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 1311 contributions
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
Good morning. Aaliya Seyal, it is good to see you again, in a different committee.
The Scottish Government has proposed introducing block fees for legal work involving adults with incapacity. I am keen to hear your views on that. Earlier, you touched on your concerns about block fees, so could speak about that issue and expand on other aspects of block fees?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
Thank you. That was helpful. Pat Thom, do you have any similar concerns?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
Thank you. The Scottish Government has also proposed introducing standardised personal allowances for civil legal aid. I am keen to hear your views on any advantages or disadvantages to that approach.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
Thank you. That is helpful.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
That would definitely simplify the process there. Hyo Eun Shin, do you have anything to add?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
It is okay if you do not. I will pass over to Sally Mair. Do you have anything to add?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
Everything seems to come back to the eligibility criteria. Aaliya Seyal, do you have anything to add?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
Thanks for that. The Scottish Government is also proposing to introduce standard personal allowances for civil legal aid. Do you support that approach?
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
Good morning, panel, and thanks for your time. I will stay on the same line of questioning that I had for the first panel. The Scottish Government is proposing to introduce block fees for work involving adults with incapacity and I am keen to hear your views on any advantages or disadvantages to that approach. I will start with Andy Sirel.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 May 2025
Marie McNair
Before I entered politics, I worked for 14 years as part of the nursing team at the St Margaret of Scotland hospice in Clydebank. It was an incredibly moving, but also immensely challenging, role. Caring for people at the end of their life is not an easy job by any means. However, it has instilled in me the fundamental belief that those at the end of their life deserve dignity and support. It instilled in me an understanding of the importance of compassionate and well-resourced palliative care. I want to see more focus and support being given to that.
Over the past year, I have met with constituents and stakeholders on both sides of the debate, listening carefully to their views. Although I respect constituents on both sides of the debate, I have decided that I cannot support the bill, for reasons that I will set out.
For many of the supporters of the proposal, it is about autonomy. However, regardless of any supported safeguards, the bill will have unintended consequences for society as a whole. As the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics stated:
“In an interactive society, making a choice about the value of a life ... means making a decision about the value of other lives.”
The bill would fundamentally change the relationship between patients and clinicians, influence culture and alter how we view ageing, illness and disability.
I believe that passing the bill would send a message that certain individuals’ lives are less valuable than others and that those individuals are considered a burden on society. That worry is articulated by disability organisations, which fear that the scope of the bill would quickly be expanded to include those with disabilities within the eligibility criteria—and with that can come coercion.
We risk creating an environment in which people feel pressure—however subtle—to choose death to spare others the burden of their care. If we look at other countries, such as Canada, we can see that health reports found that fear of being a burden and loneliness are high up among the top five reasons for people choosing medical assistance in dying.
I fully recognise that the bill focuses on
“mentally competent terminally ill eligible adults”,
but we fundamentally cannot guarantee with any certainty that the eligibility criteria will not be expanded in future years. We have seen that happen in Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands, where safeguards have been relaxed, widening access to more groups of people.