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 1589 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 13 March 2024
Ross Greer
Would COSLA concur with that?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 13 March 2024
Ross Greer
You mentioned needing to dig into the numbers and understand the context a bit more. A review of CSPs took place immediately after the Morgan review reported. Should it not have done that?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 13 March 2024
Ross Greer
Thank you to both of you; that was a really useful way of specifically identifying the barriers.
My next question is for Vivienne Sutherland and Kerry Drinnan. We know that the single biggest advantage of having a CSP is that it gives a route to redress through the tribunal system. Are there any particular advantages to having a child’s plan, as an alternative? The child’s plan does not offer a route to the tribunal, but is there anything that you know about from your delivery work that makes the child’s plan an attractive alternative to a CSP? If we put aside the issue of having to tick the box of needing 12 months of multi-agency intensive support, are there situations or certain reasons that make a child’s plan more suitable?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 13 March 2024
Ross Greer
I hope that it will be very brief.
Megan, on the point about the revision to the code of practice, can you foresee a scenario in which that would address the issue sufficiently and mean that we would not need legislative change? Alternatively, is something more than changing, revising or improving the code of practice required?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 13 March 2024
Ross Greer
I will pick up on that point. I am keen to hear Nicola Dickie’s thoughts on it, too. Could the point about the criterion for 12-month multi-agency involvement be addressed—could we resolve that problem—entirely by revising the code of practice or would it require amending the legislation?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 13 March 2024
Ross Greer
Are you talking specifically about the need for 12 months of multi-agency, intense support, or are there other areas where the criteria do not quite match up with the reality of children’s needs?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 13 March 2024
Ross Greer
When families have used the tribunal process but have not had a CSP, is that because they have made a discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 or is it because they have made a placing request? How have they been able to access the tribunal?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 12 March 2024
Ross Greer
You referred to Jesus talking about going into private rooms to pray. That is in Matthew 6, and what comes immediately before that is criticism of those who pray performatively for others to see them. You also mentioned Jesus going to the temple, but the temple is the place where people expect to see others praying. There is a distinction, I think, between praying in a faith setting or in a faith institution—in our case, in a church—as opposed to in a public setting such as this one. I accept that not everybody who takes part in pro-life vigils comes at the matter from a Christian perspective—although that is largely the case with the panel today—but what I am struggling with from the Christian perspective is that, in the scripture, Jesus, immediately before introducing the Lord’s prayer, is very critical of those who pray performatively and calls on people to go and pray in private spaces.
If what you are saying this morning is that the important thing here is not protest but prayer, I have to say that I cannot understand the basis for that as a point of belief, given that scripture tells me that we should not pray like that. Indeed, Jesus is quite explicitly critical of people who do so.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 12 March 2024
Ross Greer
I am particularly interested in Isabel Vaughan-Spruce’s perspective on the matter. I think that you mentioned in your opening comments that your volunteers in Birmingham now pray outside a church, much further away from the abortion provider. If it is prayer rather than protest, is it not okay to do it at or outside the church rather than at the abortion provider?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 12 March 2024
Ross Greer
I will press you a wee bit on that. The bill provides for 200m zones. In some cases—certainly in Scotland—a person would still be on the provider’s campus even outwith that 200m zone. I want to ensure that I am getting your perspective correctly and that we are recording it correctly. Are you saying that it would be acceptable for no protest to take place on the provider’s campus, even if it was beyond 200m, but that, when the area is a public space or a public highway, that should not be restricted?