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 MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs 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 756 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
Okay. I will pass over to Sue Webber.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
We have heard evidence that a recall petition should close early if the 10 per cent threshold is met before the four weeks runs out. Your policy memorandum makes arguments about why that might not be appropriate. Has any of the evidence that we have taken so far changed your mind on that?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
I note that the equalities impact assessment states that religion is not applicable. The parliamentary calendar works around Christian holidays, so might there be an interaction there? I am also thinking about those who are likely to be targeted with hate crimes. There have been situations in which MSPs have been targeted because of their religion, which would perhaps come into play in a recall situation.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
I am talking about the 10-day limit, how an individual trigger is likely to be viewed and whether such characteristics might come into play when folk decide how to treat the trigger.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
That is what the equalities impact assessment says. I was only concerned that religion might be relevant because race has been noted as being relevant.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
I was just about to ask you the question that you have just asked yourself. I am glad that you have enjoyed the evidence sessions so far—I have, too. As we have already heard, there are many concerns about the regional list element in particular, and there is a lot of conflicting evidence on what is the best way forward. I am sure that, initially, you had to weigh up those concerns. How did you come to the process for removal that is laid out in the bill?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
You keep talking about fairness and parity between the two types of member. I go back to the answer that you gave to Sue Webber—there is something interesting about the idea that we are trying to force a first-past-the-post system on to the regional list. Did you think about doing it the other way and retaining the proportionality that came through in the election? What about replacing a recalled constituency MSP with somebody on their party list?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
I want to go back to the processes that are in place at the moment. In the course of the committee’s evidence sessions, many suggestions have been made about how to handle the situation. There is the idea of a regional by-election, which we have discussed. Other witnesses have said that if recall triggers are met by a regional MSP, they should automatically be disqualified and replaced by the next person on the list. What are your thoughts on those proposals? Are you likely to consider changes to that process for stage 2?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
Currently, for regional members there is a two-step process in which people would first have to sign a recall petition and then there would be a yes or no ballot on whether to remove the member. A suggestion has been made to put those steps together into a one-step process, which would mean that electors would have the opportunity to say yes or no from the beginning. There have been suggestions that that might improve secrecy around the recall petition. If you go to sign a recall petition, everybody knows that you are going to try to remove that MSP. There is no option to turn up and support them. What are your thoughts on that proposal?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
If you want to measure the strength of feeling and test what constituents want, surely we need a yes or no process. It could be that 20 per cent of constituents sign the recall petition but 40 per cent of constituents are against it.