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 1217 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
I will ask about some issues around the financial memorandum. You had an extensive evidence session with the Finance and Public Administration Committee, so I do not propose to redo that, but I will give you an opportunity to respond to some of the points that that committee has flagged up to us.
The first area that I will speak about has been touched on already, so maybe we do not need to spend too much time on it. You briefly mentioned training time costs which you suggested would be £200,000 in the first year. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care says that the Scottish Government believes that training costs for doctors would be something more like £6 million. That is a huge difference.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
You mentioned Oregon and Victoria and how your cost estimates are based their two systems. Most of us, and anybody who has been watching the evidence, will understand why you did that. However, the finance committee raised the point that it heard evidence that you should have used Canada. I will therefore give you the option of quickly explaining why Oregon and Victoria, and not Canada, are the basis for your estimates.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
I want to ask about age. You decided that 16 would be the relevant age in the bill. There are good arguments for choosing 16 or 18 as that age: 16 is in line with the age of legal capacity in Scotland, whereby 16-year-olds can make decisions about medical procedures and treatments, and 18 is the age at which you are no longer a child under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As I said, there are good arguments for both, so I am keen to hear a bit about what you did to come to your decision. What consultation did you do and who did you speak to?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Did you have any engagement with young people—16 to 20-year-olds—in coming to that conclusion? Would such engagement need to be done if we were going to change the age in the bill?
10:15Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
The finance committee has pointed out the happy coincidence, or coincidence, that the process of this bill is taking place while there is a bill going through Westminster, which means that awareness of the issue is perhaps higher than it has been previously. That suggests that the costs might be higher than you have envisaged. I guess that, when you did your calculations, you did not know that the Westminster bill was going to be at the stage that it is.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Thank you. Those were the main questions that I had in relation to the letter.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
Cool.
Before I cover the questions that I was going to ask, I want to ask about proactive release, which you talked about earlier. Ultimately, proactive release is one of the tools that will help the landscape to become easier to navigate. In the past, there has been a suggestion that perhaps that could lead to information dumps, which would make things really difficult. You mentioned AI. Might artificial intelligence assistants take away the risk of an information dump, because those tools can go through screeds of stuff and pull out what people want in an accessible way?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
That is good. However, if that does not work, you have various levels of intervention. Will you give us a wee outline of how the interventions differ in resource intensity?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
It is good to hear about that progress, and it is good that we are able to shed light on what is happening because there is an intention to expand the scheme and people are terrified of being covered, so we need to help them not to be scared about what is coming and ensure that they realise that this is not just good in terms of public information but will be good for those organisations themselves.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Joe FitzPatrick
The report is hugely disappointing, given the number of cross-party groups that are not complying with some basic requirements. A cross-party group should not be able to continue to exist without having an annual general meeting. There are some fantastic cross-party groups, but the cross-party group model is clearly not the right model for some issues, so the Parliament and the MSPs involved need to find a different way of progressing those particular issues outwith the cross-party group. If a cross-party group does not have an AGM, it does not have a convener or a secretary. The report is really disappointing. However, there are other options for such issues to be progressed in the Parliament.