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 1210 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
I know that Food Standards Scotland has had a flat-cash budget settlement from financial year 2022-23 through to the current financial year of £22.7 million. Real-terms erosion will have an effect. What funding challenges is FSS facing, and what measures are you taking to mitigate them?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
What you have said is reflected in the external audit that was published in December. Given what you have said about a potential planned overspend, are you confident that the FSS will achieve financial balance in the current financial year?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
I apologise.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
Could you develop that a bit further and say what practical action you are taking with the Scottish Government to address that deficit? You mentioned that you are working together. What does that look like in practice?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
I appreciate your candour. Thank you very much.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
I invite our witnesses to reflect on where they would like Food Standards Scotland to be in 2035, when it will celebrate its 20th anniversary.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
Does anyone else have any other thoughts?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
I appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning. It has been very interesting to hear panel members discuss how the quality standard of decision making around dangerous buildings could be improved.
I wonder whether the requirement for CARE accreditation could be stipulated in the context of a section 29 or 30 order. I am conscious of what the City of Edinburgh Council representative said about building standards, which was that action is usually taken immediately to remove any immediate public risk; a cordon is set up; and then there is, in most cases, a bit of a cooling-off period. Given that that is the point at which a more considered assessment can be made, might that also provide an opportunity to stipulate that bringing in CARE-accredited structural engineers in listed building cases—which, as has been discussed, are relatively few in number—would be an appropriate and proportionate measure? Indeed, the cost of doing so could be recovered from the owner if it incurs an extra fee for the council.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
That is an interesting case. Another case that I have noted, which might be of particular interest to Mr Ewing, is the Secretary of State for Scotland v Highland Council—the so-called Achintore case—involving Fort William primary school, in which the council attempted to defend its proposed demolition of a B-listed school building. It constituted a prima facie offence under legislation equivalent to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997; the case predated it, but the test was broadly similar to the test available for offences under section 8 of the 1997 act, and the Secretary of State for Scotland at the time succeeded in obtaining an interdict to prevent demolition, providing evidence that remedial works were in fact possible. Now that Highland Council, ironically, uses the building as offices following a full refurbishment in 2018, that case perhaps illustrates that the key here is having a sort of umpire of expertise, if you like, at the heart of decision making so that the case can turn on those judgments.
On Professor Masterton’s earlier point, if the CARE register were to be enhanced in statute, not only would it provide a powerful incentive for conservation accreditation for structural engineers in Scotland and a higher standard of assessment for the engineers making those decisions; the list of people who would seek to get accredited would probably grow, if that became a legislative check in both the 2003 act under sections 29 and 30 as well as a potential enhancement to the enforcement powers in the 1997 act. Do the witnesses agree that that is likely? There are cases where one person’s engineer makes a fatal decision about the building and another engineer disputes it. If they are brought in, accredited conservation engineers more often than not tend to find the solution, when other engineers have doomed the building.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Paul Sweeney
It helps me get an indication that there is some cooling-off period, which might provide an opportunity to enhance the legislation. It is not as if you move in with a bulldozer and completely level a building in 24 or 48 hours or whatever. That would happen only in very rare and exceptional cases.