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 3298 contributions
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
Thank you very much. I will press straight on and invite the deputy convener to put some questions to you.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
Thanks. That would be helpful.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
Great. I will turn to what you have said about progress on public service reform. There is a certain clarity in what you have said about that in the section 23 report. You are fairly blunt after paragraph 68 in saying:
“The Scottish Government does not know what savings will result from reform, or what reform efforts will cost”.
You also say that
“The Scottish Government’s governance arrangements for reform were ineffective and have recently changed”
and that
“The Scottish Government is not providing effective leadership on reform”.
In paragraph 87, you say that
“the impact on outcomes is not currently considered or monitored as part of the reform process”,
so it is not considered at all and neither is it monitored.
Those are fairly fundamental criticisms of the Scottish Government’s approach to public service reform, are they not?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
You highlight a familiar theme for the Public Audit Committee and in your reports: what is, to all intents and purposes, an implementation gap. There is a stated Government ambition, but delivery on the ground does not match up with that. That is the summation of what you are saying in the report, is it not?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
Yes. A view has been expressed in the past that equality impact assessments are part of the red tape that we need to get rid of. Is it your understanding that the Government’s position is that it thinks that it is important that there are equality and human rights impact assessments of changes?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
Thanks very much. That is very helpful. Those are all my questions, but Graham Simpson has a final one to put to you.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 31st meeting in 2024 of the Public Audit Committee. Agenda item 1 is for the committee to decide whether to take agenda items 3 and 4 in private. Are we all agreed to take those items in private?
Members indicated agreement.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
Thank you. We might return to that theme a bit later on.
Colin Beattie has some questions to put to you, so I will hand over to him.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
Thank you very much indeed for that opening statement, and for touching on yesterday’s budget. I invite Graham Simpson to put some questions to you now: he may well start with yesterday’s budget. [Laughter.]
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2024
Richard Leonard
As I read it, the Government’s strategy is that it is opposed to a top-down approach, as it describes it, which is an interesting idea. However, I think that your conclusion is that that leaves a bit of a vacuum and a lack of leadership. Would that be a fair assessment?