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 ˿ and committees will automatically update to show only the ˿ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ˿ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ˿ 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
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
Accountability was the issue.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
I want to be clear about it. I do not want to get this confused. Do you want to elaborate on
“the disproportionality of the governance model”?
Are those your words?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
You said earlier that your staff complement is around 28. Some 24 hours ago, the Public Audit Committee was taking evidence on the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, which has had two years of section 22 reports because of problems of governance, of value for money, of propriety, of accountability and so on. It has only 21 members of staff, so size is not something that allows you to avoid accountability, audit and scrutiny. It is actually quite important that those rules of transparency and accountability are in place.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
In response to an earlier question, you touched on areas in which you think your remit could usefully be extended. As Lorna Slater described, you are going to come up against, and have to try to proactively pre-empt, an evolving set of challenges, but are there aspects of your powers that could be enhanced to lead to better outcomes from the work that you do?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
Thank you. That is useful
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
I am sure that some of the figures are in your annual report, so feel free to supply us with a written summation of the answer to the question about how the cascade works.
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
Let me move on to another area. This question might require quite a short answer, because you have made it clear in your evidence this morning and in your written submission that you see yourself very much as a stand-alone commissioner. To what extent do you collaborate with other public bodies to enhance the overall effectiveness of your role and of their duties and positions?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
Are they your words or SPICe’s words?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
Dr Plastow, you have answered some of my rudimentary questions about the extent to which you are reactive or proactive—you have said that you are 90 per cent proactive.
However, I have a related question. In this debate, people define certain commissions and commissioners as regulatory and define others as advocacy commissioners. Where would you place yourself on that spectrum?
SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Richard Leonard
I have a final question. You are very blunt in your written submission and take a position that is contrary to Mr Hamilton’s. you say that having individual corporate HQs is a “non-affordable luxury”. That is a clear statement of your view, and you are very strong on the issue of sharing services—that comes through in your evidence this morning and in your written submission.
In your written evidence, you also allude to the fact that you are dealing with data about vulnerable adults, children and young people, and you talk about information rights. To what extent do you collaborate and work with those other commissions? If you are dealing with the treatment of the biometric data of young people below the age of 18 and so on, do you have conversations with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland on issues that are relevant to that age group or with the Scottish Human Rights Commission on, for example, a human rights approach to some of these questions? What is the extent of your interaction?