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 3214 contributions
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
That is interesting.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
You form part of the Scottish Government’s consolidated accounts, albeit a very small part, presumably.
10:45SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
You are under the umbrella of the Scottish public finance manual, and you are the accountable officer as the chief executive of the commission.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
That is helpful. Julie Paterson, do you think that the audit arrangements with which you have to comply are disproportionate and overly burdensome?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
I should preface my remarks by saying that if you appear in front of the Public Audit Committee—which I am the convener of—invariably it is because things have gone wrong. The fact that you have not is probably a reflection on your good performance and conduct.
I was quite taken aback by Julie Paterson’s remark that she and the commission had not given evidence to a Scottish Parliament committee up until now. I am surprised by that, not only because of the quality of the evidence that you have given us this morning but because of the important role that your organisation plays. You referenced your interventions around the discharge of patients into care homes and so on during the pandemic and the compromise of human rights that that entailed. I am really surprised that no parliamentary committee picked up on your role in that and asked you to give evidence on it. That is now on the record, so I am sure that that will be reviewed.
Craig Naylor, you mentioned earlier that you are working with Audit Scotland on a best-value review of policing in Scotland. The Auditor General was in front of the Public Audit Committee this week. He does not come because of bad behaviour; he comes to inform us and help us be illuminated in our work. He was talking about his forward work programme, and he mentioned the work that he is doing with your inspectorate. I think that he said that it is a requirement of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 that there has to be a collaborative relationship with you in carrying out a best-value review of the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland. Is that correct? Will you tell us a little bit more about how that relationship works?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
That is interesting, because one of the points that was put to us by the SPCB-supported commissioners was that there could be a shared audit service, rather than each organisation being audited individually. I have to say that I think that an underlying theme was the fee that those organisations pay to Audit Scotland for that pleasure. However, you are under the Scottish Government’s audit process, so you do not have a separate facility.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
Julie Paterson referred earlier to the fact that your organisation has an audit, performance and risk committee. Before I come to Julie on that, do you not have something equivalent, John Ireland?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
That is really interesting.
I will go back to a more general theme that we have encountered in our evidence gathering so far, especially when speaking to Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-supported commissioners and commissions and so on. Not all of them, but quite a few of them, have been grumbling. They have been grumbling because they think that the audit requirements that they are expected to comply with are, to use their terminology, disproportionate and overly burdensome.
I will start with you, Mr Ireland. I am simply trying to make a comparison. Is it the considered view inside the Scottish Fiscal Commission that you are over audited and that you are expected to do things that are surplus to what is necessary to keep in place a good assurance regime?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
That is really helpful. I want to tease out a little bit more the extent to which your working alongside Audit Scotland is purely voluntary and the extent to which that is provided for by the legislation—which I think that you said it is not—or through other means. Do you have a memorandum of understanding with Audit Scotland?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 May 2025
Richard Leonard
That is interesting.