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 811 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
As a former urban planner, my colleague Monica Lennon will understand that the inability to join up rail services, subway services and bus services undermines the efficiency of the operation of the whole system, and she will get that that is part of the problem.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
The minister makes a very important point. Relatively speaking, the private car has taken a significant share of the overall movement of people around the city region. However, on the point about social justice, it is important to note that Glasgow remains the city with the lowest level of car ownership in the UK, as only 41 per cent of Glaswegians own a car. The situation accentuates the social injustice across Glasgow. All the concessionary travel schemes that have been introduced are not much use if the bus service does not actually function. That is why we need to address the issue.
Members across the chamber have relayed the umpteen services that have been curtailed, reduced or cut altogether across the city; that has certainly been the case for many services in my time representing Glasgow. The number 65 bus through the Calton out to Cambuslang is only the latest example of those cuts.
It is debasing for a democratically elected parliamentarian to go and beg a private company to sustain a public service. That is not good enough. We need public accountability, which starts with control of the farebox through our franchise system. That would also address the fact that Glasgow’s bus fares are the most expensive of any British city. A single ticket is now £2.85, compared with £2 on Edinburgh’s publicly owned Lothian Buses and £1.75 on Transport for London services. It is simply not fair that Glaswegians are subject to this private rent and private profit extraction, when that money could be reinvested in subsidies for loss-making routes and could help to sustain coherence across the network. We do not even know which routes make money and which routes lose money. We cannot plan coherently.
On the wall of my office, I have a map of Glasgow’s bus and tram services in 1938. We knew what they were and we knew where they were and how they performed. There were night buses, night trams and late-night subway services. The subway ran on a Sunday and we had a fully integrated transport system. I do not know how we let that unravel. I urge the minister to hear the pleas from the people who represent our great city of Glasgow to fix our transport system and let Glasgow flourish once again.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
The member makes the very important point that there is no way to fully view the coherence of the greater Glasgow bus system, because the information about the money that routes make and which routes are losing money is not available. We can address that issue, along with control of the farebox, only through franchising. Does she agree that, ultimately, franchising is the only solution to the problem?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
Will Martin Whitfield take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
I thank my friend for giving way. He makes a salient point about the misbelief that, if someone is to claim asylum, they are obligated to claim it in the first safe country through which they travel. Often, people are moving towards the UK for very human reasons, such as their ability to speak English or in order to reconnect with their families and relatives. There is a very human story behind that journey in many cases, as we know from our constituency casework.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
That is a really important point, as is shown by a case in my constituency in 2018. Duc Nguyen was trafficked from Vietnam and forced to work in conditions of slavery on a cannabis farm, which was then raided. He was jailed for six months and then was liberated and claimed asylum. Nonetheless, he was detained arbitrarily and faced deportation until there were interventions across parties to secure his release. That is a particular case that we can relate to, and it is important that we address that issue.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
I welcome the minister to his new role in Government and thank him for providing early sight of his statement.
I was dismayed by one aspect of his statement in particular—the claim that “incorrect assertions” had been made that young people are being moved off waiting lists to meet the CAMHS waiting times target. Many members across the chamber will agree that it is a matter of fact, not assertion, that that is happening—that is exactly what we are seeing across Scotland. Children are being moved off the CAMHS lists to different pathways that often have indefinite waiting times. The minister’s remark struck me as being a bit of Orwellian doublethink.
It is very easy for the minister to declare a job well done when the list is being reduced not by successfully getting children and young people the help that they need, where they need it, but by creating additional lists. We know that several health boards now count initial assessments as treatment. For a target to be useful, it must be permanent, measurable and rigorous. The Government has proven that the CAMHS waiting times target does not fulfil any of those objectives. It is unethical and, ultimately, futile.
Some children are now having to wait years for the treatment that they so desperately need. Does the minister agree that it is simply not acceptable, in a country such as ours, to have waiting times that are measured in years? Will he finally fulfil the Scottish Government’s promise that it would spend 1 per cent of the national health service budget on CAMHS by the end of this parliamentary session, so that we can get children and young people the support that they need, where they need it?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
Mr Mason makes an important point. It is important to recognise that about 45 per cent of bus company turnover is already public subsidy. The issue is that we cannot visualise where the money is being made and where it is being lost, so we cannot cross-subsidise in a coherent way. That could be done through control of the farebox. Does the member agree that that would be a logical solution?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
Will the member give way?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
Will Jim Fairlie give way on that point?