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 2242 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
Are they predominantly public sector people with high incomes?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
A refresh.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
The refresh is obviously in focus because it is in your report—that is good, and it is the reason that I can ask these questions. Do you expect that the dial will now shift? If so, over what period? Will it be over the next year or over the next two years, for example?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
A key element of effectiveness for anyone who is involved in the process is the speed of decision making. How critical is that?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
To be absolutely clear—I am aware of this, convener—this committee’s jurisdiction does not encroach on the area of councillors.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
With your permission, convener, I would like to illustrate the issue of the speed of decision making by referring to what is in the report about councillors. It looks as though the average stage 1 complaint takes around 160 days, I think—I cannot tell—before someone goes to stage 2 or has the complaint against them dismissed, in effect. It is then a further 180 days at stage 2. It is therefore possible that a complaint against an individual—I am using this only for illustrative purposes, and I appreciate that another committee will talk to you about councillors—could take the best part of a year.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
I have illustrated one example with regard to councillors. You might refer to that, to MSPs or to public bodies. How much of an improvement will there be in your key performance indicators in the report that we will be looking at a year from now?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
If there is time.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
Yes—thank you, deputy convener. Jackie Dunbar made a point about delay, which I mentioned, too. What consideration do you give to the wellbeing of people who are on the receiving end of complaints? I am operating from a background of knowing some of the stresses that colleagues have gone through. In one case, the person concerned left public life, in effect. I do not think that I am saying anything that has not already been said in public by that person. I think that that was a disaster, because that person had so much to give. How much consideration do you give to the wellbeing of the people who are the subject of complaints?
10:15Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 14 March 2024
Stephen Kerr
That is a very strong suggestion. Based on the experience of colleagues, I think that that service is badly needed. We probably all have colleagues who have been through such experiences and have been left feeling diminished, which is exactly the opposite of what we have been talking about for the entirety of your evidence—namely, creating an environment in the public service that makes people want to come forward and give of themselves, because, frankly, that is what our country needs. Therefore, I appreciate what you have said.
I will return to the strategic plan and its objectives. I hope that you will not mind my saying this. I hear what you say and am in accord with everything that you say about prioritising complainers and respondents, and so on. However, I was a little perturbed to see that, of the nine specific strategic objectives in the plan, none of the first three relates to any of that. The first three objectives, at least, relate to internal things.
That seems a bit strange to me, and I will tell you why. When you did your very honest assessment of the key issues and risks that you deal with in your report, you identified the number 1 risk—correctly, I think—as being “Loss of stakeholder confidence”. However, in responding to those key issues and risks, the way that the plan is laid out—I suppose that I am giving you an opportunity to say that the way that it is laid out does not necessarily represent the prioritisation—means that it comes across as being very inward looking, as opposed to the risk, which is about what is happening as far as your stakeholders are concerned. Does what I am saying make sense?