Official Report: search what was said in Parliament
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.
Searching by different views
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
- Report: this is the whole Official Report for a particular meeting of a committee or Parliament
- Item of business: this is each individual agenda item in an Official Report. For example, Portfolio Questions would be the item of business in a Meeting of the Parliament report
- Contribution: this is each time someone has made a spoken contribution to a meeting.
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.
Search by MSP
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.
Searching by keyword
There are two types of keyword search:
- A keyword search without quotation marks will look for every instance of each word used and rank the results by frequency and proximity. It will also include variants of the keywords using “porter stemming”. This is when the search looks for the “stem” of a word regardless of its ending. So, for example, a search for [salmon farm] will return each instance of “salmon” and each instance of “farm” as well as potentially including results for “farms”, “farmed” and “farming”.
- A keyword search with quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase used. So, for example, a search for “salmon farm” in quotation marks will only return instances of that exact phrase.
Combining search filters
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.
More complex keyword searches
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
- a search for “salmon farm” AND “Loch Lomond” will return only results which include both exact phrases
- a search for “salmon farm” NOT “Loch Lomond” will return results for “salmon farm” but exclude results which also include “Loch Lomond”
- a search for “salmon farm” OR “Loch Lomond” will return all results for “salmon farm” and all results for “Loch Lomond” regardless of whether they appear together
Searching by date
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:
- Current session (all Official Reports since the current sessions started)
- Last 6 months
- Last 12 months
- each of the previous sessions of Parliament. (Selecting the information icon above the “Select a time period” menu will give you the exact dates for each session.)
- All sessions
- You can also choose to select a custom date range, although adding a Start or End date will mean the search automatically defaults to this option.
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.
Filter your results Hide all filters
Displaying 1386 contributions
|
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Siobhian Brown
The Scottish Government welcomes the CMA’s report and is grateful for its engagement with officials and the Scottish market in its investigation. It is a substantial report. Ministers and officials are considering the recommendations and will respond fully in due course. The suite of recommendations extends over a few ministerial portfolios and the impact of each recommendation needs to be considered in the wider context.
I understand that the Minister for Housing considers that it would be useful, while examining the findings and the recommendations of the CMA, to add more voices to the discussion, and he might include them in the proposed round-table session with property factors. It is under consideration.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Siobhian Brown
That has not been made clear to me, but, as I said, the Minister for Housing is looking into it. We can perhaps write to the committee on that.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Siobhian Brown
I am not aware of that number; I do not know whether any of my officials have it. We might have to write back to the committee with those details.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Siobhian Brown
Yes, absolutely. One of the things that I can do, which I take away from this evidence session, is to speak with the Minister for Housing, because if he is going to have a round-table session to examine the recommendations from the CMA report, that consideration could be intertwined with that.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 19 February 2025
Siobhian Brown
I will pass over to Jill Clark, who has been involved in the design of it.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Siobhian Brown
I agree with Ms White that post-legislative scrutiny is vital. On amendment 637, I am happy to continue to engage on a review mechanism. However, as Ms White stated, I retain concerns that the time period refers to royal assent rather than commencement. I will, of course, seek to swiftly commence the legislation if it is agreed by the Parliament, but the Scottish Government wishes to work collaboratively with stakeholders, as it has done throughout the progression of the reforms, to ensure that all the prerequisites are in place. To ensure that any review provides an accurate reflection and is more meaningful, I consider that basing the time period on commencement would present a stronger, more developed position. I urge Ms White not to press her amendment in the group. If she presses it, I urge members not to support it.
11:45Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Siobhian Brown
Amendments 452 and 453 are minor technical amendments to section 32 of the 1980 act. The effect of amendment 454 will be that section 33 of the 1980 act, which is entitled “Unqualified persons not entitled to fees, etc”, will continue to apply to law centres, citizens advice bodies and charities. I ask members to support the amendments in the group.
I move amendment 452.
Amendment 452 agreed to.
Amendments 453 and 454 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 81, as amended, agreed to.
Section 82—Offence of taking or using the title of lawyer
Amendment 455 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 82, as amended, agreed to.
Section 83—Offence of pretending to be a regulated legal services provider
Amendment 456 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 83, as amended, agreed to.
Section 84—Offence of pretending to be a member of Faculty of Advocates
Amendment 457 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 84, as amended, agreed to.
Section 85 agreed to.
Section 86—Power of the Scottish Ministers to adjust restricted legal services
Amendment 458 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 86, as amended, agreed to.
After section 86
Amendment 459 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Siobhian Brown
I reaffirm what I said when amendment 638 was debated last week. Following engagement with Tess White, I am content to support the provisions in the amendment. We might have to revisit it at stage 3 to ensure that the revised provisions will work fully with the wider legislation, and I look forward to engaging with Tess White further on that. The Government is willing to support her amendment 638. Accordingly, I will withdraw amendment 508.
Amendment 638 agreed to.
Amendment 639 moved—[Paul O’Kane]—and agreed to.
Section 87—Modification of other enactments
Amendment 460 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 87, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3—Minor and consequential modifications of enactments
Amendments 461 to 467 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Siobhian Brown
I assure Ms Chapman that I will be very happy to discuss that further in advance of stage 3.
Amendment 468 agreed to.
Amendments 469 to 472 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.
Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]
Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Siobhian Brown
Paul O’Kane’s amendments in the group would place back in statute a requirement for the SLCC to determine whether a complaint was
“frivolous, vexatious or without merit”
before it could investigate a complaint. Placing in statute the eligibility process can make the process more time consuming for both the complainer and the legal practitioner, and it can have the effect of delaying a clearly serious complaint from being investigated swiftly, as the SLCC must proceed through the initial statutory stages or tests of assessing the complaint before an investigation can commence.
All that takes place simply to assess whether a case can be accepted by the SLCC as a complaint to be looked at—something that, in many complaints bodies, is a low-level administrative decision. As a comparison, in England and Wales, under the Legal Services Act 2007, the legal ombudsman is simply required, in relation to a complaint, to determine
“in the opinion of the ombudsman making the determination”
what is
“fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.”
The bill retains categorisation of conduct and service complaints, as that determines who will investigate the matter. The bill will also allow the SLCC to consider whether a complaint is not eligible, according to rules that it sets, or has been made prematurely, and it will provide greater flexibility to the SLCC to make rules about complaints that are considered to be frivolous, vexatious or without merit. That approach is supported by the SLCC, and it will allow for a more proportionate and swifter consideration of legal complaints, including whether they are frivolous, vexatious or without merit. Ensuring that eligibility decisions involve a quick sift is essential in providing a prompt resolution that benefits both consumers and practitioners.
Amendment 316, in my name, is a consequential amendment in the light of other changes being made to the bill. It removes section 4(4)(b) of the 2007 act as a consequence of the removal of section 2(4) of that act, which prescribes the preliminary steps to be taken by the SLCC in making an eligibility decision.
The improvements that are proposed in the bill and in my amendments would allow the SLCC to operate a flexible and agile complaints process that allowed a proportionate approach to be taken to different types of complaint.
