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 376 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
That is an unknown unknown. [Laughter.]
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
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 [Draft]
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 [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
No.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
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 [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
We do not have an opinion on that per se, but we flag up in our memorandum that it would be useful to explore and understand why those thresholds are proposed in the bill. We understand that they could be justified on the basis of the manner in which regional MSPs are elected, which is calculated and predicated on the number of constituency seats that their party has—if they are standing as a party candidate. We have had independent members elected through the regional system, but I put that to one side for a moment. Most of us are elected to this place on a party ticket, and in that situation the constituencies come into play.
We have observed that there are also subdivisions of constituencies. I am a representative of a constituency that has multiple polling districts. I guess that the question is why a threshold should not have to be reached in a certain number of polling districts as well as the overall threshold being reached. However, we do not have a view on that. We only suggest it as a question that the committee might like to explore.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
That would be an area of concern. I go back to the fundamental point that there should be transparency in campaign finances. The Scottish Elections (Representations and Reform) Act 2025, some of which we will discuss under the next agenda item, touches on areas of campaign finance. At the time when the bill that became that act was being considered, I was clear that transparency is the fundamental issue in that regard, but there are also issues about limits on expenditure. It becomes a question of fairness. Although we do not have a view on the specifics, I can safely say that the matter is an area of general concern.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
My understanding is that that does include remote attendance, although I think that it can differ from one local authority to the next, because it is not prescribed in law. Therefore, a lot of these things come down to each authority’s standing orders, but that is a whole other debate.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I will answer that question, but, first, I will pick up on your perspective that the bill should contain a non-exhaustive list of legitimate reasons for not physically attending the Parliament. That is a legitimate suggestion. I suppose that my slight caution in relation to that is that any legislation must be interpreted by the courts, and you start to get into the area of why some things were prescribed and other things were not. Again, that is just a question that needs to be considered.
Privacy is an area of concern, and I am not sure that there is any way around that. If a person is not here and it becomes recognised that they are not here and that they have permission to not be here—because they will not then fall foul of the requirement—people will inevitably speculate or ask questions about why that might be. If we are going to embed this requirement as part of the process, I do not know whether there is any way around that.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I think that we would need to come back to you on that.