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 1482 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
That is the rub. In the figures that we have pulled out today, we have known unknowns—my colleague Ross Greer brought out some of those—but we also have unknown unknowns, about which none of us has a clue. Plus, there is your point that, if the bill were to be passed and become a success, the figures could be quite startling because of the increased provision that would be required.
This committee, including the Conservative members, is very vexed about fiscal sustainability. How do you think the unknown unknowns and known unknowns would factor into the fiscal sustainability of Scotland’s public finances if the bill were to be passed? What reflection have you given to that?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
Okay—I get your point.
Have you done any research—you may well have done, and I have missed it—on other countries that have taken a legislative approach rather than a principled human rights approach, for example? Has any other country done this?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
If the bill does not go through as you intend, what is your plan B?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
I am not asking for an accurate figure on a scale of zero to 10. My question specifically was: how confident are you that the figure of £198 million is accurate?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
The question was actually about fiscal sustainability.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
What do you think the reason for that is?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
You have given a lot of information so far. In reading through the financial memorandum, I was struck by the number of detailed points that outline the basis on and the provisions by which the estimates were arrived at. That suggested to me that a lot of careful thought had been given to the matter. It also suggested to me, given that there are 95 clarifying points, that confidence in the figure of £198 million must be relatively low, with good reason and with every justification.
This is a question that I often ask at this committee: how confident are you and your supporting official in that figure, on a scale of zero to 10, where zero is no confidence and 10 is 100 per cent confidence? With 95 clarifying points, I think that the only thing of which we can be certain is that £198 million is not accurate.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
Funnily enough, you might have just pre-empted one of my questions. Obviously, none of us has the current figures, but it was suggested last September that the total cost of inquiries thus far was of the order of £200 million. Obviously, that was before the Eljamel inquiry had been agreed, but the child abuse inquiry came to £85 million; the Scottish hospitals inquiry, £19.2 million; the Covid inquiry, £26.1 million; and the Sheku Bayoh inquiry, £20.1 million.
Looking at this from the perspective of the efficiency of public spend, might you be concerned by calls for an increase in scope, such as that from the lawyer involved in the recent Sheku Bayoh inquiry, who might also be a significant beneficiary of the costs associated with any such increased scope? I ask the question because I wonder, within the scope of looking at how efficient these inquiries are, how those costs are being controlled.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
Thank you.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 March 2025
Michelle Thomson
I fully accept the necessity of inquiries being independent, but there is a tension between that, their cost and the value that they bring, and it is of principal interest.
Looking at your numbers, my understanding of the article from last September is that some contributory bodies, such as councils and Police Scotland, were unable to articulate their staff costs for supporting inquiries. That might be of interest, too, if we are going to look a little further at the issue. Can you dig out what you have on that? Particularly with the Eljamel inquiry starting and the fact that others are still running, it might be useful to start collecting those costs as we move forward with this.