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 942 contributions
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
Do you have a view on whether the criteria that are being recommended by the working group should be narrower?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
I am sure that my colleagues will have questions on those issues.
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
Yes, that is right.
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
Do you have a view on the criteria for the mental health moratorium? The working group recommends that it should apply only to those who are subject to compulsory mental health treatment. Do you think that that is too narrow?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
Alisdair MacPherson, do you have a view on that?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
Good morning, panel. I will kick off with questions on the mental health moratorium, starting with ones on the mental health moratorium working group’s recommendations for eligibility criteria. The group has recommended that only people who are subject to compulsory mental health treatment should be eligible for the moratorium. That is quite a narrow definition—narrower than the criteria in England and Wales, which cover non-compulsory crisis treatment. Do the witnesses have a view on that recommendation by the working group? If you do not agree with it, what do you think the eligibility criteria should be?
Katie McLachlan, you mentioned the moratorium in your opening comments, so do you want to start the ball rolling?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
You have strayed into my second question, so I am just going to go for it now. The six-month period was extended from six weeks. Do you think that that should be changed now? Presumably, based on what you are saying, the two are connected, so should the mental health moratorium period be the same as the standard moratorium period? What should that period be? The six-month period has been in place for some time, and a number of respondents to our call for evidence said that the mental health moratorium should be six months, while others said that that was too long. Do you have a view on that?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
That is very helpful.
Barry Mochan, you mentioned the six-month period in your previous comments. Do you have a view on what the period should be for the mental health moratorium, and on the eligibility criteria? The working group’s recommendation is that it should only apply to those who are subject to compulsory mental health treatment. Is that the right criteria?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 13 September 2023
Colin Smyth
At the moment, in England, the criteria are slightly wider than what is proposed here. Is there any suggestion that that does not work?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Meeting date: 28 June 2023
Colin Smyth
I will make one final point. You have raised the issue of recruitment several times. Am I correct in saying that the pay deal now means that new starts all get paid about 20 per cent less than existing staff and that, for example, new starts lose their allowance for lunch—they do not get paid over lunch? Is it the case that the terms and conditions for new starts will be inferior to those of existing staff? If so, that has, I presume, had an impact on retention and recruitment.