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 2256 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
In some respects, the gentle challenge is, does it really matter? Many of the considerations that we are covering off today are about the efficiency and effectiveness of that type of legislation. Therefore, surely we should be equally concerned if there are just a few pieces of framework legislation; we should not just be concerned about the number of them.
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
[Made a request to intervene.]
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
I completely agree. In my further remarks, I was going to pay respect to the Scottish Government for responding to the Finance and Public Administration Committee and addressing our concerns, so I happily agree with that.
As someone with considerable experience in assessing business cases, estimates of costs for larger programmes and so on, I am concerned when considering this from a technical perspective. We know that financial memorandums include educated guesses, but the point that I made to Lorna Slater earlier is that range is an important indicator of how tight the scoping of the policy is. Generally speaking, a massive range of costs from X to Y tells us something about how tightly scoped the policy work has been, and that raises a concern. Going back to my point about efficiency and effectiveness, if, under challenge, in front of the committee, the member or the minister is able to clearly articulate the basis of every measure, that gives us confidence. In fairness to all the ministers and members, where they have not been able to do that, that illustrates my concern.
A point that has been made by a number of members is that, even with good scrutiny up front, we have an issue with secondary legislation when we look at it through a purely financial spend lens against the backdrop of a shortage of public sector money. One key question—I do not know whether this has been mentioned enough—is how on earth we are meant to carry out post-legislative scrutiny, especially from a financial perspective, when we are using a framework bill with absolutely massive ranges, considerable uncertainty and considerable complexity. I do not see how that can be done. We need to own up to that fact and be aware of it.
I will finish quickly, because I made a lot of my points during my interventions on everybody.
I completely agree with the committee’s view that
“powers allowing flexibility ‘just in case’ are unlikely to meet the test for the necessity of the power”.
I also completely agree with its point that
“consultation and ‘co-design’ on a Bill’s provisions should take place”
up front.
Its last point is that,
“as a general rule, a lack of policy development is not an appropriate justification for introducing framework legislation”.
I suspect that the minister would want to intervene on that point if I was not running out of time. I am not saying that that is being done, but I am saying that there is the potential for that to occur, and we need to be alive to that.
16:19Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
To be clear, I am not seeking to have a pop at any of you; I am trying to understand how you see the skills system as currently structured in your industry and whether it positively encourages women. It is more of a generic question.
I see that Stevie Wilson wants to come in.
10:30Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
I have one more question that I will roll in. This morning, we have all mentioned the rapid change driven by net zero and artificial intelligence. I would appreciate your reflections on what flexibility needs to be built into the system so that we are poised and ready. I appreciate that that is a massive area.
Doug, perhaps you can answer that and pick up on the earlier point.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I want to pick up a thread that, I think, Tony Burns started on when he talked about underrepresented groups. In your industries, how can you target girls and women? What are your reflections on the skills system for them? If we are bringing in a the pairts, obviously, some of your industries tend to be male dominated, so I would appreciate your thoughts and reflections on that.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
What about you, Jennifer? Obviously, I appreciate that this is sometimes a function of scale.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
Thank you very much.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
I will move on to something that has not come up yet. To what extent are the views of industry fairly reflected in shaping the policy and provision? It is good that you are here this morning, but I am talking about apart from that.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Michelle Thomson
Thank you very much for your submissions. You have given us so much evidence. I also very much appreciate your frankness, which I think will help us to move things along—although that will be subject to the Government having an appetite for change.
That leads me to my first question. To what extent do you think that the Government really has an appetite for doing this better? I do not mind who goes first. You are smiling, Professor Bell, so you can go first.