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 ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ 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 1177 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Elena Whitham
I am wondering about the potential for there to be a lot of missing context should the second medical practitioner not have access to the original notes. Would that be a concern when it comes to fullness of information?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Elena Whitham
Will the member give way?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Elena Whitham
Will the member take an intervention?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 November 2025
Elena Whitham
I want to spend a wee bit of time discussing the definitions of sustainable development and wellbeing. We have already touched on that this morning, and thinking about the issue logically, we probably could have raised it earlier in the questioning process.
The RTPI and UKELA expressed concerns about the definition of sustainable development in their written evidence. I wonder whether Jenny Munro and Ellie Twist could expand on those concerns a little bit more.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 November 2025
Elena Whitham
Do you think that the definition of sustainable development as set out in the bill could stand alone in the absence of a definition of wellbeing in the bill?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 November 2025
Elena Whitham
Does anybody else have any comments on that point?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 November 2025
Elena Whitham
The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland’s view is that it does not support a statutory definition of wellbeing as set out in the bill. You explained clearly, Emma, that you believe that we will deliver on wellbeing if we incorporate all the human rights and have a human rights-based approach. Could you expand on that point for us?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 November 2025
Elena Whitham
From a UKELA perspective, what are the concerns around the definition of sustainable development?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 6 November 2025
Elena Whitham
That is helpful, because planetary boundaries, the link to environmental limits and the need to include them in the definitions also came up in last week’s evidence session.
Sustainable development is raised in relation to many different aspects of legislation and outcomes that we are seeking to achieve, but no real definition is agreed. How can we ensure that we collectively understand what sustainable development means? Would the bill be a vehicle to firm up a definition?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Elena Whitham
From the outset, my position is that I support Liam McArthur’s amendment 24, because it will allow us to put in place some more safeguards around the definition of terminal illness. In countries where such a definition is applied, we see, as Patrick Harvie just set out, that those who seek an assisted death do so at the later stages of a terminal illness.
I turn to amendment 143, which Mr Balfour has said is more of a probing amendment. If we use three months as the timeline, such a short prognosis will put people who are terminally ill in the difficult position of making a hurried decision, instead of being able to take time to consider all their circumstances.
On Daniel Johnson’s amendment on a six-month prognosis, I would defer to the committee’s stage 1 report, which set out our understanding of why a prognostic timeframe can be particularly difficult. I understand members’ desire to explore the issue but, at this stage, I would not be supportive of that. That is not to say that I will not change my position as we go forward, but clinicians who make decisions that affect access to benefits sometimes feel under undue pressure to make an assessment of a prognostic timeframe. That can also lead to a situation in which, although there is no clear prognosis, people are given a time limit that might not be realistic. We are starting to funnel people down a path.