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 687 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
Even in that answer, you said, “these things”, but is there a clear definition of which things we are referring to as medical procedures?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
Good morning. I am curious. I was already thinking about this because of the term “medical aesthetics”, which has come up several times. There has been a discussion about the idea that some procedures have been demedicalised, or that the term “medical” is in contention. I have a basic question. What determines whether a procedure is medical? What defines medical aesthetics as opposed to non-medical procedures that people might have for aesthetic reasons? Is it the qualifications of the person who is conducting the procedures, the setting in which they are conducted, how they are regulated or whether they are done for medical reasons—in other words, to treat a medically diagnosed condition?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
There is not an objective definition, then. We are using the term, “medical aesthetics”, but is there a clearly accepted definition of what that refers to and what it does not?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
I appreciate that there are different perspectives. From a policy perspective, I am not sure if I am more confused or less confused, but thank you for the answers.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
I do not want to step on their toes.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
Thank you.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
I think that other members will come on to enforcement and compliance later.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
Is that four-nations dialogue purely among your professional colleagues, or are you aware of that happening between Governments, too?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
Remmy Jones, do you have anything to add?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 9 December 2025
Patrick Harvie
My question is about the consistency of regulation. On the question of consistency between different parts of the UK, one view is that we should generally err on the side of consistency and regulatory alignment, because that is simpler to communicate, it is easier for everyone to understand and it avoids unintended consequences in relation to the movement of people between different jurisdictions for one reason or another. Another view is that it is not good to prioritise alignment for its own sake, and that we should align with something only if we think that it is the right regulatory position. According to that view, we should not adopt a lower regulatory position just for the sake of alignment.
On where such regulatory decisions should sit, there is again a view that, in relation to devolved matters, the devolved Government and Parliament should decide whether divergence is justified to achieve a public policy objective such as patient safety. Another view, which is embodied in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, is that the UK Government should decide, in the interests of market alignment and fairness for market operators, to impose a common approach.
What are your general views on, first, whether alignment between the different jurisdictions in the UK is important? Does it matter? Are there any unintended consequences of such alignment? Secondly, to what extent is the level of divergence or difference that is proposed in this legislation workable and manageable?