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 成人快手 and committees will automatically update to show only the 成人快手 and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of 成人快手 and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of 成人快手 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 1200 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 25 January 2024
Liz Smith
I understand why those economic benefits are so important, which is why I am asking the question. If the bill is to be successful, it is essential that those who are scrutinising it can see what those economic benefits are projected to be. You seem to be suggesting that, even at the initial stages of the bill, there was no calculation of what you think its economic benefit would be to society. It seems as though you are still working on those costs.
My point is twofold. First, appreciating what the benefits will be will help us to understand how those might allay some of our concerns about potential costs. Secondly, if co-design is on-going鈥攁s your officials and you have said that it is鈥攊t is quite difficult for us to understand what the potential costs of that will be in the future, never mind just now. You have said that there are a number of things that you are still working on, such as costs related to carers. Do you accept that it is very difficult for us to scrutinise the longer-term costs of the bill in relation to your projected economic benefits? The data for both those things does not seem to be particularly complete.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 25 January 2024
Liz Smith
That does not give me much confidence that we know what the national care board will be like. Accountability is essential. We absolutely need to know the make-up of the national care board and where accountability will lie. As I understand it, one of the big changes between the first and second iterations of your thinking about the bill is the change from having 32 different boards to having one national care board.
I will leave it there.
SF
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 25 January 2024
Liz Smith
In an answer to the convener, you said that you are absolutely certain that the economic benefits resulting from the bill will be far reaching, and that that will be important for delivering the care that you want to deliver in that better social care will improve people鈥檚 wellbeing, among other things. Did the Scottish Government measure what you considered the likely economic benefits would be in the previous iteration of the bill鈥檚 financial memorandum? Have you measured what you think those benefits will be from the planned changes to the bill?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 25 January 2024
Liz Smith
I understand that the principles are the same and that you have changed the mechanism for the delivery of those principles. My point, and what the committee is interested to know, is: if we want to scrutinise the new financial memorandum and the related costs of the bill, it is essential for us to understand what the costs will be鈥攃osts in a financial memorandum cannot be exact, but they can be well estimated鈥攁nd the economic benefits that will be forthcoming from the bill. At the moment, it seems that we do not have any certainty about that at all, so it is very difficult for the committee.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 25 January 2024
Liz Smith
I have one final question. Where are we with the format for the national care board?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 23 January 2024
Liz Smith
I want to pursue co-design issues and the implications for costs, which are the central concern for the committee. I would like a bit of clarity, please. You said in an answer to the convener that there has been considerable co-design over the past nine months. That takes us back to April 2023. Can you make it clear whether co-design was on-going before then? When did the co-design start?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 23 January 2024
Liz Smith
Did the substantial changes that have been made to the bill in respect of no transfers of staff and assets to local authorities and no new care board plans result from your co-design discussions since spring last year?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 23 January 2024
Liz Smith
Why was that not possible, given that co-design was on-going before? If people were advising those changes, why did the Scottish Government not respond to that at an earlier point?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 23 January 2024
Liz Smith
The committee鈥檚 concern is to assess that with more certainty. As the convener said in his questions, we need much greater clarity about the nature of the costs that will be involved in implementing the bill. That is the central issue. There might be lots of good things about it鈥擨 am not taking sides on whether it is good or bad鈥攂ut the principal role of the committee is to understand what the future costs will be and, therefore, how accurate the new financial memorandum is. We have considerable difficulty with that because of the uncertainty that is unfolding from quite a lot of your answers this morning. We simply do not know some of those things. Do you accept that?
11:00Finance and Public Administration Committee
Meeting date: 23 January 2024
Liz Smith
Did that decision to re-engage largely come from concerns over costs, or did other factors require that re-engagement?