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 2447 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
I find that very helpful, because the second aspect that you mentioned is an issue with reporting more generally. For example, we inspect and audit care homes, but we do not necessarily monitor the individual’s journey through their experience of social care and into a care home. That is exactly the same issue that you are describing in relation to adult disability payments. That helps me to understand how we could do better than that.
However, how we can monitor or measure fairness, dignity and respect is a little more challenging. Is how a person feels that they have been treated not, by definition, subjective? I take on board the recommendation, but how that could be measured in an objective way?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
So, we should try to find a way of doing it, but it is challenging.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
That sounds absolutely fair. It is up to the Government to respond and work out how we would do that.
Do you want to come back in on that, Mr Boyle?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
Thank you. I call Carol Mochan.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
Thank you, Stephen. I apologise to committee members for taking up a chunk of airtime, but I thought that it was important, given what we have coming down the line. Alexander Stewart is next.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
That concludes our evidence session. Stephen Boyle and Erin McGinley, I thank you for your support in helping us to understand the report. I ask you to stay seated for a brief moment, to allow me to sneakily move on to agenda item 3 without suspending proceedings.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
Thank you for those opening comments, which will give an important context to our scrutiny session. The first question will come from Jeremy Balfour.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
Before I bring in my colleague Carol Mochan, which I will do shortly, I put on the record that the social security independent advocacy service is to be provided by Advice Direct Scotland. That is now public information, and the committee will hear from Advice Direct Scotland on 11 December, when there will be more opportunities to explore that.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
Thanks, Marie. It is a really good line of questioning. We are always under time constraints on a Thursday morning, and I am sorry about that. I want to sneak in a brief question, then Jeremy Balfour wants to come back in.
Elena Whitham raised the issue of how we get to the report’s more personalised and holistic approach for assessments, and Carol Mochan talked about the inconsistencies in decisions. There is a tension between those things; doing one might exacerbate the other. I apologise for a really bad comparison, but I have sat on job interview panels, using points-based systems. You look at competencies and you do a total at the end, but the person who gets the job is not always the person who gets the highest total of points, because you look at things in the round. You look at the points total, which is how you get to your short leet, then you take a step back and look at the overall package that a person might bring to the post. I am sorry for that dreadful comparison, but we have, almost, a cliff-edge system.
The report said that we should stick with the points-based system, despite all its failings, because it is important to provide certainty. However, should there be a degree of discretion whereby an assessor can take a step back and say, “This person is one point short of qualifying, but, if we look holistically at them, they probably should qualify”? Is there a way of mixing the points system with a more holistic approach?
09:45Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Bob Doris
That is very helpful—thank you.