Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
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.
Searching by different views
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
- Report: this is the whole Official Report for a particular meeting of a committee or Parliament
- Item of business: this is each individual agenda item in an Official Report. For example, Portfolio Questions would be the item of business in a Meeting of the Parliament report
- Contribution: this is each time someone has made a spoken contribution to a meeting.
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.
Search by MSP
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.
Searching by keyword
There are two types of keyword search:
- A keyword search without quotation marks will look for every instance of each word used and rank the results by frequency and proximity. It will also include variants of the keywords using “porter stemming”. This is when the search looks for the “stem” of a word regardless of its ending. So, for example, a search for [salmon farm] will return each instance of “salmon” and each instance of “farm” as well as potentially including results for “farms”, “farmed” and “farming”.
- A keyword search with quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase used. So, for example, a search for “salmon farm” in quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase.
Combining search filters
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.
More complex keyword searches
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
- a search for “salmon farm” AND “Loch Lomond” will return only results which include both exact phrases
- a search for “salmon farm” NOT “Loch Lomond” will return results for “salmon farm” but exclude results which also include “Loch Lomond”
- a search for “salmon farm” OR “Loch Lomond” will return all results for “salmon farm” and all results for “Loch Lomond” regardless of whether they appear together
Searching by date
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:
- Current session (all Official Reports since the current sessions started)
- Last 6 months
- Last 12 months
- each of the previous sessions of Parliament. (Selecting the information icon above the “Select a time period” menu will give you the exact dates for each session.)
- All sessions
- You can also choose to select a custom date range, although adding a Start or End date will mean the search automatically defaults to this option.
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.
Filter your results Hide all filters
Displaying 936 contributions
|
Meeting of the Parliament [Last updated 11:13]
Parliamentary Bureau Motions
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Edward Mountain
I thank the minister for giving way. I am trying to prompt him—I hope—to say whether this is the only bit of the bill that will require a section 30 order. Are there other bits that he knows of that cannot competently be delivered by the Scottish Parliament?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Parliamentary Bureau Motions
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Edward Mountain
I rise to speak to the motion. This is a complicated matter involving an SI in relation to the Scotland Act 1998. I believe, as do some in the UK Parliament, that the SI is far too narrowly drawn and does not clarify which sections prevent the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill from being within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. It would be helpful if the Scottish Government clarified which parts of the bill do not fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
At this stage, I am happy to give way to the minister if he wants to come in. Okay—I see that he does not.
As someone who is vehemently against assisted dying, I cannot vote for the SI, as it seeks to allow Scottish Government ministers to identify suitable drugs to assist dying. There is huge concern about the efficacy and safety of any drugs used for assisted dying. As limited information is collected from clinicians and no drugs are available for the on-label purpose of assisted dying, I am not sure how ministers will make that decision.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Parliamentary Bureau Motions
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Edward Mountain
I thank the minister for giving way. I am trying to prompt him—I hope—to say whether this is the only bit of the bill that will require a section 30 order. Are there other bits that he knows of that cannot competently be delivered by the Scottish Parliament?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Parliamentary Bureau Motions
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
Edward Mountain
That may be beyond my exact knowledge of this matter. My point is that I do not see how the Scottish Parliament can pass a bill that we are not competent to consider. Aspects of the bill would need further UK Government clearance to be done in advance, and I have seen no evidence that that would happen.
For the three reasons that I have mentioned, I cannot support the SI, and I therefore encourage those members who share my concerns to abstain until the Scottish Government has clarified which parts of the assisted dying bill fall outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament and how it will identify the drugs suitable for off-label use to assist in the bill.
18:04
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Topical Question Time
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Edward Mountain
Let us be clear. When the chief executive officer moved in, he delayed reporting to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee so that he could find out the facts on the ground. He delayed that report and wrote that letter when he did. We will now end up with a ferry worth £55 million that has cost us £197.5 million. If Kate Forbes has confidence in the board while the rest of Scotland does not, surely she should resign from overseeing Ferguson Marine, because she has been ignored and her position has been totally undermined.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Topical Question Time
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Edward Mountain
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent announcement that the total projected cost of MV Glen Rosa has risen by £12.5 million to £197.5 million, whether it will confirm how much further public funding will be required before the vessel enters service. (S6T-02875)
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Topical Question Time
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Edward Mountain
On 13 May last year, Graeme Thomson and the Deputy First Minister each wrote to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Graeme Thomson said that he was “comfortable” with the new plan and the revised costings for the Glen Rosa. The Deputy First Minister stated the Government’s
“expectation that the senior leadership at Ferguson Marine must demonstrate capability and accountability in the delivery of MV Glen Rosa”.
Now that there is a further increase of £12.5 million—not £7.5 million; there was a contingency sum in there that, it was hoped, would never be spent—does the Government have any confidence in the board and new chief executive of Ferguson Marine?
Meeting of the Parliament [Last updated 12:28]
Topical Question Time
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Edward Mountain
On 13 May last year, Graeme Thomson and the Deputy First Minister each wrote to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Graeme Thomson said that he was “comfortable” with the new plan and the revised costings for the Glen Rosa. The Deputy First Minister stated the Government’s
“expectation that the senior leadership at Ferguson Marine must demonstrate capability and accountability in the delivery of MV Glen Rosa”.
Now that there is a further increase of £12.5 million—not £7.5 million; there was a contingency sum in there that, it was hoped, would never be spent—does the Government have any confidence in the board and new chief executive of Ferguson Marine?
Meeting of the Parliament [Last updated 12:28]
Topical Question Time
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Edward Mountain
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent announcement that the total projected cost of MV Glen Rosa has risen by £12.5 million to £197.5 million, whether it will confirm how much further public funding will be required before the vessel enters service. (S6T-02875)
Meeting of the Parliament [Last updated 12:28]
Topical Question Time
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Edward Mountain
Let us be clear. When the chief executive officer moved in, he delayed reporting to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee so that he could find out the facts on the ground. He delayed that report and wrote that letter when he did. We will now end up with a ferry worth £55 million that has cost us £197.5 million. If Kate Forbes has confidence in the board while the rest of Scotland does not, surely she should resign from overseeing Ferguson Marine, because she has been ignored and her position has been totally undermined.
