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 1811 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
The reality is that, with the deep hope that the situation will happen infrequently, the exercise has to start every time that the situation occurs.
I want to go back to the challenges with regard to registration. A lot of the evidence that has been submitted relates to the challenges that occur if another local by-election is being held at the council level. Do we need to bring together the systems in respect of whether a person is or is not on that register, to take account of that challenge? I accept that that situation is administratively challenging, but is it one that, if the right level of clarification were to be given about the cut-off dates, could be made to work administratively?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I think that I am pushing at the point that the petition is not an electoral event but that, for the purposes of the behaviour of those who—
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Thank you for giving evidence to the committee. I will suspend the meeting for a short while to allow for a change of panel members.
10:09 Meeting suspended.Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I welcome to the meeting our second panel for today’s evidence taking. We are joined by Sarah Mackie, head of the Electoral Commission in Scotland, and Jenny Brotchie, acting head of Scottish affairs at the Information Commissioner’s Office. Good morning to both of you. Graham Simpson, as the sponsoring MSP of the bill in question, is still with us, so I welcome him a second time.
If it is all right with the panel, I will move straight to questions. In the first instance, I want to look at time periods and the fact that the bill proposes a period of four weeks for the petition process rather than the six weeks that occurs in other places, particularly at Westminster, and which people are becoming used to. Is there a good reason to curtail the period to four weeks, or is it outweighed by the fact that having similar electoral periods might help people’s understanding?
Sarah, would you like to kick off?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
In your submission, you commented not on the identification question, but on the simple fact that, when someone goes to sign a petition, you know which way they are going to go. That is the proposal that sits with us in this bill, and it is, consequently, why the 10 per cent provision has been included.
Looking at the tight time period, is there any point in extending it beyond the point at which the 10 per cent threshold is reached?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Yes, just on that proposal—I will come back to the other proposals. Is there any value in the petition continuing to stay open for another two or three weeks when you know what the outcome will be?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Going back to the roundabout—or the cul-de-sac—that we drifted into on the yes/no question on the petition, I note from the current proposal and the examples that we have from the UK that someone simply goes in and indicates that they want a recall. Is there any value in expanding that to give voters the opportunity to put their view forward? Do you see any complexities in that respect? What do you see as the consequences of its being just a yes or no question?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
Your concern is about the integrity and importance of the concept that our ballot is secret.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
At the moment, the nature of the petition would immediately defeat the possibility that it could be secret. There are examples of the petition process being seen subjectively as the same as other elections, in which supporters frequently urge people, even at the last minute, to choose a way to vote.
Does the commission have to offset that? Would there be value in using postal voting for the petition, which would retain the secrecy of whether someone had actually voted on it? I deeply hope that we are speaking about this being an issue only in a very small number of areas. Given the reality of the environment that we have, would postal voting be a satisfactory safeguard that would allow people to indicate a view on a petition without having to walk into a sports hall, library or whatever?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 May 2025
Martin Whitfield
I suppose that I am talking not about removing the option but about allowing someone to exercise a vote in a way that will potentially make them feel more comfortable. Can we be assured that the existence of postal voting in itself offsets the risk of what you described having witnessed?