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 2565 contributions
|
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Pre-budget Scrutiny 2026-27
Meeting date: 25 September 2025
Bob Doris
I will start by asking you about the language used around social security spend. Depending on who is talking, it is an “overspend”, a “black hole”, an “investment” or “planned expenditure” by the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland. That language is quite important. Do you consider there to be an overspend in the social security budget or do you believe that it is planned expenditure beyond what would have been spent anyway had we just followed Westminster’s policy agenda? Given that the language is quite important when we talk about our budgets, could you comment on that?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Pre-budget Scrutiny 2026-27
Meeting date: 25 September 2025
Bob Doris
We are hearing that it is about getting the balance right.
I mentioned that we spend nearly half a billion pounds on the Scottish child payment and £649 million to mitigate Westminster decisions. That is cash in the system at play. Given that this is pre-budget scrutiny, have any of the parties in the Scottish Parliament suggested that we should divert the half a billion pounds, or a portion of it, from the Scottish child payment, or that we should divert the £649 million, or a portion of it, to other endeavours rather than make the planned investment that the Scottish Government has currently outlined for those funds?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Pre-budget Scrutiny 2026-27
Meeting date: 25 September 2025
Bob Doris
I know that the budget negotiations are private but the committee would be very interested to know if suggestions are made to nibble away at that investment in Social Security Scotland.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Pre-budget Scrutiny 2026-27
Meeting date: 25 September 2025
Bob Doris
Marie McNair and Elena Whitham spoke about potential cliff edge concerns in the future, particularly if the Scottish child payment became much higher. There is a tipping point in the labour market impact. A taper is one way to militate against that, once universal credit entitlement has ended. There is also the idea of a run-on for a number of months, which is a wee bittie different from a taper. I know that that all costs money, so I am not asking you to commit to any of that, but does the Scottish Government look at those things in the round to future proof the direction of travel for policies?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Pre-budget Scrutiny 2026-27
Meeting date: 25 September 2025
Bob Doris
Budget time must be just around the corner because I think that is the first reference that we have heard to the finance secretary’s sofa. Well done to Mr Balfour for that.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
The Braer oil spill happened in 1993, so the current legislation supersedes that example, but I appreciate why it was given.
I am getting my head around an issue that it might be best for Mr Whittle to come in on. Section 40 of the 2014 act, which has been cited by Kevin Stewart, deals with significant environmental harm. In my briefing, I see that there are also the Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009, which set out that companies and organisations must proactively take “preventive or remedial measures”. I am learning as I go along, so I am sure that there are other parts of the general legislative landscape that I am not aware of. The deputy convener’s question was whether there are any examples from the past decade or so in which the legislative framework has not been fit for purpose to deal with a significant environmental incident. We do not have clarity on that.
I want to ask Mr Whittle a second question, because I will not be coming back in due to time constraints. Who decides what piece of legislation to use when seeking legal recourse? If the bill goes on the statute book, lots of people will be keen to see it used. However, it might be more appropriate to use section 40 of the 2014 act or the 2009 regulations. I am conscious of setting a legal precedent that determines the bar for what ecocide actually is and it is such a significant threshold that is meant to be reached. Mr Whittle, could you give me some reassurances?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
Maybe I have picked up the previous evidence session wrong, and the point is about a lack of clarity rather than a flaw in the bill, but I wanted to draw that to your attention.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
Could there be a situation in which the threshold for ecocide might be doubtful in relation to the law but the Crown Office and others want to see greater penalties than can be imposed under the 2014 act? That might mean that they seek a remedy using the new legislation so that greater penalties can be imposed, rather than because the incident meets the threshold for ecocide. Is that a danger, Mr Whittle?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
My point was not that we should ditch the 12 months; it is about having a bit of nuance and light and shade. Do you have examples of situations where a derogation would be reasonable, rather than ditching the period altogether?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
My question is on the exact same thing, but that is fine, because maybe it shows that there is something in that. I wonder whether 12 months is always a realistic recovery period. It must have been based on incidents or events that have already happened, but the natural cycle of things might mean that 18 to 24 months would give enough time for a robust and evidence-based recovery plan to be put in place, rather than having a cliff edge of 12 months. Does Jonnie Hall have any comments on that?
11:00