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 2716 contributions
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Graham Simpson
Do you not have a total cost for the exercise?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Graham Simpson
Has anyone pushed the Home Office on this?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Graham Simpson
You have not?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Graham Simpson
Okay. I will ask you about something else—the council tax reduction scheme. Before I ask you a specific question about that, do councils generally share information? Do they talk to each other? In Scotland, we now have a large number of councils that charge double council tax on a second home. That relies on people being honest about having a second home. It seems to me that it would be easier to discover that from councils speaking to one another—actually, across the UK. Does that happen?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Graham Simpson
It has always gone on—there have always been people who use blue badges when they really ought not to. Do the figures suggest that it is rather too easy to get away with that?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Graham Simpson
That brings me to adult concessionary bus travel, which has the same issue. You are right that, when somebody dies, people have a lot to deal with, and dealing with a blue badge or a bus pass is probably quite far down their list of priorities. However, the report says that 1,075 bus passes have been used after somebody died. That means that someone is using a dead person’s bus pass. That is not the same as just forgetting to tell somebody.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 September 2024
Graham Simpson
A Transport Focus survey shows that satisfaction with the frequency of ScotRail trains is in the bottom half of levels across the United Kingdom. I hope that that will improve. The cabinet secretary says that she wants the timetable to be reinstated “as soon as possible”. What does she mean by that? Can she be more specific?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 September 2024
Graham Simpson
Moving an amendment to the business motion is not something that I do lightly, but I do so because I passionately believe in Parliament giving its members ample time to scrutinise legislation. We should all know that rushed legislation can be bad legislation.
First, let me say what the minister’s business motion seeks to do. It seeks to set a timetable for dealing with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. In trying to amend the business motion, I am interested only in that timetable; I am not interested in the bill itself, save to say that it is an important piece of legislation.
The minister wants us to have the following timetable. Stage 1 would be on Thursday 10 October. Should the bill pass that hurdle, stage 2 would be completed by Tuesday 29 October. Members will immediately realise that that takes in our two-week October recess. That is an issue that we should seek to avoid, but we can probably live with it.
With stage 2 having been completed by 29 October, the minister then wants stage 3 to be done and dusted on 31 October. That gives members and officials just two days to turn around amendments to a bill in which there is a great deal of interest. Parliament can act at pace, and it has done so on occasion in emergencies, but the only reason why we are being asked to do so on this occasion is to spare the Government’s blushes. That is because, under the law as it stands, which the bill seeks to amend, the Government has to produce a draft climate change plan by the end of November, and it is nowhere near doing that. That is the Government’s problem, which, quite frankly, is the Government’s fault. Parliament is not here to spare the Government’s blushes or to get it out of a hole. We are here to do our jobs properly.
The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has been very careful not to express a view on timetabling, but it has written about
“the importance of there being adequate time between stages 2 and 3 for the implications of any stage 2 amendment agreed in committee being carefully considered.”
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 25 September 2024
Graham Simpson
I am very pleased to hear that. Mr Whitfield is absolutely right, because in no one’s world—not even the minister’s, if he is honest about it—is two days enough. My amendment, if it is agreed to, would set the stage 3 date as 7 November. That is a week more than what the minister is proposing, and even that is probably too short.
The minister should see what I am proposing as a sensible compromise. Parliament needs to be able to do its job properly. Scrutiny is an essential part of our work here, but we need to have the time to do it. MSPs have a simple choice between the minister’s rushed two-day deadline and my nine-day one. It is quite obvious which is the better, and it is not the minister’s.
I move amendment S6M-14652.1, to leave out “31 October” and insert “7 November”.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 19 September 2024
Graham Simpson
Okay, and you do not think that the former CEO was guilty of gross misconduct. Did he do anything wrong that would have merited his leaving the organisation?