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 3728 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
How much do you estimate that to be, then?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
Sorry, convener.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
I am just seeking some clarification on the variation in costs. If the cost is no longer £1.3 million, what do you estimate it to be, and do you still class this as value for money for the taxpayer?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
For an individual to be held on remand, they have to have done something serious. It is my belief that the public would expect an MSP in that situation to no longer be their representative.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
You are the convener.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
I accept the points that the minister and the member have made, but I am here to represent—I believe—what the public expects. It sounds to me, from where I am sitting, that the minister and the member are perhaps slightly out of touch with what the public expects of us, sitting here as MSPs, as regards the standards to which we should adhere.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
That is the point, is it not? It is very difficult. In my time on the committee—and I have been in and out of it—we have had to make judgments and assessments on MSP conduct. In the evidence packs that we get—which are confidential, so I will be very careful about what I say—we do get a sense as to whether complaints are targeted or vexatious.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
Okay—that is fine. However, this is what I mean—it is very difficult. We are given information here when we are looking for information—
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
If you can help me.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Sue Webber
I will speak to my amendments in a different order, which I hope does not make things too confusing.
Amendment 100 would expand the sentencing condition in the bill so that an MSP may be removed if they receive a community sentence. As you know, I am tough on crime. At present, the removal provision focuses on custodial disposals. However, I have argued elsewhere that the public expect clear and meaningful consequences for any criminal sentence, not simply those that result in imprisonment. A community sentence is not a minor administrative disposal; it is a criminal sentence that is imposed by a court following a finding of guilt. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate and necessary that the receipt of such a sentence should form grounds for removal. Amendment 100 would ensure that.
Amendments 98 and 101 are consequential to the change that amendment 100 would make. The bill contains a detention condition as part of the removal test, but it is framed around custodial sentences. As I have stated, I want to add community sentences to the list of sentences that form grounds for removal. Amendments 98 and 101 would tidy things up so that the changes are coherent and consistent.
My amendment 99 would expand the grounds for removal by specifically adding instances in which a member is remanded in custody. Members have challenged that proposal, but being remanded is a serious judicial action as well. It involves the court determining that an individual must be detained pending trial, and it signals the gravity of the circumstances before the court. I do not believe that the public would expect an MSP who has been remanded in custody, even for a short period, to continue serving in the Parliament in that time, as that would fundamentally undermine public confidence in the institution.