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 1499 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
It is.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
I have a quick supplementary question. As a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I am, probably unsurprisingly, incredibly struck by the increase in cost of 42 per cent from the original financial memorandum. That obviously leads me to consider confidence going forward, particularly in relation to the unknown unknowns. I also have questions about confidence in the known things as more detail emerges.
If you had to put a number on it—where zero means you have no confidence and 10 means you have absolute confidence—how confident are you that the remaining process will flush out the unknown unknowns and that the financial provisioning can then be put in place?
My wee worry, based on previous experience, is that the bill will become more embedded—which will happen as it goes through the stages—but by that point we will have run out of money and we will have to squeeze it in to processes in your organisations.
10:00I am trying to flesh that out a wee bit and hear about your level of confidence, because 42 per cent is a startling increase—it really is unbelievable. I am not necessarily asking you all to comment, but do comment if you have any reflections about confidence. In other words, is enough money going to be available?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
Jillian Gibson, I see you nodding. Do you want to come in?
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Meeting date: 25 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
Dr Scott, you were obviously joking when you said that you would take a red pen to the bill, but what I hear from what you have described—I do not want to put words in your mouth—is that you are perhaps concerned that, in talking about what amendments are possible, there is a risk that they might be too superficial.
I am new to the committee, but, given what I have heard, it is almost as though consideration of the rights of victims has been completely removed from the process. Does the bill need to be completely turned on its head so that it has a rapier-like focus on victims throughout? That would be a much more substantive change than some potentially gentle amendments at stage 2. I would like you to flesh out your statement about a red pen a bit more.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 24 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
Okay—thank you.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 24 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
Good morning. Thank you for all the information that you have given so far. The session has brought out the considerable uncertainty about and complexity of what we are doing.
As the convener has pointed out, an FM should show the margins of uncertainty for any estimate. I often search for key words to get a picture. There is not any particular disclaimer of uncertainty but, if you search for the word “range” and look at the ranges, you will see that the ranges are vast in the estimates. Some of the figures for regulation range from £30,000 to £200,000. Basically, the bigger the range, the higher the uncertainty and the less accurate the estimate. I want to get your sense of that from a confidence point of view. A lot of information has come out this morning but, in addition to what you have already said, are there any particular areas where the range of estimate expressing uncertainty is so utterly huge as to be worth not very much at all?
Charlie Devine, you smiled at me, so you can go first.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 24 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
I have probably made my point about the vast ranges. Both Charlie Devine and Jim Jack alluded to behavioural changes, and that is the element of uncertainty in the bill.
I want to pick up on something that my colleague John Mason asked about earlier. He used the terminology “good” and “bad”, but I am going to make it a little more academic and ask how much confidence you have in the estimates on a scale of zero to 10, where zero is no confidence and 10 is high confidence. I think that I can fairly reflect that you have expressed considerable uncertainty about what they mean for you, so this is not meant to be about apportioning blame; I am just trying to reflect where we are in the process. What number would each of you give for the FM where zero is “nul points”, literally, and 10 is a high degree of confidence?
10:45Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 24 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
Is that a four, then, to be specific?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 24 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
Exactly—that is why I am asking for a number.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 24 October 2023
Michelle Thomson
You have led me on to my final question. In an ideal world, where would we go from here, recognising all the evidence that you have given this morning? In relation to co-design, which the convener mentioned earlier, what would you ideally like to happen to get to something that will up those scores, whereby we can all have more confidence in the FM?
I fully accept the different points that you have made about uncertainty, the complexity of this work and the role of councils. Fundamentally, do we need a continued exercise of co-design and the production of an updated FM, or are you happy for the extra work to slip under secondary legislation? If you had a choice, which approach would you choose and why?