancy, I continue to struggle to see how the proposals would work in practice. As the member said, teachers are under a lot of pressure, and concerns have been raised by the unions that, if the proposals move on to a statutory footing and if there is a large increase in the number of young people going on residential trips, that will change the whole nature of them.
I totally support the idea of teachers volunteering, which works at the moment. With a bit of extra money, we could build on that.
However, if we bring the proposals into legislation, it would be very difficult to maintain the idea of voluntarism.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
John Mason
It seems to me be a bit of a challenge to tie these two things together: if a school is required to send all its children away on a trip and, in an extreme case, no teachers are willing to volunteer for the trip, how will that work? Would the amendment not lead to destroying the purpose of the bill?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 November 2025
John Mason
I fully support the bill鈥檚 aims. I hope that I have made that clear in the past, and I certainly want to do so again. The idea of young people going on an outdoor residential course is absolutely tremendous; indeed, most of us will have benefited from doing so at some time.
My primary concerns about the bill were the costs. Perhaps unusually, I was the one who thought that the money should be targeted, and it was a Conservative member鈥擫iz Smith鈥攚ho felt that it should be a universal benefit. However, I think that we have reached a better place now.
I lodged my amendments in this group to get the ball rolling on the finance side of things before I had seen any of the others. In particular, I am happy with amendment 15, as it would continue the present arrangement whereby parents who can afford it pay for their children鈥檚 experiences. That is absolutely right; with money being tight, we cannot afford to have the Government paying for absolutely everyone when some people can afford it.
Therefore, I am more than happy to go along with amendment 15, which I think largely supersedes what I was trying to do. I was looking to use PEF money to top up what is already happening. I still wonder whether that could have happened without the bill, but the fact is that we are going ahead with the bill, and I know that the minister has reservations about specifically mentioning the PEF.
I am still a bit uncertain as to how much money the Government will end up paying for all of this, and I do wonder whether we will get a revised financial memorandum. Liz Smith and I are both on the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It seems that, if all the amendments鈥攐r at least some of them鈥攇o through, it will make quite a difference to the original costs relating to the bill. My understanding is that there can be, or should be, a revised financial memorandum after stage 2, and I will be interested to see whether that happens.