Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
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.
Searching by different views
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
- Report: this is the whole Official Report for a particular meeting of a committee or Parliament
- Item of business: this is each individual agenda item in an Official Report. For example, Portfolio Questions would be the item of business in a Meeting of the Parliament report
- Contribution: this is each time someone has made a spoken contribution to a meeting.
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.
Search by MSP
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.
Searching by keyword
There are two types of keyword search:
- A keyword search without quotation marks will look for every instance of each word used and rank the results by frequency and proximity. It will also include variants of the keywords using “porter stemming”. This is when the search looks for the “stem” of a word regardless of its ending. So, for example, a search for [salmon farm] will return each instance of “salmon” and each instance of “farm” as well as potentially including results for “farms”, “farmed” and “farming”.
- A keyword search with quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase used. So, for example, a search for “salmon farm” in quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase.
Combining search filters
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.
More complex keyword searches
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
- a search for “salmon farm” AND “Loch Lomond” will return only results which include both exact phrases
- a search for “salmon farm” NOT “Loch Lomond” will return results for “salmon farm” but exclude results which also include “Loch Lomond”
- a search for “salmon farm” OR “Loch Lomond” will return all results for “salmon farm” and all results for “Loch Lomond” regardless of whether they appear together
Searching by date
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:
- Current session (all Official Reports since the current sessions started)
- Last 6 months
- Last 12 months
- each of the previous sessions of Parliament. (Selecting the information icon above the “Select a time period” menu will give you the exact dates for each session.)
- All sessions
- You can also choose to select a custom date range, although adding a Start or End date will mean the search automatically defaults to this option.
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.
Filter your results Hide all filters
Displaying 1284 contributions
|
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Gillian Mackay
I do not think that I heard you say whether or not you are opposed to that position. I come back to the principle: notwithstanding what is on the table right now in terms of numbers on IJBs and all that sort of thing—and I understand the issues around dilution and the numbers game on the boards—is there an ideological opposition to having lived-experienced or third sector voting rights on IJBs?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Gillian Mackay
I have just one question. The previous witnesses told us about the resources that people need to feel supported in being able to be full voting members. We heard that Perth and Kinross Council has already done work to make people with lived experience full voting members of the IJB, but that the support that is required in order to make that happen represents an additional cost, as it involves things such as accessible papers, early circulation of documents and administrative support. What resource package will be provided by Government to support the extended voting right, so that it is not tokenistic, and to ensure that the policy outcome is achieved?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Gillian Mackay
Councillor Kelly, I want to follow up on what you said about plans being under way to improve the IJB process. Will you outline some of the ways in which it will be improved? Like Joe FitzPatrick, I have heard that the majority of carers do not feel that their input and the time that they are spending are leading to outcomes that will improve things for them. It would be great if you could outline what is planned in that regard.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Gillian Mackay
Regardless of the financial situation, some of the concern is purely that they do not feel that they are being represented. That is what I am trying to get at.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Gillian Mackay
That is great. To overcome perceptions of a cluttered landscape of scrutiny, do you plan to develop any protocols or memoranda of understanding with other scrutiny bodies?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Gillian Mackay
Beyond that guidance document, what practical things are going on to improve things? That is what I am trying to get at. Do you have an example of what is going on in a local authority? Do you have an example of a particular initiative beyond that guidance that COSLA is taking forward?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Gillian Mackay
That is great. Thanks, convener.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Gillian Mackay
Thanks, convener.
Meeting of the Parliament [Last updated 21:07]
Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Gillian Mackay
I will begin, as other members have, by extending my thanks to my wonderful friend and colleague Mark Ruskell for introducing the bill. Mr Ruskell has been a long-time champion of this issue, and it is wonderful to see his efforts and the efforts of many tireless campaigners coming to fruition. Having been through the member’s bill process myself, I know that it cannot be overstated how this process can take over a member’s entire life.
A huge thanks should also be extended to the campaigners, the non-Government bills unit and Mark Ruskell’s staff team, who have processed hundreds of responses to his consultation. Many members will know how personally committed Mark Ruskell is to the welfare of greyhounds, and no wonder. For too long, greyhounds have suffered cruelly and unnecessarily in the name of gambling.
Some contributions this afternoon have been outright confusing. Rhoda Grant simultaneously claimed that the bill is unnecessary because there is no racing and because anyone who wanted to open an oval track would have other barriers to overcome, and that the bill does not go far enough because it does not include other tracks that would also have to overcome those same barriers. How on earth Davy Russell can say that the bill will not improve welfare is incredible, when there is clear evidence on how often these dogs are injured.
These dogs make incredible pets and they should be treated kindly and humanely. In its report on the welfare of greyhounds used for racing, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission listed
“several causes of welfare concern, particularly the risk of injury or death at the track … the conditions under which they are reared, a significant part of a dog’s life that may be spent in kennels with restricted social contacts, and risks of neglect and poor veterinary care once their racing careers are over.”
That same report concluded that
“Greyhound racing is not inherently dangerous for the dogs involved.”
The report also cited the oversupply of puppies as a significant harm. It is estimated that around 6,000 greyhound puppies are culled in Ireland each year as a result of overbreeding. That is heartbreaking—these are dogs, not commodities. An end to racing is the only way to ensure that the suffering ends. Regulation cannot protect greyhounds from the inherent risk of injury and death or address wider welfare concerns.
The Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s data shows that the number of trackside deaths has increased annually since 2022. Injuries also remain far too high. Some injured dogs are made to race, compounding their injuries and making it harder for them to heal. According to Dogs Trust and the Blue Cross, injuries and long-term conditions include fractures, muscle, ligament and tendon injuries, ruptured skin wounds and osteoarthritis.
The evidence is clear. Without a ban, greyhounds will continue to suffer excruciating injuries that impact the length and quality of their lives. Research has shown that the turns or bends of an oval racetrack provide unique risks for racing dogs for a number of reasons, including asymmetric training and racing, centrifugal force and congestion. The risk of death and injury is built into how the tracks operate.
The bill will help greyhounds across Scotland. It will help them to live full, fulfilling lives, as every dog deserves to do. So, for Bluesy, Bob, Kass and the always wonderful Bert, it is time to back the bill and end greyhound racing for good.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Gillian Mackay
I will begin, as other members have, by extending my thanks to my wonderful friend and colleague Mark Ruskell for introducing the bill. Mr Ruskell has been a long-time champion of this issue, and it is wonderful to see his efforts and the efforts of many tireless campaigners coming to fruition. Having been through the member’s bill process myself, I know that it cannot be overstated how this process can take over a member’s entire life.
A huge thanks should also be extended to the campaigners, the non-Government bills unit and Mark Ruskell’s staff team, who have processed hundreds of responses to his consultation. Many members will know how personally committed Mark Ruskell is to the welfare of greyhounds, and no wonder. For too long, greyhounds have suffered cruelly and unnecessarily in the name of gambling.
Some contributions this afternoon have been outright confusing. Rhoda Grant simultaneously claimed that the bill is unnecessary because there is no racing and because anyone who wanted to open an oval track would have other barriers to overcome, and that the bill does not go far enough because it does not include other tracks that would also have to overcome those same barriers. How on earth Davy Russell can say that the bill will not improve welfare is incredible, when there is clear evidence on how often these dogs are injured.
These dogs make incredible pets and they should be treated kindly and humanely. In its report on the welfare of greyhounds used for racing, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission listed
“several causes of welfare concern, particularly the risk of injury or death at the track … the conditions under which they are reared, a significant part of a dog’s life that may be spent in kennels with restricted social contacts, and risks of neglect and poor veterinary care once their racing careers are over.”
That same report concluded that
“Greyhound racing is not inherently dangerous for the dogs involved.”
The report also cited the oversupply of puppies as a significant harm. It is estimated that around 6,000 greyhound puppies are culled in Ireland each year as a result of overbreeding. That is heartbreaking—these are dogs, not commodities. An end to racing is the only way to ensure that the suffering ends. Regulation cannot protect greyhounds from the inherent risk of injury and death or address wider welfare concerns.
The Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s data shows that the number of trackside deaths has increased annually since 2022. Injuries also remain far too high. Some injured dogs are made to race, compounding their injuries and making it harder for them to heal. According to Dogs Trust and the Blue Cross, injuries and long-term conditions include fractures, muscle, ligament and tendon injuries, ruptured skin wounds and osteoarthritis.
The evidence is clear. Without a ban, greyhounds will continue to suffer excruciating injuries that impact the length and quality of their lives. Research has shown that the turns or bends of an oval racetrack provide unique risks for racing dogs for a number of reasons, including asymmetric training and racing, centrifugal force and congestion. The risk of death and injury is built into how the tracks operate.
The bill will help greyhounds across Scotland. It will help them to live full, fulfilling lives, as every dog deserves to do. So, for Bluesy, Bob, Kass and the always wonderful Bert, it is time to back the bill and end greyhound racing for good.
