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 2046 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Bob Doris
Jeremy Balfour’s question was very interesting and made me think about housing allocation policies more generally. I know many families who are homeless and sofa-surfing because they are in work and want to avoid paying for expensive temporary accommodation, storing furniture and all the rest of it. I also know lots of families whose housing needs are fairly significant but are not substantial enough that they are likely to be allocated a property move any time soon. Are we getting the balance right if we are saying that we will allocate a property, whether that is to someone who is in a permanent tenancy but has a significant housing need or is in temporary accommodation seeking a permanent tenancy, only if we can wholly meet their housing needs, but that we will not move them to more suitable accommodation?
Time and time again, I see families in cramped accommodation who need an extra two bedrooms. We can find them an extra one bedroom and the housing association will say that that does not fully meet their housing needs, yet their housing needs would be dramatically improved if they could be moved to more appropriate accommodation. Housing associations always fall back on allocation policies, and homelessness teams have similar allocation procedures. Is it simply a matter of reviewing that and showing a bit of common sense in allocation policies in order to get churn in the system?
Mr Balfour’s question has triggered a bee in my bonnet and I would like to know whether the same holds true for any of the witnesses today. Would they like to see a review of allocation policies in order to get churn in the housing system, so that we could meet some housing needs, even if we cannot meet not all housing needs? Are there no takers?
I will give an example. A family of five is in a small two-bedroom property and a three-bedroom one comes up, but the housing association says that that will not meet the family’s housing needs and that it might be three years before those can be met. Does no one see that as an issue?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Bob Doris
Thanks, Tony.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Bob Doris
Thanks for talking me down off my rant. [Laughter.]
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 June 2025
Bob Doris
If you are sitting comfortably for the next 15 minutes, I will begin. Actually, you will be delighted to hear that it is a brief question, convener.
ALACHO’s submission for today said:
“there is a pressing need to ensure that those impacted by homelessness are safe and properly supported whilst they wait for settled accommodation.”
That seems eminently sensible. None of us has a magic wand to make this better right away and people are enduring while they wait for appropriate accommodation. Would Tony Cain like to say how he thinks that that can happen or share any good practice in what does happen?
10:45Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
I am sure that Tim Eagle followed very closely the evidence that we received at stage 1. Does he recognise that large landowners told us that, by and large, all the things that are to be contained in the plans are best practice and are taking place anyway? If that is true, where is the additional cost?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
If I understand—
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
Cabinet secretary, I hope that you can give further clarity in relation to amendment 31. I am pleased to work with you ahead of stage 3 to make sure that it is drafted accurately and appropriately, but I do not think that my amendment, which seeks to make it easier to access a land management plan that the Parliament has so far agreed should be accessible anyway, will have any implications for commercial sensitivity whatsoever. The amendment does not require additional information to be published in the plan; it simply requires that the plan is published in an accessible way. I am still not sure where commercial confidentiality or sensitivity comes in with this amendment.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
Will the member take an intervention?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
I thank Mr Eagle for giving way. I point out that the spa activities in Deeside are much more like what I would dream about than what you apparently dream about, but we will leave that hanging.
Some of your amendments to part 1 are simple deletions, but some of them would have amended part 1, on the basis that you thought that they would improve it. Had those amendments been agreed to—not the deletions but the other amendments—would you still move your amendments to delete part 1 in its entirety?
I am trying to understand whether your presence at the committee last week and today, which is always very welcome, is destructive or constructive. Would you ever have agreed to part 1 in any shape, size or form?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
Will the member give way?