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 2087 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
It is right and proper to point out that one organisation is currently at level 4. Can you say anything about how long you anticipate that it will remain at that level for? That is the highest level of intervention that you undertake.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
To move back to interventions, the Scottish Government is currently at level 3, which means that it produces a plan, which you oversee. In May last year, you produced a report on Scottish Government intervention, and you are looking at doing another deep dive into the plan that it has proposed, after which there will be a report on that. Is it your hope that, at that stage, it can move from level 3 intervention or, given, to be fair, the size of the organisation and the complexity of data—in particular, the statistical data that you have talked about—are your concerns such that the critical friend exercise, in which you are there to help and assist, might be on-going?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
I move the committee into private session.
10:55 Meeting continued in private until 11:09.Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
Please.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
That is very helpful.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
That is very helpful.
With regard to my question about the situation as you move forward, can you see any operational risks coming along that you are concerned about? Is there anything on the horizon that is worrying you?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
You do not anticipate that we will return to the level of FOI requests that we had before the pandemic.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
Yes, we can come back to that.
We will move on to questions from Alexander Stewart. As we have raised the question of complaints about MSPs, let us have a look at the report from that point of view.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
Thank you. With the usual fun and games as convener, I will go first and steal all the best questions.
Before we start, I say that the continuing honesty in the annual report about the challenges that you, as the commissioner, and your office have faced is very welcome. A number of external comments have pointed to failings in the commissioner’s office in the recent past. All the evidence that was given at the Public Audit Committee last week and the various reports on the issue contain comments to the effect that there has been great change, but there is still change to come and that it will be some time before confidence in your office—and, indeed, in you—is rebuilt.
What do you feel about seeing those comments, as commissioner? Do they resonate with you? Do you understand them, and are you committed to continue to reach for the higher standards that you have spoken about in your report?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2023
Martin Whitfield
Those are welcome comments. Rather than say, “I hope that they don’t come back to haunt you,” I will say that I hope that they give you and others around you the confidence to carry on and achieve that.
I want to get into some of the detail and in particular something that I know that you are aware has interested me significantly, which is the relationship with your staff when they have concerns. We have previously taken evidence, as have other committees, about the formalised whistleblowing provisions that exist. However, interestingly, in the evidence that was given to the Public Audit Committee last week—I will quote from it, as I would like your comments on it—Pat Kenny said:
“The routes that staff can use if they are concerned about the office holder in the future have been re-emphasised within the organisation. For example, one route that has been emphasised involves going to Audit Scotland to raise certain concerns. The accountable officer of the ethical standards commissioner can also go to the accountable officer of the corporate body, and it has been clarified that there is a reporting route to the chair of the audit advisory board if there are concerns within the organisation.”
He gave a little bit more evidence and then said:
“I would be keeping a very close eye on that process to ensure that it beds in and is implemented effectively, because it is key that that be put right. Progress has certainly been made in that respect, but it is very important that the audit function continues to look at that issue.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 2 March 2023; c 7.]
The issue is not just about financial audit; it is about the first green to amber warning signs that something is going wrong. Will you comment on that and, I hope, give confirmation to the committee that you agree with that evidence? Also, what are the challenges with regard to that issue going forward?