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 787 contributions
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Tess White
You said that you can assure me, and you said that it is difficult to measure culture. However, many believe that culture eats strategy and planning for breakfast. If the culture centralises certain services—I gave a small example, but it is huge for a lot of women—you can provide leadership and support change if you say that we need to measure certain outcomes, which come from different committees. You could go into this budget round and say, “We hear from the health committee that this direction of travel has a massively negative impact on ethnic minorities and women. We want to show measurable improvement on those things.” Will you do that and start to make a human rights and equalities approach to budgeting impact on the lives of people in Scotland?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 30 October 2024
Tess White
Thank you, convener, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to make a brief remark about this petition on Police Scotland’s controversial policy on recording the sex of offenders, which, until recently, was based on self-ID.
Public interest in the petition has, understandably, been growing, as the convener has said, not least among my constituents in the north-east. That is testament to the tenaciousness and determination of the petitioners Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray from policy collective Murray Blackburn Mackenzie.
In September, it shockingly emerged that Police Scotland had justified its data recording policy because it adhered to the force’s
“values of respect, integrity, fairness and human rights whilst promoting a strong sense of belonging.”
In other words, Police Scotland was prioritising the feelings of sex offenders over those of the victims of sexual crime, and to do so was absolutely indefensible. Rape is defined in law as involving penetration by a penis without consent, and it is therefore, by definition, the act of a male body. That is why this matters.
As MBM’s submission highlights, Police Scotland appears to have publicly U-turned on that policy, and that is to be welcomed, but questions remain about the application of the policy in the past, and the detail of how Police Scotland will implement this operational change in the future.
Since the petition was lodged in June 2021, which is a considerable time ago, the committee has corresponded with Police Scotland on several occasions, and I thank you for that. My view is that if we are to get to the bottom of the force’s operational policies on data recording, the committee must urgently invite Police Scotland to give oral evidence. I implore the committee to not close the petition down, please. The Scottish Government has already washed its hands of the issue, so I urge the committee to listen to the voices of women and treat this matter with the seriousness that it deserves. Thank you.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 30 October 2024
Tess White
Good morning.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 30 October 2024
Tess White
Thank you.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Tess White
Dr Hosie, I was going to ask whether the revised national outcomes lend themselves to greater connection and coherence in a budget-setting context, but I think that that has been asked already. You have spoken about the transformational potential and the lack of policy coherence, and you and Ms Cowan have said that there is silo working. I will drill down into that by asking two questions. One of those is broad; the other is more specific.
Against the background of the £500 million in-year spending cuts that the finance secretary announced in September, to what extent has the Scottish Government successfully adhered to the three principles of human rights budgeting?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Tess White
You both mentioned silo working. I have just come from the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and am enriched with a lot of learning from that. I come from the north-east of Scotland, where the delivery of healthcare is increasingly being centralised in order to cut costs and to gain from economies of scale. However, when you look at the impact assessment of that, you see that that approach can entrench gender inequality and geographical inequality, because services are becoming increasingly inaccessible. We have many examples of people having to travel from an outlying area like Forfar to the hospital in Tayside in Dundee for an intrauterine device, for example. Such treatment is gendered. People do not think about the cost of travel from a rural area to a major hospital or about the childcare or caring responsibilities that women have.
Is there a disconnect between budget decisions like that—I have given the example of rural healthcare—and policy outcomes?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Tess White
That is not the question. The question was about how the terms should be defined. Basically, Catherine Murphy said that a lot more work needs to be done. Lewis, do you concur that more work needs to be done?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Tess White
I have no relevant interests to declare.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Tess White
We are about to go into a budgeting round. What you are saying has not been done before. For the rubber to hit the road, the committee must look at the budgets and see where the targets are, where they carry out an equality impact assessment and where they have some clear measured outcomes. That is what you are saying.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Tess White
My question is directed at Catherine Murphy and Catherine Robertson. Engender has expressed disappointment that the thematic gender review did not cover intersectional data—I know that Catherine Robertson has also just referred to that point—and used only the available sex-disaggregated data. I ask Catherine Murphy and then Catherine Robertson to elaborate on that by explaining how the Scottish Government might have approached the review differently and what data sources it might have used.