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 1916 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
John Sturrock KC told the committee that
“the conduct of public inquiries and the possibility that costs are out of control is another example of a more fundamental problem in Scotland—namely that our approach to decision making, complex issues, negotiation and addressing tough issues is suboptimal.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 17 June 2025; c 32.]
Would you care to reflect on that assessment of the Government’s approach?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
Sorry—those were your words.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
We should not have two different judges, across a period of years, learning how to book rooms and what IT systems to put in, should we? That is ridiculous.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
That tells its own story.
As the convener mentioned, we heard in evidence that judges should not necessarily be involved in bricks-and-mortar inquiries, as they are described, and you gave some indication that you think that the chair certainly does not have to be a judge. However, the people whom the Scottish Government appoints are judges. At what point is the Scottish Government going to say, when an inquiry comes forward, “Actually, a specialist in this area or somebody with specific or generalist knowledge is more appropriate than a judge to deal with this issue”? The proof will be in whether the Government does that.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
I hear a lot of useful context there, and I hear your points, minister. However, you said that it does not need to be a judge and you could appoint someone else, but you do not do that. You come to the same position, which is that there is going to be a judge-led public inquiry.
You said that if you took a different approach, you would not want criticism of that from the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or other people. Is there a weakness in your confidence in your own arguments as to why you might not take such an approach? Are you worried about what I, or Liz Smith or Craig Hoy, or somebody else, might say, rather than saying, “This is the right approach to get the job done and come to the right answers”? Running right through that is the question of leadership.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
Ministers are making the decisions about when to hold up the mirror—when to bow to the pressure. Other members have set out examples of public pressure in cases where they feel that the Government or institutions in Scottish society more broadly have not given them the answers that they require. How do you account for the recent uptick in the number of inquiries? Other members have spoken about whether that is about the Government, but, if it is not about the Government’s actions—you said that you do not believe that it is—why is it?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
Okay. That is a reasonable argument.
To take the point about issues being kicked into the long grass a step further, you said that you do not think that it would be appropriate to get into the details of the Eljamel inquiry, but you are not the sponsor of that inquiry. Is there not a risk that these inquiries shut down the Government’s ability to deal with some of the substantive issues? On the conduct of the Government, the First Minister said on the record recently that he cannot comment on civil court cases, which is simply untrue—it is completely untrue. There must be a sense that the Government has candour and the ability to talk about issues that are of interest to the public, rather than putting them into a semi-private domain.
10:30Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
I am interested in the issue of sponsorship—where a minister is a sponsor of a particular inquiry. As a committee, we might reflect on how useful that is. Would it be better if Parliament, rather than ministers, sponsored an inquiry and had a central committee that took decisions about monitoring its activity?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
My point is that we are five years on from what happened, and it might happen again next month. It is about how quickly we can get the answers and learn the lessons that are required.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 November 2025
Michael Marra
Do you think that there is a case for having a central office with centralised experience and standard operating procedures to provide the secretariat and back-room capability for each inquiry, in order to bear down on costs?