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 3510 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Mr Campbell, you say in your submission that the process for setting and monitoring costs for public inquiries
“is adequate in the correct hands.”
Do the huge time and budget overruns that we have seen in many inquiries mean that they were not in the correct hands?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
No, I am asking you a question and you are answering it. That is fine.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Finally, I will touch on the outcome of inquiries in terms of recommendations. A Government might feel political heat to set up an inquiry—as we have seen in the UK Parliament in the past 48 hours—but inquiries drag on for years. A different political party might end up being in office when the report from an inquiry is received, and the Government of the day might not agree to the recommendations. Often, Governments say that they will implement recommendations, but there does not seem to be any timescale or incentive to deliver them such that the people who thought, perhaps, that they would have a public inquiry or that what they were saying would be justified and compensated, or that others would be blamed or that improvements would be made—whatever the aim of the inquiry is.
Mr Campbell, you have said that it is not really for an inquiry to follow up on recommendations. However, when Professor Sandy Cameron gave us evidence on the Jersey abuse inquiry, he wrote that the recommendations that were made in the first public inquiry in Scotland in 1945 are more or less the same recommendations still being made 80 years later. Nobody has really done much about them, as they should have done, which I found quite shocking. Professor Cameron also said that, in relation to the Jersey inquiry, they went back two years later to check and ensure that the recommendations were being implemented.
It might not be specified as part of the role of an inquiry, but should the inquiry team look, after a certain time period—a year or two years, or whatever is appropriate in the case—to ensure that the recommendations that it has made are being implemented? We have heard about that issue in the media during the past 24 to 48 hours in relation to the previous inquiry into grooming. Would that be a way forward, rather than an inquiry team saying, “Right—that’s us. We’ve produced a report and we’re off”?
Mr Campbell can go first, and then I will ask Mr Sturrock something slightly different.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Yes, but the question is: how can justice be delivered for people if there is no time limit—which implies a cost limit—and an inquiry just goes on and on? The two are directly related. It is like having an operation. If it is postponed for five years, how is that helpful to an individual?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
If there is a glaring need for change, organisations often try to get ahead of the game and try to change things as inquiries progress, so that they are not seen to be scratching themselves while waiting for five years for a report to come out.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Of course.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Chilcot—
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
About anything specific?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
You have said that implementation is not for the inquiry.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Kenneth Gibson
It is all right. You are not the first to use it.