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 1409 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Good morning. Has the Scottish Government looked at the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015? If so, what assessment have you made of it? Audit Wales says that it is
“changing conversations, influencing longer-term planning, and impacting day-to-day decision-making and working practices”.
Is that not something that we want to see in Scotland? Having something in legislation might drive those conversations.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
I suspect that you will give a similar answer to this question. Similarly, the bill outlines that public bodies must “have regard” to guidance that is produced by a future generations commissioner. Does that seem reasonable?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Thank you.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
To play devil’s advocate for a moment, we will have a new Government of some kind next year. We do not know what that Government will be, or what the Government after that will be. The issue might be high up on your priority list and high up on the Deputy First Minister’s priority list, but that might not be the case with the next Government. How do we ensure that, if it is not dealt with in legislation, it will still be high up on the agenda of whoever forms the next Government?
09:15Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 13 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Thank you—that was helpful.
The bill refers to the need for public bodies to have “due regard” to the need to promote wellbeing and sustainable development. We have taken evidence that that could be strengthened. What view do you have on that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
He does; I agree.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Will the member take an intervention?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
I would have more sympathy with that view if we were going down the road of Miles Briggs’s amendment 198. If there was a list that was available to somebody who wanted this, they could see who was and who was not willing to facilitate it. That would be very clear. I would be able to look on a website and see who was willing and who was not willing to do this and I could then go through that process. That is one of the issues.
I also think that the amendments do not deal with those at an administrative level who would be asked to do things that go against their views. I am worried that, again, we are going to exclude people from a workplace environment where they would be happy to do everything else that might be required, but not this particular thing. We may end up losing people from those workplaces.
I appreciate what Mr McArthur said. However, my amendment 190 is not about trying to obstruct patient choice, but about ensuring that individuals who are against assisted suicide are not drawn into it. To compel participation in assisted suicide, even as a referrer, is to turn conscience into mere compliance. My amendment, if it is accepted, would give protection in that regard.
My amendments 191 and 192 are follow-on amendments. Again, I accept what Mr McArthur says, but this area of law is new and depends on individual choices. That is why I think that the burden of proof should be reversed from what is in place for other areas of law.
Amendment 191 specifies that if
“a claim of conscientious objection”
is alleged to have
“been improperly or falsely made”,
the responsibility to prove or justify that claim
“lies with the person or institution”
making the allegation, rather than with the individual who is exercising the objection. The rationale is simple: it is to protect individuals and organisations that conscientiously refuse to participate, ensuring that they are not unfairly required to defend their ethical or moral stance.
Amendment 192—[Interruption.]. I am happy to take an intervention.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
Just a second.
On the other issue that you raise, you are saying that someone who wants to work for a certain hospice or organisation that does not carry out assisted suicide—assisted dying—must accept that. My point is that that is already the position in law in other areas. An organisation will have certain beliefs, philosophies and ideas. Someone does not necessarily have to sign up to those intellectually, but they do have to sign up in practical terms.
10:30Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Jeremy Balfour
That is helpful, thank you. I wonder whether it would be helpful to get an update from the Scottish Government on its position, particularly in relation to some of the amendments that we are considering.