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 754 contributions
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
Thank you. I have a few more questions, but I see that Dr Gill wants to come in on that point before I move on.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
It might take us down a rabbit hole, convener. I think that I will leave it with you.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
That would be with respect to the integrity bodies, I suppose. Maybe the situation is slightly different with advocacy bodies.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
That is fair. We have struggled all along to try to find the right language around this. There is also substantial overlap where different offices are concerned.
I would have asked whether anyone has any issues or problems with the idea that SPCB-supported commissioners should share back-office services, human resources, and so on, but I assume that none of you does.
Dr Elliott mentioned something that is also on our minds, as the convener said. The remit of this committee is specifically to look at the SPCB-supported bodies commissioners, but we are aware that there exists a wider landscape of public bodies, third sector organisations and other commissioners of various flavours. Do you have a feel for how much time and resource it might take to map that out? We know that we do not have the time and resource to do that, but how big a job would it be, if someone were to take that on?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
As Dr Elliott suggested, creating more commissioners may also inadvertently undermine that intention. On a sort of similar theme, in our conversation, we have separated advocacy and integrity commissioners. With regard to the work of the commissioners, the committee has thought a lot about preventative and reactive work—research and so on that the ombudsman or the human rights commissioner does versus casework in relation to, for example, something that has gone wrong in a hospital, a prison or a school when someone will want to know who they can go to. One of my concerns about the proliferation of these bodies is about people knowing who they should go to.
The committee heard very effective pitches for various commissioners last week—a commissioner for older people, a commissioner for neurodivergent people and so on—but a person can be many of those things, and, therefore, which one would they go to? In defence of their remits, existing office-holders and advocates have said, “Oh, but we’re very good at handing people between us and we’re very good at signposting.” Do you have a view on a one-stop shop? Dr Elliott, you suggested fewer but larger bodies with wider remits, so that, for example, if something has gone wrong in a school, a prison or a hospital, you would go to one place and you would be looked after. Do witnesses have a view on that?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
No, that is all right.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
No, I do not want to drag us down a rabbit hole.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
I have a follow-up question on trust. It is my impression from the media and so on that trust in Governments and institutions is at an all-time low. We have heard from other witnesses that independence is the key thing for trust—everybody says, “It has to be independent.” I have two questions on that. Being SPCB supported is one way in which bodies can be independent, but is it the best way? Are there other ways to be independent?
Also, is it true that independence is the route to trust? Dr Lamont seemed to suggest that effectiveness is a better route to trust. I am interested in people’s thoughts on that.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
I am talking about gaining a proper understanding of the landscape here, because we are all worried about gaps and a system that is not working well. What kind of resource would that take?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 March 2025
Lorna Slater
I have a supplementary question, although I am interested in the points about the separation by advocacy and integrity, so I will come back to that later.
I want to follow up on something that Dr Lamont said, although everyone alluded to this. One challenge that we have in the advocacy space is that a new advocacy body represents a failure of existing bodies, and it is not clear that a new body will succeed where all the others have not.
Really, the success or otherwise of an advocacy body, whether it is a commissioner or something else, is to do with its level of influence and how well the Government listens to it. Another challenge that I would raise with, for example, the proposal for a future generations commissioner—whose purpose I of course support—is about what would make the Government listen to such a commissioner when it does not listen to any of the environmental non-governmental organisations or politicians who speak on those topics.
Would creating a commissioner solve either of those problems? Is there evidence that a commissioner would have more influence?
09:45