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 1594 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 10 December 2024
Ross Greer
That was the final question that I wanted to ask. Otherwise it has all been well covered.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 10 December 2024
Ross Greer
My question is on that point, because a lot of the larger substantive issues that I was going to ask about have been well covered already.
It is not about the relative worth or otherwise of the policy, because I understand that that is not for the witnesses to comment on, but about the transparency and presentational issues around things such as the hospitality relief. As you point out, Graeme, a huge number of the businesses that would be eligible for that already receive substantive relief through SBBS, and many of them receive 100 per cent relief. Is there a presentational and transparency challenge here, given that reliefs are layered on top of each other and there is a fragmented NDR relief landscape?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Ross Greer
That is the core point. On that specific example, I do not have the depth of knowledge about that paper, but I accept that you cannot give marks for an answer to a question that was not asked.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Ross Greer
Cabinet secretary, although I accept that the SQA’s report was externally quality assured by the Welsh equivalent body, the report is about quality assuring the SQA’s own processes. The SQA came to the conclusion that the issue was not the exam paper or the marking scheme, but unusual underperformance by pupils. If it is not the chief examiner’s role to look into why that was the case, in relation to questions about presentation and so on, where in the system does that responsibility lie? Whose responsibility is it to look into that further?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Ross Greer
Absolutely—that is something to consider for the wider reform programme, not just for history.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Ross Greer
Yes—hostage to fortune and all that.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Ross Greer
Does anyone else want to come in on case workload?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Ross Greer
It says a lot about how we do governance reform in Scotland that multiple integration processes have led to more fragmentation.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Ross Greer
The Scottish Government would agree with you on the challenge of annual funding settlements, which is also a significant challenge for it.
Do Fiona Duncan or Claire Burns have any final comments on resources before I move on?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 4 December 2024
Ross Greer
I am grateful to Fiona Robertson and the SQA for the briefing that they gave to Opposition spokespeople on the eve of the review being published. Members of Parliament have made it very clear that we wanted more engagement from the SQA in recent years, so we got that.
On the convener’s point about variation, it is entirely legitimate to say that there is variation every year—of course there is. The variation on this subject this year was clearly an outlier—any higher maths student could tell you that that was an outlier. That is why there is concern here.
I welcome the TES column that was written by the principal assessor and the team leader. There is plenty in it that I agree with, but the point in their column that I really disagree with—this is at the core of my concern about the review and what is not in it—is that they say that it is not the responsibility of the SQA to look into why there was a drop in performance, and that, essentially, its job with the review was to quality assure its own processes. I am not going to dispute the outcomes of that review. However, if it is not the role of the chief examiner to look into why there was such a significant drop in performance, whose role is it?
If, for the purposes of this question, we accept the premise—others have already covered potential issues with the review itself—that the review found that there were no issues with either the exam or the marking, as has been pointed out already, the conclusion is that the fall in the rate was due to a drop in the performance of students. I feel that the review is only half a review, because it does not look into why there was a drop. If it is not the chief examiner’s job to look into that, whose job is it?