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 1184 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 7 February 2024
Carol Mochan
I, too, thank Rona Mackay for bringing this important debate to the chamber and, like other members, I welcome everyone in the gallery: the members of Deafblind Scotland, the interpreters and all the families. It is absolutely great to see them here.
As we have heard, deafblindness is a low-incidence but very high-impact disability. I believe that the work by the cross-party group, by members of the deafblind community and by the families involved means that we have made progress. However, this debate allows us to bring the issue to the chamber and, therefore, closer to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, who, I hope, will have some good news to bring us in her closing remarks. I know from speaking to members of Deafblind Scotland earlier today that the minister has spent some time with the community, and that is really welcome.
As we have heard, deafblindness is a combination of hearing and sight loss. A deafblind person will not necessarily be completely blind and/or deaf, as was explained to me this afternoon. However, both senses are affected enough to create difficulties in everyday life, in areas that we all take for granted such as communication, assessing information and simply getting around. As I discussed earlier, that is why it is important to get a definition for the disability.
In my time in the Scottish Parliament, much of our debating time has been taken up, quite rightly, by looking at how we ensure that human rights are enshrined in our everyday work, policies and laws. This members’ business debate is very much linked to that important aspect, as recognising that those with the disability have human rights will allow us to ensure that services are provided on that basis.
An estimated 31,000 deafblind people currently live in Scotland. As we have heard, however, Scotland lacks a legal definition of deafblindness. In my speaking notes, I have written, “Why is that important?” From talking to those in the community and to Deafblind Scotland, I know that it is important to that community to be recognised, so I want to bring that issue to the chamber—I did not have it in my notes, because I was looking at more clinical policy-based reasons, but it is important to the community that that is recognised.
In reading up on why we, in Parliament, might find that important with regard to legislation and regulation, I found that definition is a crucial step towards identifying and diagnosing people with dual sensory loss as early as possible so that support workers, clinicians and those in the social care network can address, at the earliest opportunity, the unique challenges that people face. That includes the provision of services that are, as we have heard today, unique to individuals in that community. If we miss that opportunity early on, it is a missed opportunity for that person and their life.
The cross-party group on deafness in the Scottish Parliament has been well supported. Rona Mackay has done a lot of good work, and Annabelle Ewing’s support in this area is well recognised.
I am running out of time, but I highlight that, from my experience of working with families, we need to understand and believe people who are receiving services and their families, because they know what we need to do to change lives. I hope that the minister has some good news for us today, because we need a definition to enable us to move on and make proper policy decisions and support commitments to people. That is important. I thank members for their contributions, and I thank those in the public gallery, too.
17:28Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
Carol Mochan
I want to follow up on the points that have been made about an impact assessment. You were concerned that the costs increased more in previous years. Do you have concerns that that will be the case again this year and that local authorities will need to meet the costs that are not in the agreed settlement?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
Carol Mochan
I have a short follow-up question for Justina Murray. The alcohol industry often says that it already puts money into funding services. Do you think that the MUP model or the levy model might allow us, in a better way, to put money into public services and use that across Scotland to support the harms that you have spoken about? How do you see that working?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
Carol Mochan
Dr MacGilchrist, I am interested in the medical community that works in this area. I am sure that you discuss MUP as part of that whole package. Are the medics who work in the area generally quite convinced that MUP has helped and that we should uprate it?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
Carol Mochan
That is helpful—thank you.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
Carol Mochan
I want to be clear. I suppose that, in your modelling, you anticipate that local government will need to make some contribution to costs because you think that there will be an increase in costs, as in the previous three years.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 6 February 2024
Carol Mochan
Like other members, I thank the committee and the clerks for preparing the stage 1 report on an important piece of legislation. It is helpful for those of us who are considering the bill but were not part of the committee that the report was so well put together.
I support legislation that would actively seek to support debt management strategies. The convener, Claire Baker, set out well the contributions that the bill could make. I do not think that I have read anything that suggests, or spoken to anyone who suggested, that some of the proposals that other members have talked about have ever been seen as open to abuse rather than positive steps.
Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 1 at decision time, as we agree with its general principles and aims. The introduction in legislation of a mental health moratorium is welcome. It is right that people who are suffering from poor mental health are provided with the greater protections that members have spoken about. Having read the stage 1 report, the evidence and the SPICe briefing, along with having discussed the matter with members of the committee, it is clear to me that that would be a positive and welcome step.
Scottish Labour is also supportive of the proposed two-stage approach to the moratorium period, with an open-ended first phase that would allow an individual to focus on recovery from a serious mental health condition rather than exacerbate the problem with continuous debt worries. Prioritising the mental health of the individual in such situations is paramount, as other members who have spoken to people with lived experience have said. We believe that we have found common ground with the Government on that.
As members know, citizens advice bureaux across the country provide high-quality debt advice free of charge to people in their time of need. A witness from one of them said:
“We must recognise that, when someone has a mental health crisis or when their mental health is so bad that they need to take time out and pause, that is not the time to think about their debts.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 25 October 2023; c 9.]
We ought to listen. That means not only establishing the moratorium in legislation but explaining how it will operate in practice. Some of the questions that members have asked the Government so far have related to that.
On that point, I find myself in full agreement with the committee’s recommendations. As Daniel Johnson mentioned, Scottish Labour shares the committee’s concerns about the lack of detail on how the moratorium will operate in practice and its view that there must be sufficient time to scrutinise detailed proposals. That would be helpful, as many other members have said. The bill leaves a lot of detail to be laid out in regulation. Those regulations should be provided in draft form before stage 3.
I appreciate that, in his letter to the committee responding to the stage 1 report, the minister acknowledged the committee’s concerns and suggested that he will seek to address them. I look forward to his comments on that. However, it is important to note the evidence given by South Lanarkshire Council, which noted:
“It, therefore, is not clear, at this point, who will be able to use a Mental Health Moratorium, how an application will be made and what effect it will have or how long it will last.”
Clarity on that would be helpful for people who will have to deal with the situation. There is undoubtedly a concern. The Scottish Government has set out a well-intentioned and well-supported proposal, but where it lacks detail, it is fair to say that there is still a fair amount of work to be done to address the concerns that the committee, other stakeholders and members in the chamber have raised.
Furthermore, eligibility in relation to the moratorium is another clear area where we believe that the Scottish Government ought to revisit its position. As it stands, only those who are receiving compulsory treatment would be eligible for a mental health moratorium. I know that a couple of members mentioned that, and they are far more familiar with the exact wording, but my understanding is that the approach is thought to be not proportionate to the scale of the problem. I agree with the committee’s proposal that the criteria should be widened. Going back to a statement that I made earlier, I think that it would be helpful to use clearer terms so that people understand it. I also understand that there has never been any evidence from other areas that the moratorium has been widely abused, so I think that it would be helpful and that it could be managed well.
As the minister noted in his response to the stage 1 report, early indications from the consultation suggested that support for some areas of this legislation is not widespread and there are concerns about the entry criteria. It is welcome that the minister has recognised those concerns and will move forward with them.
In calling for an extension of eligibility, we recognise that that would require an expansion of debt advice services. As other members have mentioned, it is all very well for us to recognise that we might want to change the legislation, but we know that debt advice services are quite stretched. Those who work in the debt advice sector are already working to capacity. They must be given the training and support that are required to properly deliver the reforms as they come through the different stages and are passed in the Parliament.
Citizens Advice Scotland believes that there should be more partnership working across mental health and money advice services, and a lot of members would agree with that. That could be achieved by embedding money advice services in mental health settings or by working closely with local community teams and groups. An important part of any legislation is how it works in practice. The community-based approach can be applied across various disciplines and to tackle various issues, but I am strongly of the opinion that this is a key area in communities and that those most in need would feel the benefits.
The points about the uprating of the allowances that were mentioned by the convener are quite important. I do not have time to go into them, and I am not on the committee, but from reading about it in the papers, I think that it would be important for the Government to look at that.
In concluding, I reiterate my party’s support for the general principles of the legislation. The key aims of the bill are well intentioned and are shared across the chamber. We have identified that stakeholders broadly support it. I hope that the minister will address some of the issues that have been raised by the committee and by members in the chamber today. I again thank the clerks and the committee for the stage 1 report.
15:53Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 30 January 2024
Carol Mochan
Can the minister set out timescales for the introduction of the ban and what the associated repercussions are expected to be if the ban is not complied with? How will the Scottish Government work with shop owners and others who sell such products so that they can safely dispose of their stocks?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 30 January 2024
Carol Mochan
Comrades in the gallery and members in the chamber, we have heard that few people in our recent history have made themselves heard on the national stage and truly altered the course of history. They are people we can call titans of the working class, and Mick McGahey is certainly one of them.
To this day, McGahey remains a respected figure across the political left and a feared adversary across the political right. He was a man who stood against injustice, exploitation and corruption wherever it was evident around the world. He was a lifelong communist, a proud Scot and a trade union leader who worked with everyone he could to achieve tangible improvements for his class.
He remains an inspiration to the many who have since followed along the path of socialism. I never met him, but people in my home town of Mauchline and surrounding areas and villages certainly did. His socialism is a path that many people from my area have followed or hold a lot of respect for. Only recently, I spoke to former miners in Cumnock who met him and who were out on those picket lines with him. Many of them said to me that, although they might not always have agreed with McGahey’s line in the disputes of old, they still possess tremendous respect for a man who always remained consistent and steadfast in his defence of them.
He is an important part of our working-class history, and we should commemorate him here. I shudder to think what he would have had to say about the Tory Government’s egregious attacks on the rights of workers to defend themselves from exploitation, which are going on today. I imagine, however, that he would have said, “Stand firm and fight.”
He was a man who not only stood for what he believed in but advocated passionately for those who were worse off than him, and he committed his entire life to giving voice to the voiceless and resisting the vested interests of the people at the top. I can think of few figures more fitting for a memorial in this Parliament, which he did so much to build, creating a sustainable foundation for Scotland.
McGahey, and people who knew him, always knew that there was never going to be a simple day on which victory occurred and progress took hold. He understood that it would be a process of struggle and conflict that led to brighter days ahead for his class. Part of that was about securing the right of the Scottish people to have devolved powers in a Parliament of their own. It was to be a working-class Parliament.
We owe his generation a great deal for holding fast in that pursuit and for holding that reality. I very much doubt that he would be a great fan of the self-congratulation and endless delay that goes on in the Parliament now, but he would be proud, nonetheless, that voices and opinions of a varied and experienced mixture of society flourish in this building. That is part of the legacy of what he fought for and championed as democracy, particularly a democracy that reflected the unique views of working-class people in Scotland.
I thank Richard Leonard for bringing the debate to the chamber and members for their participation. I hope that we see the likes of Mick McGahey again.
17:39Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Carol Mochan
Previous research into community hospitals in Scotland found that,
“Despite the range of primary and specialist care services offered at the community hospitals, staff and management in both settings felt that the potential for local provision had not yet been fully realised.”
What specific work is the Scottish Government undertaking to ensure that our highly valuable community hospitals realise their full potential in delivering for local people?