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 1861 contributions
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.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I do not think that there should be fewer protections in rural areas than there would be in urban areas. It seems to me that there should be a pretty basic obligation on doctors to visit patients in such circumstances and that that should apply throughout the country.
At present, the bill seems to assume that consultations could be done remotely—or, at least, it does not rule out that possibility. Identifying coercion over video must be extremely difficult—I would judge it to be impossible—because professionals cannot reliably see the subtle cues, hesitations or dynamics that indicate that someone is under pressure. That is not a theoretical concern. In a remote meeting, it is not even necessarily apparent to all participants who else is in the room or what is being said off camera, as Mr Greer pointed out. To be frank, regardless of whether a patient is in a city or on an island, the professionals involved—
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
Will the member give way?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I fully agree. Anyone who has attempted to ask a question in a hybrid meeting will be able to readily identify with what Daniel Johnson has said.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
That is my understanding of the way in which the amendments have been written.
In my view, my amendments would at least ensure that the crucial decisions would be made with everyone in the same actual, rather than virtual, room. Therefore, I ask members to back my three amendments in the group.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I just wonder whether the member is bearing in mind, at the moment, that there are many, many people on both sides of this debate who care deeply about it, who are following these proceedings and who are wondering what the last half hour has been about. Does he not think that, given that some of this, such as the reservation of the regulation of medical professions, was in the Scotland Act 1998, all of this outrage is false outrage? We should get back to talking about amendments, and get back to talking about the bill that people are interested in.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I will speak to my amendments 176, 179 and 188.
Normally, members hear me urging the NHS to do more of its work online to avoid unnecessary and gruelling travel for patients in the Highlands and Islands, so I appreciate the points that have been made by Mr McArthur, who makes the same case regularly.
However, I believe that the matter that we are discussing today is in a different category. Whatever members’ views on the bill’s merits might be, I hope that we can agree that a person should not be put in a position where they have to make, via Zoom, a decision about ending their life.
On the point that was alluded to, about allowing for flexibility, I ask members to forgive me if I am ignorant in this regard, but I honestly cannot see circumstances in which a doctor should not make the effort to visit such a patient. I have doubts about whether the bill would allow enough time for proper face-to-face consultations, particularly for the first and second declarations that are set out in it.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I appreciate that I have not given Mr Briggs much time to develop his argument, but many members will, like me, sympathise with the point that he makes about ensuring that professionals can opt out. Does his amendment 142 stray into reserved areas? How does he answer the question about the bill’s competence?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
Will the member take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 March 2026
Alasdair Allan
I thank the member. I appreciate the motives behind his amendment, but I wonder whether he has a view on how the courts or others would be expected to interpret the six-month rule. One way that has been used to interpret the rule in the benefits context has been to ask, “Would you be surprised if this patient was alive in six months?” However, Marie Curie found that that measure has an error rate of 46 per cent. I do not doubt the reason why the member lodged his amendment, but does he accept that there are multiple ways of assessing against the criteria that he seeks to establish?