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 502 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
I want to ask about disqualification, particularly in the context of the sex offender notification requirements that you touched on in your opening statement. The committee has considered that area and, to me, there is clear reason to act in it. However, I want to understand how disqualification would work in practice and what the Government’s thinking on it is.
It was previously indicated that disqualification was being proposed where an individual was subject to the sex offender notification requirements. The committee understands that to mean where an individual had been convicted of certain offences and was required to appear on the sex offenders register. Your recent letter to the committee mentions people being subject to the sex offender notification requirements where there is no conviction, but there is a relevant order. Can you explain the difference in those categories and say a bit more about your latest thinking on what would trigger disqualification?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
—to self-declare on a range of issues that might prevent them from putting themselves forward. My understanding is that, if a person goes into the process, their nomination is open to challenge. During the election window, people could bring to light information that would potentially disqualify a nominated candidate. Therefore, it is important to have clear rules on that. Have you considered that circumstance? Is it your view that such individuals should be blocked from candidacy, as well as being disqualified if elected?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
That is different from being consulted, is it not? I would expect politicians, the Government and elected representatives—a wide range of stakeholders—to be consulted on changes, plans and ideas, but when some stakeholders are given the chance to make formal statements that have to be given due regard, that feels a bit different to me.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
I will leave it there for now, convener.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
It is on the current tactile voting device. Would it not offer reassurance to some people to say that those will continue to be available until the other options are developed? I do not understand why that is difficult. We all accept that better things are available, but people are legitimately concerned that something that they are used to using is to be taken away. Would that not be quite easy to do?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
I was going to come on to the point that, in our current system, the responsibility is placed on the candidate—
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
I want to go back to the point about priority statements. Are you not concerned that, whether it is the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government, if politicians are seen to be making statements, particularly with regard to some of the pilot areas and other bits and pieces, it would call into question the democratic legitimacy of the board or the things that it is planning? I worry about the stolen-election type of stuff. Colleagues have come to the committee and talked about randomised ballot papers and other quite novel electoral provisions. You could have candidates or, potentially, political parties saying that they had been disadvantaged or cheated. Do you not think that we could get into that kind of space? Would it not be better to keep it completely separate from politicians?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
But you would recognise that there is a difference between concerns being raised in the way that you are describing and formal statements being made that either set out a definitive position or collate views in a definitive way. I think that that ups the question of how seriously an independent body would be expected to take those things into account.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
The devices exist and electoral staff are used to using them. I just think that it would not do any harm and it might give people confidence, which I have, in what you are saying—namely, that they will not be disenfranchised in the short term.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 5 September 2024
Oliver Mundell
That is helpful. One of my concerns is that returning officers in different authorities could have to interpret very complicated circumstances. It is imperative that the rules are clear.
I will move on. I am minded to agree with the position that you have set out, but are you confident that it will meet legal proportionality tests, particularly given that some individuals can be subject to such requirements indefinitely? Are you confident that, in setting that threshold, it is legally proportionate?