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 1221 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 29 May 2025
Liz Smith
I completely understand some of that, cabinet secretary. We can debate the politics in the chamber and in other areas of the Parliament although, factually, we have to accept the current circumstances. Based on the statistics that the SFC has published today, let us be honest that there is a big black hole in the amount of money that the Scottish Government is predicted to take in set against its projected spend. Will the Scottish Government pursue progressively higher tax rates to get extra revenue in, or is it open to looking at greater targeting for the policies that we have just been talking about, so that we are not spending quite so much in some areas? Is that the economic crux of the matter? Yesterday, at the Economy and Fair Work Committee, David Phillips spoke about behavioural changes because of changes to the tax policy.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
My point is that the principle is one thing, but the workability and the delivery of whatever is going to take place are a different issue. As I understand it, having read the Official Reports of the various committees that were involved at the time, the principle was generally pretty well accepted, but how workable the Government’s proposals were was a completely different issue. That is where the opposition came from.
We started with one bill, which no longer exists, and we now have a second attempt at a bill that is based on what is seen to be more acceptable. Why are you confident that, when it comes to stage 2 amendments and possible stage 3 amendments, the on-going co-design will make the new bill much more acceptable to people?
09:45Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
That was generally accepted to be a perfectly acceptable endeavour.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
Based on the very interesting comments that you have just made, Dr Ireton, do you feel that there is a case for judge-led inquiries, to ensure that there is public trust?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
If evidence that has not been foreseen comes to an inquiry, is it appropriate to change, extend or modify the terms of reference, to allow that evidence to become a critical part of the inquiry?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
Just to be absolutely clear, am I correct in thinking that, if evidence is forthcoming that was not foreseen at the start of the inquiry, it is for the chair to go back to the Scottish Government for any amendment or adjustment to the terms of reference?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
That is why I am asking the question—I was aware of that. In the Inquiries Act 2005, it is clear that there is limited scope for such evidence. As I understand it, not even recommendations can be made to other jurisdictions. Nonetheless, some evidence from foreign jurisdictions might be relevant to a public inquiry. It is just a question of what process can be used to open that up.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
The costs that go alongside that extra work are something that we would find very difficult to control, I presume.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
Okay. So, there is the potential for some increase.
I have one final question. In an answer to Michael Marra, you said that you think that the new bill is, in the main, fairly settled. What evidence do you have for that?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Liz Smith
I would like to ask two questions, if I may. First, in some situations, the terms of reference of public inquiries have changed—I think that that has happened in three out of 10 inquiries since 2007—and, therefore, there has been a potential for costs to increase. Is it your understanding that those terms of reference changed because the chair of the inquiry found unforeseen evidence that led them somewhere else and, therefore, they had to go back to the Scottish Government to ask for an amendment to the terms of reference?