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 1808 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is very helpful. You mentioned the work that is going on around automaticity. Is the timeline for that being discussed, and are you still confident that that is going to be adhered to? It would be helpful to get that in the Official Report.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
I concur with that. Asking for more information in no way means a predetermined decision that we do not want the change to happen. However, there is a requirement that this committee oversee the purposes of CPGs, which should reflect the work that they do. I am incredibly grateful to the cross-party group on deafness for having come to us in a positive way about the matter. I am merely suggesting an exploration to see whether an element of cross-party work has not been noted. I am sure that that is not the case, but we can seek an explanation of that and then return to the matter. Are we content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
Finally, members might recall that, in January and February, we considered an update in relation to CPGs’ compliance with the rules. We indicated that we intended to withdraw recognition from the CPG on shared parenting on the basis of a failure to comply with the rules on submission of the required documentation. Following discussions with the convener of the group, Fulton MacGregor MSP—I thank Fulton for his engagement on the matter—it was agreed that the CPG could be given an opportunity to catch up with the missing documentation but that it would be for the committee to indicate whether to continue to afford recognition to the group.
The group has now provided all the required documentation, and I thank Fulton MacGregor and those who support him for doing that. I invite the committee to decide whether it is content for the group to continue for the rest of the parliamentary session, because it is in compliance. Are we content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 09:24.Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
Might there be an advantage to having a table or a snapshot in the order to explain the changes from the previous one, or are you content that each order sits on its own to take us forward? You have given us the figures—the total number of those that are in and those that are out—but do you see an advantage to capturing them in a table in the order itself, so that people could see the changes?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is very helpful. I am grateful, minister. Do other committee members have any questions?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is very helpful. Do any of my colleagues have any questions?
As there are no comments, we move to agenda item 4, which is a debate on the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies and Regions) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jamie Hepburn]
Motion agreed to.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
The committee will have to report on the outcomes of both of our decisions today in due course. Are members content that we will produce one report on both instruments, and are they content to delegate to me authority to approve the draft report?
Members indicated agreement.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
The next item is consideration of a request from the cross-party group on deafness to change its purpose. Members will see from the clerk’s note that the convener of the CPG has explained that the group has worked to support people who are deaf and deafblind and that the group now wishes to amend its purpose
“to reflect our work more accurately and respect the preferred language of all our members.”
Do members have any comments or questions on this?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
Our next agenda item is the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies and Regions) Order 2025. Minister, would you like to make a short opening statement on the instrument?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Martin Whitfield
Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions and reflections, which you have already hinted at. Our sister committee—the DPLRC—identified some errors in the original draft order. As you said, they affected less than 1 per cent of the list and were rectified.
In your opening statement, you talked about the outreach to ensure that the updated list is as accurate as possible. Could any steps be taken to improve that? It seems to require others to come and feed in to that list, albeit that they are invited to do so. Do you have confidence in the oversight that your part of Government holds with regard to the creation of that list?