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 792 contributions
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
Of course. In addition to looking for gaps, we are looking at whether there are ways of consolidating or imitating models that are used in other countries. We want to ensure that we have all the functions that we require to maintain standards in public life, with the system performing as it should, but we are looking at whether those functions need to be in quite so many places. Could you imagine the investigative and adjudicative functions being part of the same body, or is it really important that there be separate bodies?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
I will come back to that in a second. In relation to public trust, I will loop back to the earlier discussion about your objections around the potential combination of an adjudication function and an investigative function. Your objection to that proposal seemed to be not so much structural but about routes of appeal and public trust. If we were to come up with a framework that combined those functions, provided that public trust could be maintained and there were straightforward one-stop shop or portal routes for appeal, would that structure even be feasible, or is there some major objection to that?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
That is brilliant. I liked what you said about the portal and the one-stop shop. The committee should continue to consider that, including whether that might mean creating, for example, an office of public trust that has all those things, so that people do not need to know whether they have to go to the ombudsman or the Standards Commission, for example.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
I want to look in more detail at the relationship between your organisation and the Ethical Standards Commissioner. We have talked about the investigative function versus the adjudicative function, and you feel that it is really important that those are separate. I wonder how much of that is packaging. You said that your organisation performs as the board for the Ethical Standards Commissioner. You are already part of the same organisation, but there is this sort of separate—
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
My final question is one that I raised earlier with Mr Bruce. You might have a view on it, as well. He said that possible issues with consolidation of bodies include the maintaining of public trust and having straightforward routes of appeal. Have you any thoughts on those?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
You have. It was on your concerns about routes of appeal were bodies to be combined. That is great. Thank you.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
I have two more questions. You have already spoken about your office situation, your resources and so on, so I will not go into those.
My first question is a little bit like the question that I asked Mr Bruce about gaps. You do not adjudicate decisions about MSPs or lobbyists. Should you? I know that there has certainly been debate in Parliament about the potentially political nature of some of the decisions of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Is that a gap? Are we insufficiently independent in that adjudication?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
I will follow on from Ash Regan’s line of questioning. One thing that we are looking at is scrutiny and how all the commissioners fit in the landscape. Parliament watches Government, you watch the MSPs and it sounds as if the Parliament and the Standards Commission watch you. We assume that the voters are watching the Parliament.
On the place where you sit in the landscape, I think that Dr Ian Elliott said that you guys are a sort of a fourth branch of government—you are the ones who watch the watcher. Do you see the other SPCB-supported bodies as sitting within that same space of watching us in public life or, from your perspective, is what they do quite different from what you do?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
That is fine. I probably misunderstood. Thank you for clearing that up.
You adjudicate only on councillors and one other group.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 30 January 2025
Lorna Slater
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee covers MSPs and lobbyists.
If we are looking at consolidating or restructuring the framework, the adjudication function needs to be separate. That does not necessarily need to be done by a commissioner, though. Maybe the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities could do it. What are your thoughts on that?