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 2297 contributions
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee
Meeting date: 26 March 2024
Willie Coffey
Yes. Good morning, everybody. That brings me neatly to my question. Can we have successful community wealth building if, at the same time, there is dereliction and abandonment in our urban environment in particular? All our towns have that problem, and it seems almost impossible—try as I might—to get a change of attitude from owners to the premises that they own.
Local people can have a sense that they own the town or village in which they live, but they do not. The buildings in our towns, villages and so on are usually owned by people who have never gone there and never will, and who probably do not care.
How do we turn that particular problem around? Are there any examples of that with regard to buildings in an urban setting in particular? We could talk all day about the strategies and policies that we need to implement, but the people who live in our towns and villages are still seeing that level of dereliction and abandonment in front of their eyes. I would be grateful for any responses. I have heard from Louise Kirk of some good examples in Ayrshire, but I would be pleased to hear from other colleagues about how they have approached and tackled the problem. Perhaps Rob Davidson can start.
Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee
Meeting date: 26 March 2024
Willie Coffey
Matthew Brown, do you have an interesting experience to share on this issue?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Willie Coffey
Donald, did your organisation know that that type of expenditure had to be approved by the Scottish Government? After all, it was more than ÂŁ20,000.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Willie Coffey
Thank you.
My last question on this is for Roy Brannen. As you know, the committee has over the years engaged on sponsorship issues with regard to the sponsor team, its relationships with public bodies and so on. This hardly stands out as a great example of a successful relationship in that respect, and there are issues that we have come up against time and again. What would you say to the committee and to the public about the nature of that relationship, particularly between you and the body in question? What lessons are being learned about how things have to improve in the future, so that we as an audit committee are not continuing to pick out these problems year after year?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Willie Coffey
On performance, I spoke to NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s chief executive only last week about the specific 31-day target for cancer treatment. She said that the board continues to meet the 95 per cent level, and that it actually reached 100 per cent in November. I do not know whether there is a little discrepancy in the data-gathering period for your report, Auditor General, but that was what she clearly said to me last week.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Willie Coffey
Thank you, convener, and good morning, colleagues.
This meeting is not particularly pleasant. I have been a member of the Parliament—and of the Public Audit Committee, on and off—for 17 years now, and I have to be honest with you and say that this is one of the worst sessions that I have ever participated in.
I have a few questions that I would like to ask Mr Rathjen. On whether the expense was retrospectively approved, you said that, ultimately, it did not make a difference, because it had already been incurred. Why would you do that? Why would you not state your case and say that it was unapproved? You cannot approve something that is clearly not approvable, if you understand my meaning. Why did you not do that? Ultimately, the public would like to know what the difference is between approving something and not approving it. If there is no difference in outcome, what is the point?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Willie Coffey
I will come to the audit in a minute, but what would have happened in Government if you had not approved it? Surely there would be a difference between approving it and not approving it.
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Willie Coffey
Turning to the issue of audit, I note that the issue was picked up by an auditor, but I am not sure whether that was an internal or external audit. Can somebody clarify whether an external or internal auditor picked up this issue?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Willie Coffey
Why was it not picked up by the internal audit team? Is there an internal audit team?
Public Audit Committee
Meeting date: 21 March 2024
Willie Coffey
Did declaring it as an options appraisal somehow give some comfort with regard to making that decision and not seeking approval? It is clearly not a tender process—an options appraisal is not a tender process. Who introduced the notion that it was an options appraisal process and therefore did not need Scottish Government approval?