Skip to main content

Language: English / GĂ idhlig

Loading…

Chamber and committees

Corrections and changes to the Official Report

If you think that a draft Official Report doesn’t accurately reflect what you said, you can ask us to review it. Only the person whose words were reported can ask for a review – no one else can do it for them. You must do this within 20 working days of the report’s publication date.

How to request a correction: guidance for MSPs and witnesses

You can suggest corrections:

  • in person
  • by email
  • by sending a printout with your corrections marked up

The editor will consider your request. We can correct anything that we got wrong and make changes that fit with our remit to be substantially verbatim and agree with our house style guide.

You may not ask for corrections that:

  • change the meaning of what you said
  • add extra information

We will usually make any agreed corrections as soon as possible, but certainly within 35 working days of the report’s publication date. After that time, Official Reports are finalised and cannot be changed again.

MSP corrections

If an MSP supplies incorrect information that the Official Report cannot correct, they can use the members’ corrections mechanism.

This was recommended in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 7th report (session 3).

The guidance for Members gives more information about requesting a correction:

Members’ corrections guidance (164KB, pdf) posted 19 February 2021

Latest corrections

When a member has made a request to correct inaccurate information provided in Parliamentary proceedings and it satisfies the relevant criteria, the corrections will be published on this page.

Guidance on this process, including the admissibility criteria, can be found in the members corrections guidance (163KB pdf).


Correction

Meeting of the Parliament - 8 October 2024

Edward Mountain MSP

Edward Mountain MSP has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At column 3, paragraph 5, line 6—

Original text—

That sounds like a lot of things in the future—but I thank the minister for the answer. I thank The Guardian and the BBC, which have done some investigation into the matter. They have found that health boards are paying up to £837 an hour for locum psychiatrists. Last year, total payments exceeded £35 million. Not only that, but there are serious concerns that some locums are being used in remote consultations from places outside the United Kingdom, such as India, meaning that they are not even members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Does the minister accept those concerns, and does she accept that mental health services in Scotland are at breaking point?

Corrected text—

That sounds like a lot of things in the future—but I thank the minister for the answer. I thank The Guardian and the BBC, which have done some investigation into the matter. They have found that health boards are paying up to £110.79 an hour for locum psychiatrists. Last year, total payments exceeded £35 million. Not only that, but there are serious concerns that some locums are being used in remote consultations from places outside the United Kingdom, such as India, meaning that they are not even members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Does the minister accept those concerns, and does she accept that mental health services in Scotland are at breaking point?

Previous corrections 

When a member has made a request to correct inaccurate information provided in Parliamentary proceedings and it satisfies the relevant criteria, the corrections will be published on this page.

Guidance on this process, including the admissibility criteria, can be found in the members corrections guidance (163KB pdf).


Errata

Very occasionally an editorial correction is required after the Official Report is finalised. Such corrections are entirely at the discretion of the Editor and will be published on this page.


Erratum

Meeting of the Parliament – 8 September 2022

The Minister for Transport (Jenny Gilruth)

There is an error in the contribution of Jenny Gilruth.

At col 82, paragraph 10—

Published text—

“we will not be pursuing any routes that look to privatisation in the future, and we are always considering unbundling.”

Corrected text—

“we will not be pursuing any routes that look to privatisation in the future, nor are we considering unbundling.”