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 łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of łÉČËżěĘÖ 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 2049 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
That is helpful—thank you.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
That is helpful. I see nods from the other witnesses.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
Let us assume that there is an agency agreement. I might return to the other options, but that issue has been explored pretty well so far. We cannot just do that overnight. The suggestion is that there could be a lead-in time of at least a year. Would any of the witnesses want to put on the record what has to be done to support the industry in order for there to be effective implementation so that this is a success once we get there? What steer would you give the committee and the Government to ensure that any agency agreement is a success?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
I am not sure how much time I have, convener, but I have a couple of short questions that relate to that last line of questioning. Do we have time for that?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
Yes. I apologise. I will be really brief with my next questions. I think that that was an important line of questioning, and Jeremy Balfour has helped to clarify how we would get the change that we would like.
For brevity, I will just read verbatim from our briefing paper. What experience do the witnesses have of supporting clients to request reviews of best start grant or job start payment? It is a different process—it is a review process, not an appeal or redetermination. Do you have any experience of supporting clients in that area? Ms Young, do you want to come in first?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
That is helpful, and I appreciate your brevity, because it gets me in the good books with the convener.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
Mr Ross, your organisation has talked about training and other potential requirements ahead of time, in relation to lead-in time. I can read the quotation:
“Insurers would need at least 12 months’ notice of this change and details of the new system in order to support its smooth introduction, and provide training for claims handlers to understand the new system and the social security applicable.”
From Mr Rogerson’s perspective, it is a case of press the button and on we go because there is a single point of contact and things at the point of use—as Lynne Macfarlane was talking about—carry on as before. The numbers simply change with a disaggregated breakdown. However, are other things lurking, Mr Ross, that need a wee bit of attention?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
Did I characterise your suggestion correctly, Mr Gass?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
That is helpful. Right at the start of this line of questioning, Ms Young mentioned a specific case study where CAS had been supporting somebody. You called the person John for the purposes of anonymity, Ms Young. In that case, there was an appeal to the Upper Tribunal by Social Security Scotland that was unexpected, and it was made despite the fact that John’s condition had deteriorated. He sought a redetermination on the basis of that deterioration in his condition. We have to capture that properly.
Do correct my terminology, Ms Young—my apologies. There is a wider point that I wish to make.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 28 March 2024
Bob Doris
That explanation is helpful. It seems common sense that there should be a duty on Social Security Scotland in such circumstances to tell people such as John not to withdraw from the process, because it still has the right to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and that what John sought in the first place would be locked in until any potential Upper Tribunal appeal has been disposed of. That must be a pretty straightforward thing to make happen.
More widely, Ms Young, you have given one case study or example, but I am sure that there are lots of others where, if common sense were to prevail, we could just fix things. Is there a general need for a review of the guidance, advice and information that Social Security Scotland gives out in such circumstances?