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 1294 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
Is it your view that we are getting better at forecasting over the short, medium and longer terms?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
Thank you for the excellent evidence that you have provided for us. I will concentrate on scrutiny by Parliament. Professor Bell, I noticed your interesting comment about the role of committees and why the committee system might not lead to the most effective scrutiny. Professor Spowage has made clear some of the issues with Parliament itself.
If we wanted to improve parliamentary scrutiny, would we need to make structural changes to the scrutiny process during the next session of Parliament, or is it a question of improving the culture within Government and the relationship between Government and Parliament regarding how scrutiny takes place?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
What would be the difference between what we have, which, I would agree, is not particularly cutting edge, and something like the arrangement that Finland has? You mentioned that it has a discreet body that has been set up to do that work. What is different about those two options that makes Finland a bit better?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
I make the point because, to go back to the convener’s question about transparency, the situation becomes increasingly difficult if things are done at the last minute. As you said, if that happens, it is difficult to expand on the implications that a policy change might have for the labour market, inflation or whatever. Therefore, we run the risk of having less accurate forecasting, which concerns us. That is on top of the fact that the SFC and the OBR produce forecasts at different times—the convener mentioned that lag—which compounds the issue.
We have been taking evidence on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s review of how effectively the Scottish Fiscal Commission operates. The SFC was generally given a very clean bill of health. However, an interesting issue was raised about the SFC’s groundbreaking approach of giving a very long-term projection for the Scottish economy—it goes all the way up to the year 2070. On one level, that is very helpful, but there is the argument, which was part of some discussion and debate just last weekend, that those very long-term projections slightly take the focus away from short-term policy making to address serious issues in the economy.
I know that you cannot comment on the policy, but are you concerned that, if we go too far into the future, we will have issues with short-term policy making?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
Thank you for that helpful answer about the committee set-up.
What can the Parliament do better? I think that there was cross-party frustration—it is nothing to do with party politics—at the time of the budget that we had a budget debate that was a bit dead in the water. Each of the committees is asked to make a presentation in the budget debate, which is made by the committee convener and, therefore, must be objective. The limited scope for MSPs to debate in that forum is not very helpful and the debate is also constrained by time.
Some of us around the table have been arguing for a finance bill in order to enhance scrutiny, but I wonder whether a structural change in the Parliament, as opposed to committees, could make it easier for there to be good quality scrutiny and whether it could heighten the general interest of MSPs in the budget process. It would be quite easy for an MSP to avoid getting involved in the budget, yet it is one of the most important things that we do—some would say that it is the most important. Do you have any suggestions about how we could change the structure of the Parliament to improve scrutiny?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
I am sorry to interrupt you, but if those changes come very late in the day, as they did in the reserved and the devolved institutions this time, does that create difficulty with forecasting accurately what you are predicting over the next budget year or subsequent years?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
Do you think that the UK Government appreciates that problem?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
I think it is time for a revisit, convener.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 22 April 2025
Liz Smith
Does that approach work well in Finland?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 April 2025
Liz Smith
The Parliament is in need of processes that make it easier to understand where we have spent money well and where we have had issues. That is the crux of the matter.
I will come back to other matters later.