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 2264 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I understand Sandesh Gulhane’s background in the area, so I know that he will be aware of all the significant research that shows that non-disabled people’s opinion on disabled people’s quality of life differs hugely from disabled people’s opinion on their own quality of life, and that that difference means that the bill could pose a risk.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I recognise the member’s commitment to and support for the bill. If there was no time limit, what would be the difference between a person living as a disabled person and a terminally ill person?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
If I had not thought—wrongly—that Bob Doris’s amendments 139 and 140 were in another group, I would have said at the outset that I think that they are incredibly important. Together with Stuart McMillan’s amendments 216 and 217, they get to the heart of some of the concerns that disabled people have about the internalised ableism in society. I have to say that a rejection of them, a rejection of any definition of coercion and a rejection of any other process to determine that coercion is taking place, including that in Brian Whittle’s amendments, would be quite concerning. I hope that the committee will therefore support some of the amendments on that.
I draw the committee’s attention to the evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland, which challenged the assumption that discussions about assisted dying could take place at regular GP appointments. It said:
“This is a complex process, morally and emotionally, involving considerable time for technical assessment of capacity and coercion which can be challenging. We do not believe that this work can or should be incorporated into an already very busy and stressed service, without potential detriment to patient care”
That is an important reflection from front-line professionals for us to bear in mind. When we are considering the definition of coercion, the clearer we can be in the legislation, the better.
The committee is grappling with two aspects. One is the definition of coercion. There are several options available to the committee in the amendments. Some of them include the broader aspects, which I think are essential to include, and some of them are more narrow but nonetheless still define coercion. Given what the Royal College of General Practitioners said about the ability of professionals to reach such a difficult decision without clarity in legislation, I would like to think that committee members will support the amendments.
I will comment briefly on the point that amendment 13 might not be moved at this stage because of concern about training health professionals and the cost of that. Concern about the cost of training health professionals on the legislation is legitimate. For people to be able to do this work, not only will they have to have time to do it but they will have to be trained to do it. There is a question whether we should bear the brunt of that cost. Training will cost money. I would like to think that, if the bill is to include the safeguard that such professionals will be able to make such decisions, surely they will have the appropriate training. Even if my colleague Emma Harper does not press amendment 13 at stage 2, I would like to think that something similar will be lodged at stage 3, regardless of the cost.
I press amendment 220.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 November 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Is the member suggesting that he would support the provisions of the act being operated in an unregulated way?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Does the Government think that the timescale should be different if there are welfare concerns with regard to informing parents or carers?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I presume that it means situations in which informing a parent or carer might result in the child being blamed or the parent overreacting, for example. Does the Government have any concerns about that?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
That is helpful; thank you.
We have heard a lot from parents about circumstances when they have not been informed about the use of restraint. As you heard earlier, the parents can hear about an incident from the young person or a third person, or the information comes to light in some other way. Who is accountable when that happens?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
The other thing that has been put to us was that the decision to restructure the university into faculties was taken without the agreement of the senate and without discussion and agreement with the campus trade unions and student association representatives. Is that a fair representation of what happened?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
That is fair enough. What sort of oversight does the cabinet secretary hope to have on the extent to which the conditions that are attached to the money are adhered to?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 October 2025
Pam Duncan-Glancy
I understand that, but, regardless of what they are, are you—