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 1444 contributions
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 November 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
I thank the minister for her evidence. We will take a short break to enable the minister to leave.
10:03 Meeting suspended.Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 November 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
I thank all the witnesses very much. I was going to ask about the definition of conversion therapy, but I think that the witnesses probably covered that in their opening remarks.
We have four witnesses. You might agree with what another witness has said, so do not feel obliged to answer every question if you do not have something else to say. We have about an hour for questions. The first question is from Pam Gosal.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 November 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
Does anyone else have any other evidence? Maxwell Reay mentioned some direct evidence in texts and suchlike.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 November 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
The next item on the agenda is evidence on a statement of reasons that has been lodged to accompany the draft proposal for a member’s bill, the disabled children and young people (transitions to adulthood) (Scotland) bill. I welcome Paul O’Kane, who is attending as a substitute for Pam Duncan-Glancy for consideration of this item. I invite Paul to declare any relevant interests.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 November 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
We will suspend the meeting to allow witnesses for item 5 to come to the table.
10:04 Meeting suspended.Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 November 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
Thank you for that.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 2 November 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
Jayne, in your answer to Alexander Stewart, you mentioned New Zealand and Australia. I think that Germany’s approach has been flagged to us in the past as well. If Scotland is to legislate, we obviously want to look at best practice. It would be good to hear your perspective on that, based on the research that you have done about the different approaches, particularly in relation to Australia and New Zealand.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 October 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
Do you not think that the fact that the consultation was carried out at the height of the pandemic would have made it difficult for some of those organisations to respond, because they were working in a different way?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 October 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
The question was really wide ranging; I thank the witnesses for their responses. However, we will need to be a bit sharper on both sides—although I take part of the blame for asking such a wide question in the first place.
I call Pam Gosal.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 October 2021
Joe FitzPatrick
One would hope that the Parliament could work together on the matter. My point was not really the one that Rhoda Grant picked up on. It was more about the relevance of the consultation that took place and whether anything has changed—my point was that what has changed is that commitments have been made. However, Rhoda Grant might have said as much as she wants to in that area.
As nobody wants to contribute further, I thank Rhoda Grant for her evidence. I hope that we were not too challenging in our questioning. I know that being on the other side of the table is a hugely different experience.
We are required to make a decision on whether we are satisfied by the statement of reasons. I remind members that our decision should be based on whether we agree that the member’s statement of reasons means that no further consultation on the proposal is necessary. We are not deliberating on whether we agree or disagree with the principle of the bill. That would be for a later stage, depending on the outcome today.
Given that Fulton MacGregor will be joining us remotely, I propose to call each member in turn and ask them to indicate whether they are satisfied. For clarity, if members are satisfied, I ask them to vote yes; if they are not satisfied, I ask them to vote no; or they can abstain. I will go around the room, starting with the deputy convener.