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 łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of łÉČËżěĘÖ 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 759 contributions
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
Do you agree—a yes or no answer would be helpful—that impact assessments of policies or policy changes that affect sex-based rights should involve input from those with the sex-based rights?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
What about balance and prioritising one protected characteristic over another?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
But data is important.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
When we conducted our consultation exercise, we got a huge amount of input. In the previous evidence session, I said that 80 per cent of the respondents said that the PSED was not being implemented, and they gave the committee a lot of information on why they thought that. Before the cake is cooked, will you share with us the ingredients that are going into it?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
When we looked at the feedback from the committee’s call for evidence on the PSED, we found that 80 per cent of the respondents indicated that public bodies do not understand or have a limited understanding of the duty. Such a high figure was very surprising to us. The EHRC’s submission says that
“the setting of equality outcomes”
is
“not always informed by robust evidence”,
which is a cause for concern. Do you believe that it is appropriate for activist organisations to offer guidance that leaves public sector bodies vulnerable to legal challenge?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
Okay. This is my final question.
In your view, to what extent does the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the terms “sex”, “gender” and “woman” make it difficult for public authorities to meet their responsibilities under the PSED? I know that Jennifer Laughland said that the Supreme Court judgment on the For Women Scotland case might provide clarity. Are you waiting until that comes before you can provide extra clarity and guidance?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
You could include education, health, and prisons in that.
I will quote your letter, dated February 2025, to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. In the letter, you highlighted the importance of single-sex spaces and for public sector providers to design
“policies which take into account the rights of all affected protected characteristic groups”.
That goes back to your point about balance. In the EHRC’s view, to what extent has the Scottish Government got wrong the balance of protections between the different protected groups?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
We are talking about the whole thing. You said last month that the policies have not taken
“into account the rights of all affected protected characteristic groups”.
That is a very powerful statement to have made, so I want you to elaborate on which protected characteristics you think have been missed out, if any.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
You felt the need to issue that letter in February
“because of a particular on-going situation.”
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 March 2025
Tess White
Before I ask my main question, minister, I want to pick up on something that you said about Police Scotland. You said that Police Scotland is “completely independent”, yet the organisations advising it on equalities policy guidance are, in large part, funded by the Scottish Government. You used the words “dignity”, “fairness” and “proportionate”. I note that there is an organisation called Police SEEN UK, whose views and input the head of HR for Police Scotland would not entertain; Police Scotland would rather have input from organisations funded in large part by the Scottish Government. Given that, I question the use of the word “independent” in relation to Police Scotland. There are huge issues with Police Scotland right now.
I am happy to write separately to you on that, minister.