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 903 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Fulton MacGregor
I do not want to stand on anybody’s toes. If Katy Clark goes before me, that will be fine. I just have a general question.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 21 May 2025
Fulton MacGregor
That is a fair point.
I have a follow-up question to Professor White’s final comment that an offence involving strangulation, and the risk that it poses, should follow the perpetrator. I found that very interesting. Before I became an MSP, I was a criminal justice social worker. That was a while back now—around nine years ago. When I think back to that time, I do not remember such behaviour being a particular issue that we took into account when making risk assessments. Things might have changed now—I am willing to say that, in case I am wrong—but perhaps there is work to be done with such services to ensure that they recognise such behaviour, or even allegations of it, as a risk factor for future offending. Criminal justice social work would usually take other types of behaviour into account in planning against possible future offending. I do not think that I came across that to any great extent, though, so I just wanted to say that we could possibly do some work in that area.
11:00Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 May 2025
Fulton MacGregor
Good morning. It has been a really interesting evidence session; thank you for your contributions. I was going to ask about protections for vulnerable people, but we have had quite a good discussion about that already. Adam Stachura, Jude McCorry and others have contributed with regard to older people in particular, which is what my question was going to focus on.
Instead, I would like to ask about increasing resilience in the population overall, which is possibly something for a wider discussion and not for today’s witnesses. However, while we have been talking today—particularly in the exchanges with Ben Macpherson a few moments ago—I have been wondering whether there has been any discussion about that sort of internet safety awareness being brought in as almost a mandatory topic in schools, for example? If you can start to implement that awareness at a very young age, you can increase the population’s resilience over time so that people are less vulnerable. I do not even know who would be best to answer that, but has that been discussed or thought about, and who would deliver it?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 May 2025
Fulton MacGregor
Okay, thanks. As I said earlier, the question came to me during the wide-ranging discussion that we were having.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 May 2025
Fulton MacGregor
That is understandable. Given that the issue is here now—and here to stay—would it be any different than schools teaching about road safety, which they do very effectively? Is there also, perhaps, an element of postcode lottery? I know that my kids’ primary school does a wee bit of work on online safety. Is there an argument that there should be something more standard across the board?
Criminal Justice Committee (Draft)
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Fulton MacGregor
For clarity, convener, I note that I am content with the instrument, but I want to briefly raise an issue under this agenda item, which I have notified you and the clerks about. I accept that it does not relate entirely to this SSI; it is an issue with police pensions more generally.
The issue relates to several constituents of mine who are retired police officers, who have experienced lengthy delays—of years, in some cases—in receiving their remedial service statement or RSS, and who are still waiting. The amount owed is considerable and, as you can imagine, it is having a major impact on my constituents. I am aware that other MSPs have had similar cases.
The main issues are the length of time that is taken to pay out the moneys that are due under the McCloud remedy and constituents’ concerns about communication around that delay.
The Scottish Police Authority has advised us that it is working hard to deliver a significant number of RSSs by the statutory deadline and to deliver the bulk of them by 31 May 2025. The SPA says that there are a number of more complex cases that will take longer, but that most eligible police pensioners will receive their RSS by 31 July 2025. It reiterates that not every RSS can be delivered through that process, and that more complex cases will necessarily take longer to complete.
However, as I have said, I have a number of constituents who have not had their pay and, although there is now a July deadline in place, they remain concerned.
I do not know whether other members around the table are receiving similar queries, but I wonder whether the convener would be willing to write to Ivan McKee in his ministerial role about the issue. If that came from the committee, it might carry more weight, convener.
I wanted to keep my intervention brief but, if required, I can provide you and the clerks with further information from my constituents who have been in touch.
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Fulton MacGregor
Good morning. As the convener said, I will ask some questions on cladding remediation. Minister, how many buildings have had potentially flammable cladding removed or remediated since the launch of the single building assessment, which was about four years ago?
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Fulton MacGregor
I appreciate your candidness, minister. You will be aware that the committee has been hearing concerns about the lack of progress, so I appreciate your response.
You mentioned that we might ask questions on the open call for residents. I will do that now. Will you clarify the purpose of the open call for residents of buildings with external wall cladding systems? What do you hope that that will achieve? Has the Scottish Government already identified buildings with potentially flammable wall cladding systems following the Grenfell tower fire in June 2017?
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Fulton MacGregor
Will those who request a single building assessment through the open call be allocated a survey on a first-come, first-served basis, or will there be a prioritisation process? Will you describe how the process might work?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Fulton MacGregor
I am developing a point, and I will come back to you. It is an example of the Government listening to the concerns that have been raised and being willing to change its mind, which is to be commended.
I support your proposal, and the cabinet secretary supports it, but I want to reflect for the record that it is not as simple as saying that so many members were for it and so many members were against it. I am happy to put that on the record. If you still want to come in, that is fine.