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 MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs 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 759 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 20 December 2022
Tess White
Minister, I welcome the fact that you have said that you are being open and transparent. The adult social care independent review that was published yesterday does not mention your desire to improve maternity benefits for social care staff. If it is so important to you, why has it not been mentioned, and why has it not been costed? Is it on top of the £1.3 billion estimate for the NCS?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 20 December 2022
Tess White
I want to press you on that point, minister. We have heard that one of the current staffing issues is that social carers cannot be recruited, partly because of the 45p mileage rate. Carers are looking for mileage rates equivalent to 65p. The difference between 45p and 65p might seem small to you, minister, but to many carers that could make the difference between surviving in a job and not surviving. Harmonising the mileage rates would cost millions of pounds. You might say, “We are not going to do it and we are not going to think about it” and talk about TUPE legislation and all that sort of thing, but just thinking in terms of fairness, if someone is working and doing the same job as someone else and they are on 45p per mile and the other person is on 65p per mile, that could lead to employee relations issues and industrial unrest. Do you have any comment on that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 20 December 2022
Tess White
The convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Kenneth Gibson, said that, with the bill, it seems that the Government is
“using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 25 October 2022, c 24.]
With members of your party and the finance committee raising concerns about the spending in relation to the bill, how can you possibly justify the costs? I thought that it was £1.3 billion, but you actually said this morning that it is £1.4 billion, and that is not including terms and conditions of employment and benefits. Some even say that the bill is an open cheque book.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 20 December 2022
Tess White
I ask this question wearing three hats: as a member of the committee; as a representative of a largely rural area; and as a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development with experience of legislation such as the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—TUPE.
Have you considered the cost of harmonising the terms and conditions? I accept your saying that not all the 74,000 employees will transition under TUPE, but a large chunk of them could. Even increasing mileage rates from 45p a mile to 65p a mile—that figure was given to us by some witnesses—will cost millions of pounds, not to mention harmonising sickness and pension benefits, which will go into the billions. Are you really serious about wanting to transition to a central service—referring to what you said in your opening remarks—or are the proposals a power grab, plain and simple, to centralise services with a view to taking budgets away from local councils?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2022
Tess White
You have said that palliative and end-of-life care is a big omission, and you have argued that people approaching the end of life are, by far, the biggest single group of people who receive social care. It would be helpful if you could comment further on that.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2022
Tess White
That is alarming.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2022
Tess White
I have just one key question, which is for Mark Hazelwood. The SPPC has said that the bill’s principles do not take into account people who still need care but who have no hope or expectation of a cure. If the issue is not addressed, what consequences will that, in your opinion, have for those patients?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2022
Tess White
I have a question for Dr Manji and Cathie Russell. Is there a lack of ambition in the implementation of Anne’s law? Are you satisfied with the pace of change?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2022
Tess White
It may have been my interpretation, so that is really helpful; thank you.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 5 December 2022
Tess White
My question is for Andy Miller. The SCLD has said that some areas of the bill
“are within the scope for co-design, while other areas are not.”
What areas do you feel are not subject to co-design?