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 1578 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2023
Jamie Greene
I was referring to the letter from the cabinet secretary, at the third substantive paragraph on page 3 in our papers. It states:
“Each Health Board is providing access to a mental health clinician, accessible to police officers, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week”.
I presume that that means that each board is currently providing access—that is what the letter implies. That apparent 24/7 provision is a surprise to me. The feedback is very much that that is not the case out of hours, that police officers must deal with mental health assessments and that there is not 24/7 access to mental health clinicians for every officer. I find it difficult to believe the claim that every health board is currently providing a 24/7 mental health clinician service. If it is true, that is welcome, but we could perhaps benefit from more detail on that.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 7 June 2023
Jamie Greene
I want to comment on that second level. Obviously, the SPF has seen the draft—I presume that it is a draft—of the constitution that has been published. It has made specific comments as to the content of a number of paragraphs—3, 9, 37, 42, 43, 44 and 45. To go back to my original question, will there be scope for the constitution to be amended prior to being finalised?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 7 June 2023
Jamie Greene
Does the Government have any override function, in terms of decisions that are made?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 7 June 2023
Jamie Greene
Yes. Specifically on that, although the letter from the SPF is a matter of public record, it is worth saying on the record that the SPF feedback on section 37 of the constitution states:
“There seems to be scope for either of the Sides to prevent such a matter going to arbitration or for the Chairperson to decide not to refer a matter to arbitration and this could lead to a deadlock.”
On section 42, the SPF states:
“It is hard to envisage the Board failing to make recommendations based on an arbitration award. It seems to open the door for either Side to delay or block a PNB agreement based on an arbitration award and this would be highly unsatisfactory.”
I guess that I am looking for feedback on that.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 7 June 2023
Jamie Greene
Thank you for that clarity.
Finally, what role would the Scottish ministers play in any of these proceedings?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 7 June 2023
Jamie Greene
You supply the resource budget, so you have to sign off the cheque.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 7 June 2023
Jamie Greene
Good morning, cabinet secretary and other guests.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 7 June 2023
Jamie Greene
I apologise if I have not explained myself properly. I just want to ensure that the very specific comments that the SPF has made will be taken into account by the PNBS as it finalises the wording of the constitution.
10:15Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 7 June 2023
Jamie Greene
Yes, it would. In doing so, perhaps the officials could refer to the issues that the SPF has raised. It has clearly pre-empted scenarios that might be problematic and that it feels need to be addressed to avoid any future deadlock.