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 1489 contributions
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
I sense that, with some of these open-ended questions, we are still framing the scope of our inquiry. I have a very simple question. We have talked quite a lot about process and procedures and so on, but my question is more fundamental. With the advent of the new deal for business, are you able to say that Government gets business—yes or no?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
I am reading that in my head as the Government starting to get business—you can tell me if I am wrong.
Colin, can you come on this as well?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
What I am saying is—
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
What about Sara Thiam and Colin Borland?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you for joining us. I note, just as an observation, that the language in the general report did not feel as though it absolutely cut to the heart of the urgency that the committee feels about the need for really good financial planning in the future. I will highlight one sentence in the Government’s response:
“As part of the planning process, my officials will consider the potential to pilot a ‘zero-based budgeting approach’”.
I would say that
“consider the potential to pilot”
was probably the most egregious phrase. That wording does not exactly set the heather on fire.
I have a few general questions. We have been clear in expressing our concerns about the publication of strategic financial documents, and there is a sentence in the Government’s response that says:
“I am also aware that setting out multi-year spending plans ahead of a Scottish election could restrict the options of a new administration.”
Is that just an excuse for not doing anything? Surely any new Administration would just tear up any plans if it was so minded.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
I have another wee point to make. I just want to check the 60 per cent figure for employer NICs, although I appreciate that the numbers are still fluid, as was picked up by the convener earlier. A couple of weeks ago, COSLA was claiming that it had a shortfall of £265 million, with the Scottish Government giving it £144 million. Those figures were quoted a couple of weeks ago, before the recess. Of course, that is only 54 per cent of the costs. I appreciate that there are other factors at play in how the 60 per cent figure is derived.
10:30Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
For the record, I look forward to hearing more about the specific data, because that underpins everything.
I have a couple of quick questions. In our report, we expressed a view about having a wider review of the fiscal framework, but the Government’s response said simply “Noted”, which is brief in the extreme.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
I understand all of that, but there is something that jumped out at me. Given the sense of urgency that the committee feels, in caring so much that setting out multiyear spending plans could restrict the options of a new Administration, it worries me that the wording provides an excuse not to do enough. We appreciate that there is an election coming up, but surely any Administration, regardless of its colour, should share a sense of urgency and concern equally. The need for some initiatives—public service reform, for example—has certainly been expressed on a cross-party basis, so I thought that that statement in the response was very odd.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
Thank you. That clears that up.
On a point that Craig Hoy made earlier, I was heartened to see data on back-office costs emerging. To my knowledge, it is the first time that we have had a hard figure for those, so that is good. On the comment that we will implement reporting on internal recruitment and monthly head counts in public bodies, I am surprised that that does not happen already, with monthly reports and management information showing the numbers that we have and the variance. I would have expected to see that as standard. Given that we now have a figure for back-office costs, which is heartening, I wonder how many of these data items we do not have.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Michelle Thomson
I thought that it would be useful to have some colour on that, because, as I have been fond of reminding people, the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report about getting to net zero makes it clear that the UK Government cannot do that without Scotland and that Scotland cannot do it without the UK Government. Fundamentally, the fiscal framework as it stands is completely inadequate to get us to where we need to be. Therefore, I thought that the response was somewhat perfunctory—you missed the opportunity to set out why you agree with us. Also, if you agree with us, why did you say “Noted” and not “Agreed”?