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 430 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
We have been talking about the recall mechanism, but that might come into play more in relation to the other part of the bill and the attendance requirement. That is probably where the issue will need to considered further.
Ultimately, the way that I read Mr Simpson’s bill—no doubt he will explain his rationale when he comes to give evidence to you—is that an MSP would be able to give reasons why they were unable to attend. They may be legitimate reasons, but questions could arise about them. The person might feel that they were private matters—despite being elected and in the public eye, we are still entitled to a level of privacy in our personal lives—but people would inevitably speculate about what the reasons might be.
On the recall process, it is an interesting question, but I struggle to see circumstances in which the personal matters would outweigh the reason for the recall process being triggered in the first place. It might be possible to build that into the system, but the committee would have to consider that.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
That is an unknown unknown. [Laughter.]
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
That is a good question, and it might be the most difficult one that we have to grapple with as we consider the bill. It reflects the point that I made at the outset. The electoral system for this place is unique in these islands, as no one else uses the additional member system or the d’Hondt formula for the allocation of regional members.
Our starting premise must be the principle that we have parity once people have been elected. How they were elected should not make any difference to the rights and privileges that they have or the esteem in which they are held. However, it is possible that the process could recognise that members are elected through different processes. That is a matter of fact, as you set out. It is about getting the right balance. For the system to be viewed as being as fair as we can make it, there should be parity. However, that is balanced against the reality that we are elected in different ways.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I am sure that it will be informed by the evidence that you gather, convener.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
No.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
That is a good question. Secrecy is generally something that we tend to try to avoid, but the principle of the secret ballot—a person’s right to go and cast their vote without anyone else knowing how they have voted—is an important part of our electoral system. Clearly, secrecy is not enabled by the recall process at Westminster and it would not be enabled under the bill either, if I have read it correctly, given that people would go to sign the petition. The committee has to consider that.
I have seen some evidence proffered on that point. For example, the Electoral Commission has made recommendations in the context of the Westminster system on whether people should be able to go and sign a petition to say that they do not believe that the member should be recalled. That would raise other questions about how we would factor that in. Would it mean that there would have to be a balance between those who said that the member should be recalled and those who said that they should not? The approach would at least have the virtue of allowing people to go and take part without others knowing how they have responded. However, I caveat that answer by saying that the Government has not taken a specific view on the matter.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
We only posit the question as something that you might like to explore. I have gone into the specifics of it, but that is the fundamental question. We have talked about parity. Why would there be a subdivision requirement in relation to regional MSPs but no such requirement in relation to constituency MSPs?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
We will need to reflect on what is recommended. It is merely an observation. On the fundamental question, as I set out, parity of esteem for those who are elected here is an important principle, but parity of process—as much as we can achieve it—is important as well.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
We have no opinion on that at this stage.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Those are things that we would need to consider.