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 1391 contributions
Public Audit Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 12 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
That is what I want to move on to. This is probably more for Miriam Craven. The people who are accessing ADP—and those who are not but who should be—are also accessing a number of other benefits and interventions. The Auditor General suggests that maybe the system is fragmented and that we have not managed to embed ADP within the wider system. There is no connection to housing, health and employment. It is good to hear how we are doing that.
Miriam mentioned the “Disability Equality Plan”, but I do not think that that includes ADP. I might be wrong about that, but if it does not, when will we bring those things together? We cannot look at all these things in isolation, because people do not access just one part of the system; they have lives that are more rounded. How are we pulling all that together?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Sue Webber’s point about the eye operation was pertinent, but I am not aware that such advice is in statute. My question is this: why do we need to put something into statute, via this particular bill, when it happens routinely in other areas without being in statute? The issue is what should be in statute, what should be in regulations and what should be part of training, and those are different things. Putting everything into statute is not necessarily the best idea, particularly given that techniques change and things advance. Is there any suggestion that such a process is in statute for anything else?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Yes. Thank you for taking an intervention. We have seen examples from other parts of the world where individual choice is effectively removed. My concern is that we are joining dots and assuming that a set of circumstances will come about if we do not have an institutional opt-out. I just feel as though there are dots being joined ahead—
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Will you take an intervention?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
I am trying to understand the point. You made the point that the Salvation Army is an organisation, and part of that involves, in effect, providing people’s homes. Are you saying that, when someone is dying in their own home, they should not be allowed to access the provisions of this legislation if they qualify and wish to do so? Should the Salvation Army be allowed to block people from carrying out, in their own homes, a decision that they have made? Or any other organisation? You mentioned the Salvation Army but it is obviously much wider than that.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
I am very sympathetic to what the member is trying to achieve in these amendments, but, given the way in which they are worded, it seems like the directive is less a voluntary thing and more something that has to be done. The amendments seem to be saying, “You must have an advance care directive,” whereas I believe very much that it should be a matter of patient choice. My concern is that, if patients do not want an advance care directive, they should not have to have one. I think that you said that that was your intention, so I wonder whether it would be better if the wording could be finessed and the amendment brought back at stage 3, in order to make it clear that the provision is not saying, “You must have this in order to proceed.”
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
That is nonsense.
Public Audit Committee [Draft}
Meeting date: 5 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Before I ask my questions on resources, I want to pick up on a point that was made during the contribution from my colleague Graham Simpson. He was talking about the complexity of understanding whether the Promise is being delivered. He also read the quote about the urgency of the lived experience, which made me think that it is difficult to know when we have got this right, but it is absolutely clear when we have got it wrong, isn’t it?
When a care-experienced person’s journey is not what it should be, are we putting the urgency on that to, first of all, fix that for that person in the context of the Promise? Are we looking at how we make sure that it does not happen to someone else? When I have come across a care-experienced person who has not had a great journey, the first thing that I have said to them is, “Thank you so much for speaking up, because it is not just about you; it is about all the other folk who are likely to be experiencing it because the system is not working as it should.” Have we managed to join those dots?
Public Audit Committee [Draft}
Meeting date: 5 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Where you see good practice, is that being shared? Are other areas looking at that, or are they saying, “That is Glasgow, so we are not going to do that”? Have they managed to break that down to put the folk that this is about at the heart of decision making?
Public Audit Committee [Draft}
Meeting date: 5 November 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Thank you. I think that other colleagues have more questions in this area, so I will leave it open.