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 1598 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
As MSPs, we are all given guidance on these matters when we join the Parliament. Where we think that there could be a perception of conflict, we are duty bound to disclose it, even if it is subsequently deemed not to be a conflict. If we are expected to do that, it would seem not unreasonable for highly paid lawyers to do likewise.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
I was just asking a general question. Thank you.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
We have had quite a lot of media interest that perhaps suggests that the problem is uniquely Scottish, but you are making it quite clear that it actually appears to be UK-wide.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
Do you have anything to add, Dr Ireton?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
I want to ask a tiny question to help build my knowledge. I have read the criteria that determine who a core participant will be, but do such participants pick their own lawyers or do they have one allocated to them if the inquiry gets extended or something else happens, as when, for example, the Scottish Covid inquiry was linked with the UK one? How does the approach with lawyers work?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
Is it the same for you, Laura?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
It is useful to know that the question of querying the costs for lawyers who represent core participants does not apply to you. Obviously, I am in no way inferring anything by asking the question, but the fact that costs, even if they were detailed, were not subsequently queried could suggest a throwaway acceptance of “Yes, that’s fine.” I am trying to get a sense of how actively the costs are monitored, in comparison with an implicit process—as part of the culture of how inquiries operate—of, “Well, an eminent KC submitting this, so of course it’s right. It’s all detailed and that’s good enough for us.” Would it be fair to say that costs from eminent KCs are usually accepted because that is the culture?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
Michael Clancy, in your submission, you said that
“inquiries are not-for-profit bodies.”
Can you explain what you mean by that? I take it that you mean that it is in their nature that they are not for profit, because it is clear that a lot of money flows through them.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
I will interrupt you there. I just wanted to check that point about inquiries being not for profit because, clearly, quite a lot of profit is being made.
With the earlier panel—I know that Richard Pugh joined us later during that—we discussed the general theme of inquiries being seen as, in effect, a type of project that have different pathways through them. There could be properly scoped terms of reference, with an indication of a budget—even if that was then subject to change control, as would be normal—and with reporting. Potentially, there could be the equivalent of a project management office.
To what extent is that feasible? Does any of you accord with the view that that route would not be effective only in the case of public inquiries? That approach is not perfect in businesses or in any other public sector piece of work.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
Michelle Thomson
We heard from the earlier panel that there might be a type of toolkit, in which some things would be suitable and some would not, but that, as things stand at the moment, there is no central collection of lessons learned. Those lessons could include a pathway, based on previous inquiries, that would support chairs who, although they are extremely experienced judges, are not experienced in budgetary control or in managing large projects. That could assist chairs in determining a possible pathway, subject to various significant uncertainties and complexities.