Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
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.
Searching by different views
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
- Report: this is the whole Official Report for a particular meeting of a committee or Parliament
- Item of business: this is each individual agenda item in an Official Report. For example, Portfolio Questions would be the item of business in a Meeting of the Parliament report
- Contribution: this is each time someone has made a spoken contribution to a meeting.
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.
Search by MSP
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.
Searching by keyword
There are two types of keyword search:
- A keyword search without quotation marks will look for every instance of each word used and rank the results by frequency and proximity. It will also include variants of the keywords using “porter stemming”. This is when the search looks for the “stem” of a word regardless of its ending. So, for example, a search for [salmon farm] will return each instance of “salmon” and each instance of “farm” as well as potentially including results for “farms”, “farmed” and “farming”.
- A keyword search with quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase used. So, for example, a search for “salmon farm” in quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase.
Combining search filters
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.
More complex keyword searches
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
- a search for “salmon farm” AND “Loch Lomond” will return only results which include both exact phrases
- a search for “salmon farm” NOT “Loch Lomond” will return results for “salmon farm” but exclude results which also include “Loch Lomond”
- a search for “salmon farm” OR “Loch Lomond” will return all results for “salmon farm” and all results for “Loch Lomond” regardless of whether they appear together
Searching by date
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:
- Current session (all Official Reports since the current sessions started)
- Last 6 months
- Last 12 months
- each of the previous sessions of Parliament. (Selecting the information icon above the “Select a time period” menu will give you the exact dates for each session.)
- All sessions
- You can also choose to select a custom date range, although adding a Start or End date will mean the search automatically defaults to this option.
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.
Criathragan Hide all filters
Displaying 3647 contributions
|
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
John Mason
Despite my reputation for backing lost causes, I am marginally more optimistic that we might get somewhere with these amendments. My two amendments—amendments 30 and 31—are linked but distinct.
Amendment 30 would strengthen the requirement for reliefs by switching the wording from “may” to “must”, which means that, instead of the Government being allowed to make provisions for reliefs, it would be required to do so.
Regarding amendment 31, I accept that the Government has indicated that it intends to have a range of reliefs, but it would be good to pin that down a little more clearly. I fully accept that we do not want all the rates of levies and reliefs to be in the bill, but it has been suggested by the Scottish Property Federation that it would be good to have a clear steer about relief for brownfield land by including a minimum relief—perhaps 50 per cent, which is the figure that I suggest would encourage the use of such land. To give a relevant example from my constituency, developers have been very keen to build on the green belt on the edge of Glasgow, where there are no shops or amenities and few, if any, public transport links. Meanwhile, at the heart of my constituency is the old Parkhead bus depot—previously a tram depot—which is on contaminated land but is ideal for housing and has excellent public transport links, shops, general practitioner surgeries, schools and churches all close by.
There is a wider issue here than just the levy; it is about how we encourage the use of brownfield land while protecting greenfield land, perhaps through an urban development company such as Clyde Gateway. In part of my constituency, it handles the land clean-up, so the issue is less acute there, but many brownfield sites across the country are not covered by such a scheme, so I want to see that relief—
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
John Mason
I am grateful to the member for giving way a second time. Does she accept the argument that was made to the committee that, when the cladding on a building is looked at, other issues will come up and that, as a result, it might be hard to separate other safety issues from cladding issues?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
Will the member take an intervention?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
That is very kind.
Surely the point is that we need to define what is independent, and then it is up to the young person or whoever to choose whether they want to be represented by someone who is independent or someone who is not independent, such as a teacher or social worker. They would still have that choice.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
I am very sympathetic to what the member is saying. Is there not a problem, though, in that, especially there if the staff in a care home have completely changed, that is not quite the same situation as when an individual goes back to their family home?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
I am sorry to intervene again, but you mentioned foster families. Would they have to take the person back?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
I am now confused, because I have Martin Whitfield’s amendments, Nicola Sturgeon’s amendments and Willie Rennie’s amendments before me. I am sympathetic to them all, but are they alternatives to one another?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
Does the member accept that, although a young person might choose not to have an independent advocate and might choose, as the member has suggested, to have someone with whom they already have a good relationship, it is still important that they should be offered an independent advocate?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
Will the member allow me to intervene for a third time?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
That is an extremely good point that the minister has made, if I have understood her correctly. We can come up with a definition of “independent” somewhere, but, at the same time, the person will have the choice of an independent person or someone else.
I would also suggest that the notion of independence has been debated. We debated it in relation to the issue of commissioners at the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and we have debated it with regard to accountants in my own profession. It is a spectrum—it is not some black-or-white issue. We will never reach a clear definition of independence that everyone accepts, but at least we will have something.
