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 1258 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Can you remind me what the uplift in the budget would be?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
I have a couple of other questions in this area. The drugs landscape in Scotland is changing rapidly, particularly in relation to polydrug use and new substances. Is the bill suitably drafted to respond to those emerging challenges?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
The bill talks about a three-week deadline for commencing treatment. I want to tease that out a bit. Sometimes, quite complex preparatory work is required, including psychological interventions and stabilisation, before folk can move on, particularly if they have chosen an abstinence-based treatment pathway. That can take much more than three weeks. How would we manage to square that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
To go back, I think that the bill talks about clinician-led decision making, but you suggested that the patient should be allowed to say, “I want this particular type of treatment.” Are you, indeed, suggesting that, uniquely, patients should be able to dictate their treatment path?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Obviously, budget decisions are normally made in the budget, and Mr Ross did not support the increase in that area this year.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
My questions cover costs and resources, but I think that you have covered most of that theme as we have gone through. We have talked about the Law Society in relation to the McCulloch case. In addition, the Law Society highlighted the potential risk of “significant litigation” arising from the bill. Might you take the opportunity to comment on that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
The Law Society’s specific concern—which it suggested was about an “unintended consequence”—was that, if someone did not get the treatment and something then happened, their surviving relatives or partner could sue. Your financial memorandum does not include that litigation cost, but it is obvious that it could be significant.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
So, you have not included any cost for that.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
I am sorry, but I want to clarify that further. Someone for whom that is an agreed pathway should not expect to immediately—in three weeks’ time—be in a rehab facility, because all that other process would need to happen.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
I want to go back to your response to Emma Harper about treatment options. You said that there is a perception that the bill is about abstinence-based treatments. I ask you to reflect on the fact that your opening remarks might have made it sound as if the bill is about one particular abstinence-based treatment route. It was almost as if you were saying that, although there are other options, there is a hierarchy and anything shy of abstinence-based recovery and rehab is less good than any other treatment option. I think that your opening remarks today will have fed that perception. The challenge is that people out there who might support that would be disappointed if that is not what the bill is about.