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 1761 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Clare Haughey
I have another short supplementary question, but I should first declare an interest as someone who holds a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
I want to ask about an issue that was raised by the people’s panel—I suppose it comes under the theme of harm reduction—which is GPs being unaware of the MAT standards, which were introduced in 2021. When I went on the Turas website, I saw quite comprehensive learning resources and information, including the package “Working with Substance Use, Trauma and Mental Health—Resources and Training for the Scottish Workforce”. From my reading, that has been there since 2021, and I would be greatly concerned if GPs had not been accessing it. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could see whether some of the data that sits behind that could be disaggregated, so that we could see who has been accessing it and, if it is shown that GPs have not been accessing it, perhaps work with the chief medical officer to encourage them to do so. The data on the number of people with mental health issues who also have substance misuse issues—and who, indeed, have suffered trauma—is out there, and the fact is that quite comprehensive training is available.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Clare Haughey
You also called for MAT standards to
“cover all drugs causing harm”,
not just opiates. Can you tell us more about the evidence that you heard on why that is needed? What difference would that make to the treatment offer?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Clare Haughey
Good morning. You have called for all public and third sector services to be
“enabled and supported to share information including the justice system.”
I am mindful that you have said that not everyone has such information to share, so you might want to address that point. Why did you make that recommendation? What needs to be done to support that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
I call Brian Whittle.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
Joe FitzPatrick has a supplementary question.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
I thank Mr McArthur for his extensive evidence. I know that it has taken quite a substantial amount of time—more than we had anticipated—but the committee has certainly been able to ask the questions that were presented as a result of previous evidence.
I thank you and your witnesses, Mr McArthur. That concludes the public part of today’s meeting.
12:41 Meeting continued in private until 13:05.Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
I have a couple of questions in relation to court involvement. The bill before the UK Parliament makes provision for all assisted dying applications to be considered by the High Court for England and Wales. Court involvement was seen as an additional protection by some of the respondents to this committee’s call for views. Was that something that you considered?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
I have a point for clarification. I asked the cabinet secretary to clarify this last week, when he spoke about figures of just over £6 million on the basis of training 50 per cent of doctors, taking into account those who might wish to opt out of the scheme. Your figures are based purely on medical staff. They do not take into account pharmacy or nursing staff or any other allied health professional.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
As we are only halfway through our questioning, I will briefly suspend the meeting for a comfort break.
11:23 Meeting suspended.Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
Welcome back. We will continue to take evidence from Liam McArthur and his accompanying witnesses. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
I would like to explore a couple of issues with you, Mr McArthur, starting with conscientious objection. We have heard various arguments and questions at committee in relation to the conscientious objection clause in the bill, who it includes and what the clause extends to. Section 18(1) of the bill sets out that no one is
“under any duty ... to participate in anything authorised”
under the bill, if they have
“a conscientious objection”
to doing so. The bill does not prescribe to whom the conscientious objection would apply, but the policy memorandum indicates that it is intended to apply to doctors and other health care professionals who are involved in the process. There is some argument that the clause replicates a provision in the Abortion Act 1967 and is therefore likely to be interpreted in the same way by the courts. That would mean that the objection clause might extend only to those people who are directly involved in the process of assessing, prescribing and providing assistance. Could you perhaps clarify your thinking around that and who you envisage that the conscious objection clause would apply to?