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 1860 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I see that the Government has not made comments about Daniel Johnson’s amendments 18 and 19, for instance. However, the cabinet secretary has referred to the duty of a medical professional to make all options known to the patient. Is his understanding that amendments 18 and 19 would impinge on that duty by—in my view, helpfully—avoiding the need to mention assisted dying?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
Mr Greer has indicated that he may be about to speak to the question that I was going to raise. Can he clarify the reasoning behind leaving out the word “require” and inserting “request”? In practical terms, what would mean that for someone?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I appreciate the frustration that Stuart McMillan has expressed, which is felt by people from various parties, about the situation relating to the section 104 order. He mentioned that this is a contentious issue, but does he accept that the Scottish Parliament deals with all sorts of contentious issues and that, in a representative democracy, it is normal for people’s elected representatives to sort them out, unless it is a rule-changing constitutional issue?
20:30
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
Will the member take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I wish to comment on amendment 112, which proposes that the bill could be the subject of a referendum after royal assent. I realise that my friend Stuart McMillan feels strongly about the issue—I also realise that he is sitting directly behind me—however, I believe that, in a representative democracy, referenda should be reserved for major changes on constitutional questions. That is a tradition that has grown up in Scotland and the UK over the past 60 years, although I stress that I am not making an argument from tradition; if I thought that the tradition was mistaken, I would say so. Indeed, the UK has not been responsive enough to demands for constitutional referenda.
Some mention has been made of the Republic of Ireland, and it is true to say that Ireland has referenda on issues of the kind that we are debating here today. However, as Mr O’Kane pointed out, that is because those questions involve changing parts of the 1937 constitution, which requires that all constitutional amendments be put to a referendum.
If we lived in ancient Athens or in some cantons of modern Switzerland, it is possible that referenda might form an established part of our day-to-day legislative process. However, I genuinely fear what would happen if we were to set a precedent today of moving to referenda on individual non-constitutional pieces of legislation. Without using hypothetical examples, I can say that, if we were to go down that route, it is easy to imagine situations in which some angry majority in the country might, at some stage, decide to whip up online hostility against some minority or other and then seek to press for a referendum on their interests.
I can understand the motivations that members might have for considering supporting amendment 112. They have been gone over. It is tempting to try to find some way of moving this difficult debate into another sphere. However, after many months of public engagement and debate, and after many days and nights of parliamentary scrutiny, the public expect us to make decisions.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I accept the point about the validity of referenda. I am merely making the point that they work best when we are talking about changing the rules of the game through some major constitutional change.
The public rightly hold us to account at elections. Constitutional questions aside, that is how representative democracy should work, so, respectfully, I cannot support Mr McMillan’s amendment 112.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I thank Jeremy Balfour for his generosity in taking interventions.
I hope that the concerns that Ms Forbes has raised might be addressed in some of the amendments that we are discussing today, not least Mr Johnson’s amendments.
I return to the question that Mr Hepburn asked about why your amendment 243 contains a phrase about stopping the conversation instantly. Why would that be helpful?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
Will Jeremy Balfour give way?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I wonder whether the member could reassure me about amendment 204. Am I incorrect in reading that to mean that it would remove the provisions that define in detail what the advocacy service is to do? I am keen to ensure that we have a proper definition somewhere in the bill that avoids, for instance, undue influence. Does amendment 204 remove that definition, or have I misread it?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.