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 569 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
Absolutely.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
Can I just check a phrase that you used there? Was it “consensus diagnosis”?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
But that would not remove the requirement for a formal diagnosis if medication was being sought.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
I was just going to say that I am conscious that we have an online witness from NHS Highland who may want to reflect on what has been said and on the experience of the NAIT pathfinder programme.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
Unless there are any final comments on that, I will leave it there.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
Will you unpack that a little, please?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
Is it arguable that they do not have those experiences because of their neurodevelopmental status but because of the inability of society to accommodate that? We hear the phrase “neuro-affirming” being used.
I will frame the question differently. If we could imagine Scotland as a neuro-affirming society, would it be one in which diagnosis has the totemic status that it has at the moment?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
I am sorry to drag you back to a previous discussion, Dr Williams, but I have a supplementary question on the back of the questions that Elena Whitham was asking you about the role of assessment and diagnosis in the private or third sectors. It seemed to me that your answer quite accurately described the problem, but I could not quite get a sense of what you think the solution to that is. Clearly, we have frustration being expressed in relation to the financial unfairness, with some people being able to make the choice to go private, others being forced into debt and others feeling desperate because they cannot do that, and there is a sense of frustration because people are not getting the same responses from different GPs about whether diagnoses will be accepted and acted on.
Are you saying that the solution to that is to restrict or prohibit diagnoses in the private sector that do not reach a certain standard and then to accept all those that do, or that the solution is only to expand capacity in the NHS? Where do we go from here?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
Good morning to our new panel of witnesses. As you will be aware, we have heard a lot of evidence about the variation in waiting times, in service provision and in the various timescales and so on for referrals to pathways to access services across different parts of Scotland. Can you give us a sense of the extent to which that variation is itself fundamentally a problem, or is variation simply something that we should live with in a country with multiple health boards that provide services in line with their different priorities? What could the Scottish Government do if it chooses to reduce or eliminate that variation and establish a standard universal set of expectations for people? Do health boards look at one another’s performance and treat that, informally, as what they need to be aspiring to? Is there any sense at all that health boards are trying to achieve not universality but some common expectations? I am happy to open that up to whoever would like to kick off.
10:30Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Patrick Harvie
I think that probably everyone has mentioned resources. That was unavoidable, so let us acknowledge that issue. Are there any other barriers beyond resources that you think we need to be aware of in delivering either the NAIT recommendations that witnesses have spoken about or the specification for children and young people that Dr Kidd talked about?