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 1453 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Jeremy Balfour
That was helpful. Thank you.
Just to tidy things up, can you confirm that the new rules on contract law will apply only to contracts that are entered into after the bill comes into force?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Good morning, minister, and thank you again for coming.
What is your view of arguments made by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland that the draft rules on retention need to take into account the United Kingdom Government’s consultation on the use of retention clauses in construction contracts?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Jeremy Balfour
I want the minister to follow up briefly. When will you take a view on that? Will it be at stage 3, or will it be post stage 3?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 December 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Once the bill has passed, there will be a bit of uncertainty about when it will come into force.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Good morning, and thank you for your report and for coming to the meeting.
Your report says that there is a risk of disengagement and of damaged trust if people do not see their feedback leading to change. I appreciate that it is ultimately for us as politicians, and for the Government, to deal with that, but how can we ensure on-going client engagement without people saying that they have had that conversation a hundred times but nothing has changed? How do we get change?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Thank you—that is helpful. My final question is also about picking up on your wider experience. If we were to implement some of the recommendations that are in your report, there would be a divergence from the PIP regulations, particularly on the points-based system. One of the concerns is that people rely on ADP to then get other UK benefits. Is there a danger that, if we go down the road of having a separate model, people could lose out on other benefits, because the United Kingdom Government would not necessarily recognise the criteria that we are using?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Can I ask a follow-up?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Yes.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
That is fine—thank you.
The Scottish Government has a benefit take-up strategy. Does that need to be tweaked or changed, or, by and large, is it working well?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Thank you. Convener, I apologise—I should have declared an interest at the start of the meeting, in that I am in receipt of ADP.
I have a further question. I was interested in the comments in your report about VoiceAbility. Its contract with the Scottish Government, which involves £20.4 million over four years, was awarded back in 2022 and is up for review at the moment. Your report states:
“there is a notable lack of awareness about the support available pre-application, such as the Independent Advocacy Service provided by VoiceAbility”.
You talk about an opt-out service rather than opt-in. Will you expand on that? Would that money be better spent on an organisation such as Citizens Advice Scotland? It is better known in Scotland than VoiceAbility, which many people have perhaps never heard of.