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 2546 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
For my final question—and I will bring in Maeve McGoldrick at this point—I just want to check the figure that Hannah Aldridge used. If we decided to peg LHA to the 30th percentile—that is, it would be tied to that, so that it would not be frozen—it could, if the data is reliable, cost £2.5 billion by the end of the current UK Parliament.
My question, then, is twofold. Some will say that there are affordability issues for the UK Government to deal with, and I would like to see it do that. However, is there a case to be made for the UK Government to at least commit to a guaranteed increase of LHA levels each and every year, be that increase 2, 3 or 4 per cent? Would that not give planned fiscal certainty with regard to the impact on the UK budget?
Given the time constraints, I will roll both my questions together. Would there really be a saving of £2.5 billion, or would that money be spent anyway by local authorities, the Scottish Government and individuals in the private rented sector? Would the overall cost to society more generally in relation to getting people into employment and providing them with sustainable and productive lives be much greater than the £2.5 billion that it would cost to invest in the sector?
There was a lot in that, so I will not ask any supplementary questions, otherwise I will meet the wrath of the convener. I promised to bring in Maeve McGoldrick on those two points first.
09:45Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
You could write to the committee about this when you have the time, but is there a case for saying that, if someone were to take the step into the private rented sector, that could still be seen as a short-term intervention, so they should not lose their entitlement to move back into the social rented sector? In relation to how allocation policies work just now, if people have no housing need, they lose their needs-based assessment to get into the social rented sector. Could we be more clever about that?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
I have a specific question about the £2 million that the Scottish Government has provided to reduce pressure on temporary accommodation and to support a move into the private rented sector, despite all the challenges in that regard. I will caveat that by saying that I am sure that you could spend that £2 million 100 times over. I am trying to identify the benefits of the money that has been spent; I am not talking about whether the money that has been provided is sufficient.
For example, I think that Glasgow was provided with £169,000 to be spent in this financial year and £620,000 to be spent in the next financial year. Duncan Black, can you provide examples of how that money has been used? If we can provide evidence of good outcomes, that will provide a stronger argument, with the budget coming up, that additional cash should be provided in that area.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
That is fine. Sheila Haig?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
Thank you. I have no further questions, but I say to all three witnesses that we would like those numbers, not just on DHP but on the wider spend and associated outcomes. If we are contacting Government, we want to say what local authorities are doing, what the outcomes are and what more they could do with additional funding. That is really helpful—thank you.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
Thank you.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
That is helpful. I do not have the figures for Edinburgh, but I assume that it got something, too. Sheila Haig, you referred to £123,000. I do not know whether that was from the same fund. Can you give an illustrative example of how that money can be spent? There might be a lack of sufficiency, but what positive outcomes can the money create?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
That is fair enough. Les Robertson, did Fife have access to that fund? If so, how was the money used?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
I apologise for cutting you off but, if you could let us know in correspondence, that would be helpful.
Duncan Black, do you have a figure for what Glasgow spends above and beyond the allocation? I understand that it is quite meaty.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 8 January 2026
Bob Doris
Convener, can I just check whether this is for a supplementary question or my line of questioning, or both?