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 1000 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Elena Whitham
My last question is, do we have the assurance that the process will be iterative and that there will be periods of review as we go along, so that any code or guidance can be updated in terms of emerging practices and understanding of how regenerative agriculture actually works?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Elena Whitham
To clarify, do you mean that the reviews have been undertaken and are in draft form and they will actively feed into the IFMI programme?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Elena Whitham
My final question is about the consultation that you have out. People might not be able to digest the findings from the two reviews and respond to the consultation effectively if they do not understand what the reviews have brought to the table.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Elena Whitham
Some of the issues that I am going to ask about have already been covered a little bit, but I would like to explore them further.
There are on-going internal reviews of the fisheries management and conservation group and the regional inshore fisheries groups network, and I would like to understand what triggered the reviews. As a committee, we have heard evidence about possible operational difficulties, how the group and network feed into each other and how those have set policy and strategic direction. How were the reviews triggered? Have they been completed? What was their scope? How will those two pieces of work feed into the IFMI programme? It is quite important that they are completed and feed into the IFMI programme as much as possible. It would be good for us to understand a bit about that.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 5 February 2025
Elena Whitham
We know that the Scottish Government has a commitment to championing science-based approaches that are tailored to the needs of specific regions and ecosystems. How can that be incorporated into the regional model of inshore fisheries management that we are looking to achieve? The Clyde cod box and the closure issues there have already been mentioned, so we can see that ad hoc statutory instruments are being used in that way. How can we make sure that we have neutral and robust science, so that those local areas can have as much input into those decisions as possible?
Dr Needle mentioned wrasse, which is an emerging fishery. I am also thinking of the issue from the perspective of the ecosystem in that region. How can we make sure that the issues around the ecosystem in that space are reflected in the decisions that are being made? My question is about the fishers and the ecosystems that we need to protect. How can we ensure that there is a commitment to ensuring that local voices can feed into the decisions that are made in the process?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Elena Whitham
Another issue that I want to explore is whether your bill has taken into account the outputs of the Scott review with regard to taking a human rights-based approach to capacity issues—not just looking at whether someone has capacity or not, but having a supportive environment that allows someone to be able to express their will clearly. What account does the bill take of that approach?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Elena Whitham
The bill asks healthcare professionals to assess whether coercion is taking place as well as capacity. The committee has heard from some that coercion is very difficult to assess. What is your response to that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Elena Whitham
I want to explore that further in relation to the definition of “mental disorder” that is included in the bill, which Dr Ward referred to. A mental disorder as defined in the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” could include learning disabilities and things such as neurodivergence, autism and so on. Is there potential for individuals who have such a mental disorder to have their capacity assessed through a human rights-based approach, so that it is not a case of saying that someone either has or does not have a mental disorder but so that the person has support to have that assessed?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Elena Whitham
Thank you.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Elena Whitham
We have heard that coercion can be defined as making people act in a way that is contrary to their best interests. Will you tell us about the people with a terminal illness who have contacted you while you have been working on the bill and who feel strongly that the status quo does not work in their best interests?