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 ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ 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 2775 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
I am not here to speak for the Finance and Public Administration Committee—Mr Greer and I are on both committees—but we absolutely support the simplification of the landscape as part of our public reform work, and we do not want there to be more public bodies. If we are simplifying things, I am absolutely on board and will totally support you on that, but we still have to look at the costs. The finance committee took evidence but did not have time to go into any detail with witnesses on that, which is why I am concerned about it.
Are you looking at whether the SFC would continue with two different pension schemes, or do you assume that it would go ahead and provide the better pension scheme for everyone?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
If the SFC needs more powers, I, for one, am open to giving it those powers now.
I take your point that a lot of the income of universities, in particular, does not come from the public purse. On the other hand, if a university gets into difficulty, it expects the public purse to bail it out, so there is quite a big risk. I fully accept that we have to get the report in due course.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
I am just looking for some reassurance that a small provider getting into trouble would not hugely disadvantage learners.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
I take the point in your previous argument that, if it was, say, a one-off cost of £27 million or £30 million or thereabouts, it would be a one-off cost, and we could look at that spread over the years. The other argument is that £27 million just to rearrange the furniture is quite a lot of money, and that would be a factor in my deciding whether I support the bill at stage 1. I opposed Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, on what was basically the same amount of money—£30 million.
To go into some of the detail of that, I note that the largest part seems to be pension. My understanding is that TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—protects staff who are transferring to another organisation so that they do not lose out, but the argument here seems to be that the staff moving should get a much better pension. I do not think that TUPE insists on them having a much better pension; it insists on them not losing out. In fact, pensions under TUPE is a bit of a grey area.
Has the Government gone through all the options? Does it have to be under TUPE? Do they have to move into the same pension fund?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
That suggests that the Government would be involved and that it might put a cap on the one-off cost or the transfer cost.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
Again, I am on board for some of those things. Every witness at the Finance and Public Administration Committee tells us that, if we spend £1 now, we will save £10 in 10 years’ time. That is all very well, but we have to find the £1 today, and you are asking us to find maybe £30 million.
You said that it is not for us to know at this stage, but I disagree. The financial memorandum is meant to provide the best estimate, but you are saying that it is not for us to know at this stage. Some of the preparatory work is about whether the SFC will have one scheme or two schemes, and we know that some staff will definitely transfer if the change goes ahead. I accept that we do not know about some areas, but I think that more work could have been done before we got to this stage.
I will move on to some other points. Earlier, financial sustainability was mentioned, as well as whether the SFC will be able to require data. It was suggested that the SFC might be able to require data in the future.
Why did the SFC not pick up the problems at Dundee university and perhaps those at other universities? Was it because it did not have the powers or because it was not using the powers that it had?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
I think that it was he who raised the point, but I cannot remember exactly.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
I do not want to get into too much detail—I just want an overall view.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 28 May 2025
John Mason
I certainly hope that that is the case. Sometimes, personalities come into these things, as we have discussed previously on other subjects. Is our system robust enough to ensure that, whoever the chairs of colleges are, it can still work?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 May 2025
John Mason
To an extent, we, too, have to choose who we want to come in front of our committee. There was some good evidence in writing that we are not going to have the chance to speak to people about.
If you cannot answer this, you do not have to, but are inquiries erring one way or the other? Are too many people coming who inquiries do not need to hear from, or are people being missed out who inquiries should hear from?