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 1533 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
Jeremy Balfour
I am grateful. Thank you, minister.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
Arguably, both the UK and Scottish Governments should be tackling those social issues. If we got them right, the level of ADP and other disability payments might then reduce.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
Professor Roy, you are too young, but for those of us who are slightly older and go back to the dark ages, PIP and its predecessors were all set up to help those with disability get into employment. They were meant to help with the costs of doing that. Has any work been done on whether, if we reduced ADP or took people off it, that would have any effect on the employment rate? Would those people be less likely to go and work, which would mean an increase in other benefits, such as universal credit?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
Good morning. I have two questions.
I welcome the regulations, but I would like clarification on a couple of issues. From your discussions with social landlords, has there been any evidence that, when they carry out checks, they might be less willing to rent accommodation to couples with a history of such issues? We do not want people to be penalised when trying to get social housing, and I wonder whether that might be an unforeseen consequence.
09:15
Going back to look at the other side of something that we discussed previously, I am a wee bit interested in knowing what evidence would be required. In some very exceptional cases, malicious claims will be made by a man about a woman or by a woman about a man. What is the burden of proof? I appreciate that that would not be a court order, but if I were simply to make a claim of domestic abuse against my wife, would that be enough? What safeguards are there for people who are wrongly accused of doing something?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
That is helpful.
There is quite a lot of responsibility on social landlords. What training are you planning to provide over the next six months, up to August, to help social landlords, who will have to come to a view on this? Some people will have experience of this, but others will not. What training would you expect social landlords to have before August and when can we expect to see the guidance?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
I was interested in your comment a few minutes ago about how it is unfortunate that more people are claiming, although I have not quoted you exactly. Is it not just about better diagnosis? People who were sitting with a physical or a mental disability 20 years ago were simply not being diagnosed appropriately and they should have been entitled to that benefit.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
I might come back in later.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
Good morning. I will wrap two questions into one, for the sake of time. To go back to Claire Baker’s question about the transfer, did you go to the Scottish Government and say, “We need these people,” or did the Scottish Government say to you, “We have these people—can you take them on board?” Whose choice was it to take those individuals on board?
Previously, when I have asked you about why you could not tell us how long things would take, you have told the committee that it was because the system was not designed in that way. Do you have confidence that the people who are being transferred across and who have designed the initial system are capable of delivering a system that will be up for 21st century analysis? One of the problems that the committee and the public have is that we cannot get a lot of information because you cannot provide it. That is because of the system, yet the same people who designed the system are now being taken on board.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
I put on the record that I am in receipt of the higher rate of ADP. One of the things that came out of the Edel Harris report, which probably relates to you rather than the Scottish Government, is the application form, which is complicated. I confess that I have a lot of empathy with people in that regard. What plans do you have, if any, to look at that issue? I know that you do a lot on stakeholder feedback, but how do you ensure that you get the information in a way that does not stress people out?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 January 2026
Jeremy Balfour
But I am concerned about what the point of that form is. Why are you doing that? Presumably, you or the Scottish Government could say, “We have reviewed 90 per cent of cases and they are all right.” However, you are not seeking new evidence or asking for anything new—you are simply asking someone to sign a form to agree with what has already been done. That does not seem very efficient to me.