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 693 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
In general, I do not see the advantage of removing ourselves from the process of double-checking the FSA and the FSS. As I have tried to say, probably clumsily, if we are consistently reviewing foodstuffs, renewing authorisations after 10 years is almost a rubber stamp, because there is not a huge amount of work to do at the end of the 10 years. Removing the 10-year review would mean that there was no need to consistently review products. I am not suggesting that that is what is happening, but if the resource given to the FSS is consistently reduced, it will be less and less able to review. That concerns me.
Having seen the issue come up several times in this committee over the past 10 years, I have always said that our food standards are extremely high, even in relation to the EU, so that is not what concerns me; my concern is whether the FSS has the ability to continually review at a level that we would accept. I am minded to accept the SI, but I would appreciate it if we could put those concerns in the letter to the Government.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
Good morning, minister. The standard of the food that is allowed to be consumed is an area that interests me greatly. If my reading is correct, under the current system, products are reviewed every 10 years, which prompts the question, “Are they not always continually assessed?” Conversely, if the requirement to review products every 10 years is taken away, my concern is that there will be no need to continually look at products.
At the end of the day, the issue comes down to resource. My concern is that the system that you are proposing to move to, if it is operated properly, will be more resource heavy, yet the resource that is provided to FSS is reducing. If we were to consent to the SI, which would take away ministerial responsibility, how could we guarantee that FSS would continually review products, when new evidence is always emerging?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
If we are doing that anyway, why do we need to change the policy?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
I will ask a wee supplementary to Emma Harper’s questions about the age of eligibility. That is a cluttered market. There are different legal ages for doing different things. The age for access to adult care support is 18 and the legal age for drinking alcohol is 18, for example. Even the judicial system treats people who are under the age of 25 differently than it treats the rest. Why 16 for this legislation? Why are you comfortable with 16?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
I am making an argument against it, but you are right that there are those who are mature and very capable at 16 and there are those who are older than that but are not. One of the dilemmas that we face with the bill is safeguards.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
On palliative care, based on the evidence that we have heard, there will be people who have witnessed loved ones in extraordinary pain at the end of life, asking for help. Because you are against the bill, you are saying that that help would not be forthcoming, which is extraordinarily difficult for the individual to hear—and for families who are not able to help to hear, as our overwhelming feeling and desire is to help our loved ones.
If palliative care, in the end, cannot alleviate physical pain or psychological pain, what do you do?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
If we extrapolate from that, were the bill to be passed, you would ask for there to be an increase in investment in palliative care at the same time. That is what you would expect to happen.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
That works only if palliative care is available.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
I do not think that anybody is arguing that we cannot do anything until palliative care is perfect, but people have been saying that there needs to be access to palliative care. That is the concern.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Brian Whittle
I was not suggesting for one second that morphine is being administered specifically to end somebody’s life. You are saying that it would not be a contributing factor, because there is a balance between pain and the concern about the level of dosage. That is all that I was suggesting.