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 825 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
Will it be available to members of the public around February 2026?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
You were going to opine, convener.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
I can understand that, but the UK NSC’s submission of 9 May 2024 said that there was not enough evidence because there is not a predictive test, there is
“insufficient understanding of the genetic risk”
and it does not really know what to do with people after screening anyway. It was all a bit negative, do you not think? The UK NSC is really saying that it does not really know much about it, there is no way that it can find out what to do about it and it does not know what to do about it, even after screening. For a national body to come up with three reasons for doing nothing, all of which are an admission that it does not know, seems to be lacking, and it is not what we would expect from a distinguished national body with eminent people serving on it.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
You must be clairvoyant, minister, because I was just going to ask about Denmark. I do not have a clairvoyant relationship with many ministers. [Laughter.]
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
Do you agree with the general proposition and principle that biological males should not be imprisoned in women’s prisons?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
We also need to write to the Lord Advocate.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
I am grateful to the petitioner for raising the matter. It is an interesting topic, and one can certainly understand the petitioner’s strength of feeling.
However, I think that we have looked into it in a fairly thorough fashion and, in the light of the fact that we are moving towards the fag end of the current session of Parliament and therefore have no scope to do much more than we have done, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, for the following four reasons.
Councils have the power to make management rules under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, and 11 of the 13 of the local authorities that responded to us have in place cemetery management rules to either exclude non-assistance dogs from cemeteries or require them to be on a leash or kept under close control.
A number of local authorities raised challenges that they face in enforcing existing cemetery management rules. They also stated that a new law would need money to fund enforcement—that is a practical reality, I guess. Finally, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 require dogs to be kept under control and provide that, where a dog does its business in a public space, the person who is responsible must clear it up.
In the light of all those arguments, and with thanks to the petitioner, I propose that we close the petition.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
Yes.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
When will the other report be published? That is the general review, so I am told.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Fergus Ewing
I want to pursue that point and the questions that Mr Lawrence posed on BE FAST, which includes visual and balance problems, as opposed to FAST. It is a fact that FAST does not necessarily pick up those eye and balance symptoms of the stroke that caused the death of the person concerned, so we are talking about people dying.
I have a couple of questions on the Forth Valley pilot. When will it be completed and reported on? Will the report cover the reservations about moving from FAST to BE FAST? To put it a bit too crudely, the reservations were that—bear with me—the public were too stupid to understand BE FAST because there is too much information there for it to grasp. That is basically what the experts say. FAST has four things to remember whereas BE FAST has six, and six is too many. I do not think that that is the case. Can that be specifically analysed in the Forth Valley study? If not, the pilot will be a bit of a waste of time.
The second criticism that you made, minister, was that BE FAST might result in a large number of people being referred to a hospital for no purpose because there is nothing wrong with them, which would cause an increase in workload in already stretched health services. That is a practical point, and I accept it.
Will those two arguments be tested in the pilot? If not, a sceptic would say that we are not really much further forward and that we have missed the opportunity for the pilot to analyse whether those two objections are real or overstated by clinicians and experts.