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 3539 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
It appears that the updated figures that the police gave you were accepted as read, and I am pretty sure that that was said by your officials in evidence. Rather than their saying to the police, “Hold on a second, how do you come to this sum and that sum?” it seems as if the police have said, “These are the updated figures,” and the bill team has said, “Okay, fair enough.” That is not usually what happens. Usually, whatever the bill is, people query the costings.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
Earlier, when I asked a similar question, you gave a completely different answer, cabinet secretary.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
Thank you. Allan Faulds has been scribbling furiously over the past few minutes.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
I thank all our witnesses for their active participation in the discussion. We will continue our evidence sessions next week. Thank you very much for coming along. I also thank members of the committee for their involvement and contributions.
We will have a break until 10.30.
10:24 Meeting suspended.Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
The next item on our agenda is to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs on the financial memorandum for the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. The cabinet secretary is joined by Scottish Government officials Donald McGillivray, who is director of safer communities, and Steven Bunch, who is the bill team leader.
I welcome you all to the meeting and invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
One of the issues that we raised with the bill team was about the bill being a framework bill. The bill team said:
“The legislation is an enabling and framework bill, and a number of provisions will be set out in secondary legislation.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 26 March 2024; c 6.]
However, in your response to my letter, you said:
“I do not consider the Police Ethics etc Bill to be a framework bill. The Bill is an amending one”.
I wonder why there is that difference in view.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
I am sorry, but it did, because nine months later it came to committee with all the additional information. That is why we are here today, because we were unable to scrutinise figures. I know that you do not like us to refer to other bills, but when other ministers and bill teams have come to us and it is clear that the financial memorandum bears no relationship to reality, they have gone away and redrafted it. Given that that has been the case, surely it would have been a lot simpler for the Government to decide that, because there has been a huge difference in the proportions and total sums involved in the bill, it should revise the financial memorandum before coming to the Finance and Public Administration Committee in March. There is no sense in coming to the committee with figures that are wrong, just because they were right nine months earlier.
You have said that stage 2 will not be until after October, so there will be a further difference between the figures in the financial memorandum that was presented in June last year and the figures that will apply in October this year. Surely, therefore, it is common sense to decide that, because the figures have completely changed, you will come to the Finance and Public Administration Committee with a revised financial memorandum. If that had happened, it is unlikely that you would even have had to give evidence today.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
We will leave it at that. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their evidence this morning and I thank colleagues for their questions and contributions.
Are members content for me to write to the lead committee to provide an update on the evidence that we have received in relation to the bill, so that it can take that into account in its stage 1 scrutiny?
Members indicated agreement.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
You said—I will quote you—that you “inserted” figures straight into the financial memorandum. What work was done to interrogate the accuracy of the figures that you were given?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 7 May 2024
Kenneth Gibson
I am sure that colleagues want to interrogate the financial memorandum in greater detail, as I have hogged the first 15 minutes of the session, but I will ask one last question before I open it up to them.
One of the costings in the financial memorandum is about the code of ethics and the duty of candour. Those were costed at zero because, originally, they were to be absorbed within the existing police budget. However, that has been reconsidered and we are now looking at a one-off cost of £1,522,000 and recurring costs of £793,500; a breakdown of those costs follows in your letter.
How can there be such a huge differential? Surely there must have been discussions before the bill was introduced on whether there would be such significant costs. It seems to me very odd that a huge section of the financial memorandum was classed at zero cost, given that there is not only a significant initial cost but on-going, recurring costs.