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
Absolutely. The question that I asked earlier about replacing constituency recallees with a member of their own party was about precisely that concern about retaining the proportionality of the overall Parliament.
Thinking about the bill as it stands and the system that it is working in, I have previously raised with witnesses the fact that, if a regional MSP faces a recall petition but is successful in being returned, their party would, under the current system, need to sign off on that and provide a nomination certificate. Do you think that parties would be required to do that? They might also have an issue with the individual who got returned through their party list.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
In such a case, would you force the party to sign off on that?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
The evidence that we have gathered so far is that it is quite complex. We have rarely been at a point at which witnesses have agreed on the way forward. We have even had people change their minds while they were sitting in front of the committee.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
But 10 per cent would be enough of a message to remove that person from the job.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
There is the regional list. The way that those people who are elected from the regional list is calculated is partly based on the constituency elections—the overall calculation takes into consideration each constituency. If the goal is simply to hold individuals to account for their conduct, should we be looking at retaining the proportionality and providing the parity between the two systems that you are looking for?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
There would be no by-election if that happened on the regional side.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
Why would you not do that for a constituency member?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
Would a one-step process result in better parity than is in your bill currently, though, given that there is a by-election on one side and not on the other?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
Why not?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
I want to pick up on that. As you said, the requirement to attend at least once in 180 days is not particularly onerous. My concern is that, because the requirement is not a high bar for somebody who is physically and mentally able and does not have caring responsibilities, it is likely that the only people you would catch with the provision would be those with good reasons for not attending, and they would then have to share those good reasons with colleagues who were in political opposition to them. Do you agree that that is a possibility?