Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
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.
Searching by different views
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
- Report: this is the whole Official Report for a particular meeting of a committee or Parliament
- Item of business: this is each individual agenda item in an Official Report. For example, Portfolio Questions would be the item of business in a Meeting of the Parliament report
- Contribution: this is each time someone has made a spoken contribution to a meeting.
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.
Search by MSP
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.
Searching by keyword
There are two types of keyword search:
- A keyword search without quotation marks will look for every instance of each word used and rank the results by frequency and proximity. It will also include variants of the keywords using “porter stemming”. This is when the search looks for the “stem” of a word regardless of its ending. So, for example, a search for [salmon farm] will return each instance of “salmon” and each instance of “farm” as well as potentially including results for “farms”, “farmed” and “farming”.
- A keyword search with quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase used. So, for example, a search for “salmon farm” in quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase.
Combining search filters
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.
More complex keyword searches
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
- a search for “salmon farm” AND “Loch Lomond” will return only results which include both exact phrases
- a search for “salmon farm” NOT “Loch Lomond” will return results for “salmon farm” but exclude results which also include “Loch Lomond”
- a search for “salmon farm” OR “Loch Lomond” will return all results for “salmon farm” and all results for “Loch Lomond” regardless of whether they appear together
Searching by date
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:
- Current session (all Official Reports since the current sessions started)
- Last 6 months
- Last 12 months
- each of the previous sessions of Parliament. (Selecting the information icon above the “Select a time period” menu will give you the exact dates for each session.)
- All sessions
- You can also choose to select a custom date range, although adding a Start or End date will mean the search automatically defaults to this option.
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.
Criathragan Hide all filters
Displaying 1472 contributions
|
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Carol Mochan
My initial thought is that I can imagine that, sometimes, a review request might be time sensitive in order to support family members and to get that appropriate access. Will the system allow for that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Carol Mochan
You say that the guidance will contain some information about how the Care Inspectorate will be involved if a review is in place. How will that process work?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Carol Mochan
Good morning. I have some questions around the review process. Regulation 6 requires a care home provider, on receipt of a valid request, to review a decision. Concerns have been raised with us about that. One is about whether there could be proactive rather than reactive reviews. Another concerns the fact that there is no judicial appeal route. Has there been any consideration of that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Carol Mochan
That is appreciated.
A concern has been raised about the requirement for review requests to be submitted in writing. I just want to be sure about accessibility, because some people may have family members who cannot go down that route.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Carol Mochan
That is helpful. I appreciate that we need a record, but, particularly in those circumstances, there may be people who need a certain level of support to put something in writing.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Portfolio Question Time
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Carol Mochan
—about how we discuss these matters and ensure that we can do so like adults.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Carol Mochan
Today, we are seeking clarity on the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Public trust and confidence in our NHS should always be a top priority—without it, we risk undermining the very foundations of our health service.
I thank all the hard-working and dedicated staff who deliver safe and effective care across Scotland each and every day. Staff are the backbone of our NHS, and I am grateful for all that they do in caring for our families, friends and loved ones. Let us be clear: the issues that we are discussing today are not an attack on those who deliver care. Rather, this debate highlights the failures in governance systems and structures, because what happened at the hospital is a scandal.
Again, I put on record my deepest condolences and sympathies to the patients, families and staff who were ignored and betrayed. Hospitals are supposed to help people to get better, not make them sicker, and no one should worry that hospitals and healthcare facilities are not safe.
The truth is that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital opened before it was ready, and it opened with contaminated water. The risk of waterborne infection was foreseeable, and issues were raised, but they were not acted on. Those who raised concerns were belittled, silenced and threatened, and whistleblowing procedures were not followed. The health board failed to admit serious errors in judgment and withheld the truth from patients and families.
NHS staff deserve to work in an environment in which their concerns are listened to and addressed, particularly when patient safety is a concern. However, on this Government’s watch, that did not happen.
What happened at the hospital was a monumental failure—it was a failure in safety, a failure in leadership and a failure in accountability. Of course, we cannot rewrite the errors of the past, but we must do everything possible to ensure that patients are kept safe and that past mistakes are never repeated. We must ensure that those who are affected by the contaminated water are told the truth, and we must ensure that steps are taken to reassure patients that the hospital is safe.
The establishment of the safety and public confidence oversight group is welcome, and action must be taken to boost the public’s confidence in the hospital. The oversight group cannot be another tick-box exercise—it must lead to tangible and meaningful change for patients, families and staff.
While we wait for the oversight group to begin its reporting, which could take months, the public need to be reassured now. We do not need an oversight group to tell us whether every ward and unit in the hospital has been fully validated; the Government could give us that information today. We do not need an oversight group to tell us what immediate steps are being taken to address issues with whistleblowing, which the Patient Safety Commissioner has identified as a system-wide issue. Finally, we do not need an oversight group to tell us how the Scottish Government will ensure full transparency over hospital safety concerns in the future.
I recognise the work that the group has been set up to do, but the Government has the power to reassure patients now. The public want to know whether each area of the hospital has been fully validated, including water and ventilation systems, whether that has been independently verified and, if so, whether that information will be published.
Until those questions are answered and patients and staff are satisfied, Parliament cannot be satisfied. It is our job to speak up for our constituents and scrutinise this failing Government. Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour are doing just that.
15:24
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Portfolio Question Time
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Carol Mochan
The Government has provided no extra funding to IJBs to support any of that work.
The minister knows that that is the proper procedure to allow me to discuss such matters and bring to the attention of the Parliament issues from trade unions, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local government. If you cared at all, you would be prepared to talk properly—
Meeting of the Parliament [Last updated 12:20]
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Carol Mochan
Today, we are seeking clarity on the safety of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Public trust and confidence in our NHS should always be a top priority—without it, we risk undermining the very foundations of our health service.
I thank all the hard-working and dedicated staff who deliver safe and effective care across Scotland each and every day. Staff are the backbone of our NHS, and I am grateful for all that they do in caring for our families, friends and loved ones. Let us be clear: the issues that we are discussing today are not an attack on those who deliver care. Rather, this debate highlights the failures in governance systems and structures, because what happened at the hospital is a scandal.
Again, I put on record my deepest condolences and sympathies to the patients, families and staff who were ignored and betrayed. Hospitals are supposed to help people to get better, not make them sicker, and no one should worry that hospitals and healthcare facilities are not safe.
The truth is that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital opened before it was ready, and it opened with contaminated water. The risk of waterborne infection was foreseeable, and issues were raised, but they were not acted on. Those who raised concerns were belittled, silenced and threatened, and whistleblowing procedures were not followed. The health board failed to admit serious errors in judgment and withheld the truth from patients and families.
NHS staff deserve to work in an environment in which their concerns are listened to and addressed, particularly when patient safety is a concern. However, on this Government’s watch, that did not happen.
What happened at the hospital was a monumental failure—it was a failure in safety, a failure in leadership and a failure in accountability. Of course, we cannot rewrite the errors of the past, but we must do everything possible to ensure that patients are kept safe and that past mistakes are never repeated. We must ensure that those who are affected by the contaminated water are told the truth, and we must ensure that steps are taken to reassure patients that the hospital is safe.
The establishment of the safety and public confidence oversight group is welcome, and action must be taken to boost the public’s confidence in the hospital. The oversight group cannot be another tick-box exercise—it must lead to tangible and meaningful change for patients, families and staff.
While we wait for the oversight group to begin its reporting, which could take months, the public need to be reassured now. We do not need an oversight group to tell us whether every ward and unit in the hospital has been fully validated; the Government could give us that information today. We do not need an oversight group to tell us what immediate steps are being taken to address issues with whistleblowing, which the Patient Safety Commissioner has identified as a system-wide issue. Finally, we do not need an oversight group to tell us how the Scottish Government will ensure full transparency over hospital safety concerns in the future.
I recognise the work that the group has been set up to do, but the Government has the power to reassure patients now. The public want to know whether each area of the hospital has been fully validated, including water and ventilation systems, whether that has been independently verified and, if so, whether that information will be published.
Until those questions are answered and patients and staff are satisfied, Parliament cannot be satisfied. It is our job to speak up for our constituents and scrutinise this failing Government. Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour are doing just that.
15:24
Meeting of the Parliament [Last updated 12:20]
Portfolio Question Time
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
Carol Mochan
—about how we discuss these matters and ensure that we can do so like adults.
