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 1844 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Thank you. I think that there will be further questions from my colleagues on that particular point.
To stick with the theme of the review and what is in the bill, I think that John Picton said in his written submission that, in order to bring the bill in line with UK regulation, there would need to be a bit more on that. Does he feel that that came out in the consultation? Given his comment about bringing the bill into line with other parts of the UK, are there areas that should be part of the proposal or part of a broader review?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Thank you. That is much appreciated.
Gavin McEwan, this is my final question on the theme. Your written submission says that the law could go further. Notwithstanding your comment about reorganisation, which we have noted, have any other issues come out through the consultation that should be part of what is now proposed, as opposed to being part of a review in the future?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Thank you. Does Gavin McEwan have anything further to add?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
You are a man who knows your audience in that regard. Thank you. That is much appreciated.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
What is your understanding of why some of the other regulatory frameworks that charities are required to respond to are not included in the bill?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Does the bill need to be amended to take account of that?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
That is helpful. Will you commit to working with those organisations on the communication and implementation?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Martin, is there a reason why a discretionary disqualification approach could not be used in Scotland? The reason that I ask is that, as some of my colleague Emma Roddick’s questions have suggested, some organisations have said that it could be a little punitive to automatically disqualify people. I take the point about public interest, but some people who want to become a trustee for a charity might be doing so because they want to rebuild their life. For example, they might have a conviction but, under the bill, that will mean that they are automatically disqualified. Is there scope for it to be discretionary? How would you address that?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 2 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
Thank you. I have a supplementary question, but I will come back to that. Sarah Latto, do you wish to add anything?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 2 March 2023
Pam Duncan-Glancy
On the point about an independent review, you mentioned earlier that the proposals before us are based on OSCR’s perceptions. Are the proposals skewed in that direction?