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 385 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Yes, that is correct.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Precisely. That is an erudite explanation of what I was trying of say. I will remember what you said and use it next time.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
I think so. Requiring them to have left would add another layer of complexity. Ultimately, they would be required to exercise that duty. If they did not, they would cease to be an MSP and could no longer be a minister. To be a minister in the Scottish Government, you have to be an MSP.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
May I?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Forgive me if I was not clear. We would prescribe the time period. I was merely making the point that the time period would probably reflect our usual period running up to the summer recess. We would not prescribe it up until the summer recess; it would be however many weeks.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Precisely the same thing would happen.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
They would have to make a choice within the prescribed period.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Correct.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
First, that support is for the principle, and for the reasons that I have laid out, which is to enhance confidence in the process to ensure that members are held to the highest standards of behaviour and where that is felt not to be the case, the ultimate arbiter is the public. That principle is worth while, and you will recall that, on 29 May 2024, the Parliament had a vote, in which ministers voted in favour of the principle of a recall system. Of course, the devil is in the detail, so we are now moving from the principle to the practical considerations with regard to what that system would look like. We support the principle, and along with the Parliament, we now have to consider the specific details.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Jamie Hepburn
Ultimately, the whole process is triggered by issues around conduct, so that must be the starting premise. As an aside, on proportionality, there are two issues. The first is whether a system of recall is proportionate to the trigger mechanism. Mr Simpson has set out what that might be and it is for the Parliament to consider whether that is proportionate. However, if I have picked you up correctly, that is not the issue of proportionality that you are referring to. Secondly, there is the question of whether the process could have the effect of altering proportionality, as determined at a general election. The answer is yes, it could. To an extent, our system already has that built in through the by-election process. We have just been through a by-election. I will not linger too long on the outcome of that, but it changed the nature of the numbers, by comparison with the general election that happened in 2021. Therefore, that is already part of our system. I accept that the bill would add—“complication” came to mind, but it is not the right word—another layer to the issues that might affect proportionality. However, as I said, that is already a facet of our electoral system.