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 1210 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 3 November 2021
Paul Sweeney
I think that the petitioner’s intent is sound, especially given the tragic incidents that occurred over the summer. A significant number of deaths could have been prevented if people had had proper education in swimming. We underestimate the impact that swimming lessons have as a life-saving measure. The need to learn to swim is often framed in the context of sport or physical education, rather than being highlighted as a critical life-saving measure.
I note that the SPICe paper indicates that the Scottish Government does not hold data on how many schools provide swimming lessons as part of the curriculum on a voluntary basis or as an integrated part of the physical education curriculum. I would be interested in the committee gathering from local authorities information on their provision in that regard, which we could use as a basis for considering what further action to take, if colleagues are minded to agree with that suggestion.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 3 November 2021
Paul Sweeney
The petition is another example of the injustice that council tax creates for many people. One of the big problems with council tax is that it is regressive. There are many debates that we could have—I am sure that there have been such debates in the Parliament over the past 20 years or so—about reform and replacement of the council tax, which lingers on.
I understand that there will be a debate in Parliament tomorrow on reform of social security in Scotland. That is a major part of how we deal with council tax, because the onus is on the individual to seek a reduction, but it is often the case that people are not aware of how to do that. Also, there are huge lags in efficiency in how that adjustment is made. That can result in financial distress, which is compounded by the litigious approach of councils. We should review how things are done.
Reforms could be made in light of the Scotland Act 2016, which devolved social security powers. We could respecify social security and design new interfaces so that, when someone claims any benefit, an automatic communication triggers a council tax reduction. It is not beyond the wit of man, or of our current infrastructure, to design such measures.
The issue is ripe for discussion and debate, and the petition is timely. I am keen that we gather submissions from COSLA and Social Security Scotland about how to design the system to interact with and improve the efficiency of council tax. Even though the tax is fundamentally flawed, we can at least help to make it a bit better.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 3 November 2021
Paul Sweeney
I share the sentiments that have been expressed. The petition highlights an area where Covid economic resilience measures were put in place very rapidly. Because of the pace at which things had to move, the measures were somewhat blunt in their design and, as a result, key parts of the industry that were affected fell through the cracks. The petition provides a good example of an area where we need to respond clearly with countermeasures.
We will all want to avoid the pandemic causing economic scarring and permanent financial distress, so I think that a retrospective scheme of assistance for people who have been dealing with financial detriment over a long period of time—the past year—would be a worthwhile endeavour. I therefore recommend that we contact industry representatives to gather more evidence on and their responses to the petition, and that we see whether we can collaborate with the Scottish Government and the economic development agencies, such as Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, on designing a scheme to assist people who have obviously suffered significant detriment and are continuing to face severe financial hardship.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 3 November 2021
Paul Sweeney
The sentiments of the petition are well founded. In recent years, we have seen a number of alarming and distressing incidents of war memorials being desecrated in Scotland. It is certainly worth while reviewing the measures and protocols in the light of such incidents, so it might be appropriate to keep the petition open to allow for further submissions.
It might be appropriate to ask the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for its views on the protocols that are in place across the country for maintaining war memorials and ensuring that they are kept in good order. Consideration could be given to whether any improvements could be made, instead of introducing new legislation, given the Scottish Government’s position. A member might also want to consider introducing a member’s bill on the matter.
At this stage, it might be appropriate to keep the petition open to at least allow for further submissions.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 October 2021
Paul Sweeney
Yes, convener. I am pleased to hear about the minister’s ethos of continuous improvement, but one of the themes that has recurred in this morning’s evidence-taking is the power imbalance that service users often experience. Could there be a mechanism for people to report any good practice or exceptional activity that they have experienced? Such practice could, in turn, be fed in to the system so that it can be learned from and then introduced across the board. In short, service users could help inform this sort of thing. Perhaps it happens already, but given what we have been discussing, allowing service users to illustrate where good things are happening might be helpful as a pointer in setting standards of excellence and could be considered ahead of the new legislation being introduced.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 October 2021
Paul Sweeney
I wonder whether it would be worth our seeking an opinion from the Lord Advocate on the matter.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 October 2021
Paul Sweeney
Following on from those points, I noted that the petitioner highlighted the work of surgeons at the Shouldice hospital, who are pioneering alternative treatments in natural tissue repair. There have been interesting outcomes from that technique and the study of the technique. What is your view of it? What are we doing to train surgeons in Scotland in it? Are we developing a critical mass of knowledge, so that we can use it as an alternative means of treatment?
I am conscious of the significant inertia in the medical profession in relation to the use of mesh. The technique is long established and has been normalised in Scotland, so trying to move away from it is bound to meet with some resistance. Are there better ways to embed and build up alternative, pioneering techniques?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 October 2021
Paul Sweeney
I think so. I just note that it is interesting that the onus seems to be on the patient to demand an alternative. That goes back to the issue about the power imbalance when it comes to knowledge and the need for people to be quite robust in their challenges. I wonder whether that is a potential concern.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 October 2021
Paul Sweeney
I thank the minister for helpfully outlining the Government’s intentions. One thing that I noted in the petition and the background reading was the reference to the independent review, which reported to ministers in December 2019. A key finding of that review was that the current legislation was indirectly discriminatory towards autistic people. I welcome the fact that new legislation is in the pipeline, but in the meantime it is important that we consider what actions you as minister might take to protect the human rights of autistic people until that new legislation can kick in, given that that will obviously take quite some time.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 October 2021
Paul Sweeney
I agree that an evidence-led approach is critical, and I concur with colleagues that the routes of research that have been identified and proposed are appropriate, and I support our taking those actions.