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 3407 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
That is what I was going to ask about next. What has been the opportunity cost for NSS of participating in public inquiries over the past decade or so?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Thank you. I will now open up the session to questions from other members. Liz Smith will be first, to be followed by John Mason.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Those costs are included in other areas of funding.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Mary Morgan, do you have any idea, given that you have been involved in inquiries?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
I am in the wrong business.
Among the on-going inquiries, we have not touched much on the Scottish child abuse inquiry, which began in December 2014 and, up to March this year, had cost £95.3 million. It is important that people have their say, but, when an inquiry looks at issues going back decades, many people who were involved will die during the course of the inquiry, so they will never see justice done at any level. Surely a balance needs to be struck. None of us is immortal, so, if an inquiry lasts years and years, a lot of people will simply not live to see the report coming out, never mind the recommendations being effectively implemented.
This follows on from what John Mason was saying. The Australian Covid inquiry cost £4 million and took 13 months. The UK inquiry has already cost £200 million, and the Scottish one has cost nearly £39 million. Is it likely that those inquiries will deliver more justice than the Australian one did? Where should the balance be struck?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
The NSS written submission states:
“clarity in the scope of inquiries’ terms of reference and timelines at the outset is key to cost effectiveness.”
Do you agree with NSS on that?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
On the surface, public inquiries are pretty straightforward. They are about what happened, why it happened, who is to blame and how we prevent it from happening again—however, look where we are.
Mary, in your written submission, you state:
“Section 28 of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Death etc (Scotland) Act 2016 introduced a requirement that those to whom FAI recommendations are directed at must provide a response to a FAI’s Determination within 8 weeks. The response must set out what changes have been made or are proposed, or the reasons why no action is being taken.”
You suggest that
“a similar requirement could be introduced in law requiring participants in public inquiries to report to Parliament with their written response to the inquiries’ reports.”
You say:
“this was a positive step which occurred in the UK Infected Blood Inquiry.”
Can you talk us through your thinking on that a wee bit?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
That is very helpful. You touched on the fact that 20 public inquires are on-going—in 1997, there were no more than five—and there are two new ones this year. Do Governments jump too quickly to a public inquiry in order to assuage public concerns and almost kick the issue into touch?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
It is important that people have an opportunity to say their piece, but, if that ends up getting lost in a 10,000-page report, how significant will that be in having an impact on what happens next?
I have a final question for Rebecca McKee. Two weeks ago, we asked Professor Cameron about the motivation for legal teams to deliver more timeously during inquiries—I will put it diplomatically—because inquiries can perhaps be seen as a dripping roast for lawyers. Where is the motivation for them to do their work more quickly and less expensively?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
That is great—you have more or less answered the next two questions that I was going to ask. However, I will go back to the issue of timescales. You talked about work being undertaken in modules. Is it your view that, if different aspects of an inquiry can be looked at in parallel, as opposed to there being a two-dimensional process in which issues are considered one after the other, that can reduce the timeframe for an inquiry?