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 1769 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
Good morning. Thank you very much for joining us. I reflect what my colleague Liz Smith said.
I am interested in you thinking about your cultures. I mean culture not just within your states or sub-states, but in your legal profession, culture in general, in the media and so on. To what extent is culture and trust a consideration in the type of inquiry that is agreed in your jurisdictions?
The reason why I ask that question is that I find myself reflecting on whether it is the case that within the United Kingdom, trust in institutions is very low and that has, in people’s eyes, necessitated the need for these judge-led inquiries with the resultant issues. I think that both of you may have a reflection or a perspective on the UK, and indeed Scotland, from the outside looking in, that I would be interested in hearing about. Perhaps you could go first, Professor Dahlström, and reflect a little on trust and culture within Sweden and then give us some reflections on what you see from the outside looking in.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
You are being very diplomatic. Perhaps I can hear from Dr Prasser, with similar reflections.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
Dr Prasser, sorry, we lost you for a minute there. Would you mind going back to the story about the boat and the point at which a royal commission was set up? Thank you very much.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
Yes, I can.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
Thank you very much for that.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
I mean fee submissions. I should have been clear.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
Good morning. Thank you very much for joining us. I will ask you some questions that reflect more on the integrity and reputation of the legal sector around public inquiries. Today, you will stoutly defend things where you deem it appropriate, and I have no issue with that. However, I want to explore with you situations in which a conflict of interest, or a potential conflict of interest, could ultimately affect the legal profession’s reputation.
I ask you to bear in mind the fact that we see that a lot as politicians. If a person says, “I would never do that,” that does not necessarily mean that it could never happen. For example, we have seen lawyers use the media to whip up demand for a public inquiry. In some instances, they have done so very successfully, because it has helped to trigger an inquiry. They have brought out people who have been terribly wronged, whose view is that there should be an inquiry, and stories run about it and so on.
That seems to be quite a departure from how your firm does things. In the first instance, what is your perception of how you can add your voice on whether there should be a public inquiry, as opposed to going direct to the media and using it? What is your sense of that as a company?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
We have raised this question before. The Law Society of Scotland said that it was not clear whether it would simply be a case of the lawyer exercising their freedom of speech. Compass Chambers said that it is not a relevant conflict of interest if the lawyer is advancing their client’s position. I took from that response that it is somewhere that it did not want to go.
Going back to the reputational and ethical aspects of it, there can often be a perception of a conflict of interest regardless of whether there is. I am trying to explore the question of removing that perception. There might well be a tipping point. Nobody is suggesting that rules have been broken—that is not the point. I am more trying to advance the question of perception. Can I take it that it is not the normal route—certainly for your company—to go direct to the media instead of lobbying Parliament? Do you have experience of how other law firms bring a matter to the public’s attention?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
To finish on this point, I will ask about culture. Chairs will vary. I raised the question previously—apologies, but I have forgotten who was giving evidence—and I think that the witness alluded to the fact that he would take a dim view of the kind of scenario that I have set out. I respected what he said.
To what extent is there a culture in which some lawyers do not like to challenge other lawyers? If you are coming from a position in which ethics and propriety should be at the very heart of what you do, which you would sign up to from the start of your career, that culture would make it quite hard to challenge someone. What is your experience of being challenged by a chair on your submissions to various inquiries?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 October 2025
Michelle Thomson
Good morning, panel. I will come to you first, Peter Drummond, and explore what you meant in one of the sentences in your submission. You said:
“The RIAS has concerns about proportionality and the use of retrospective quasi-hypothecation.”
I am clear on the terms “proportionality” and “retrospective”, but I wonder about the use of the term “quasi-hypothecation”. What do you mean by that?