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 917 contributions
|
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
I would challenge that by taking up Graham Simpson’s point that that could be perceived as an example of the Government getting into bad lawmaking habits and of legislation being published too late and without due scrutiny. The evidence from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland makes that point, saying that regulations are too often published too late and that
“it was not always clear that such short notice publication was necessary, or that it was not possible for parliamentary scrutiny to take place in advance.”
Is that not a fair criticism?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
One concern is that we must take the Government’s word for it and take you at face value. I am not making a specific point about you; the same criticism has also been levelled at the UK Government for its increased use of the made affirmative procedure.
As an example, the Manchester travel ban came and went before Parliament could reject it, if Parliament had thought that the ban was not sound. It would be interesting to get your reflections on a remark from Lord Lisvane—you might know him from your time at Westminster—who is a former clerk of the House of Commons. In a recent House of Lords debate, he said that
“The real losers”
from the made affirmative process
“are ... citizens”
and business. He said:
“They and ... industry, our national institutions and civil society need to know how the law will be changed, to have the opportunity to comment and make representations, and to know how it will end up applying to them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 January 2022; Vol 817, c 780.]
If we think about the Manchester travel ban, is that a fair comment?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Instruments subject to Made Affirmative Procedure
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
[Inaudible.] I do not want to rehearse the discussion that we have just had with the Deputy First Minister, but I agree with Graham Simpson and Paul Sweeney that the instruments, and the regulations that they bring into effect, would have benefited from scrutiny so that some of the negative unintended consequences would not have occurred.
The justification for bringing in the regulations through the made affirmative route is that, in some cases, the regulations had to be implemented the very next day. However, again, we did not have the justification from the Government for why it had to be the next day and not the next week or 10 days later. On that basis, and given that Parliament was sitting when the regulations were first laid, I support the suggestion from Graham Simpson, and perhaps Paul Sweeney, that the affirmative route would have been the better one to use in the circumstances.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
Just to pick up on that point, our committee finds that a lot of what comes before us is not necessarily contentious, but having that process of scrutiny reassures Parliament and the public that things are not going through that should be subject to a rigorous process of scrutiny.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I welcome you and your officials.
If we can step back from the pandemic for a moment and think in slightly more abstract terms, do you think that the increased use of skeleton legislation and the widespread and now relatively common use of delegated powers within that is consistent with the need for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Craig Hoy
How did the Scottish Government respond to the vote of no confidence? What were your views at the time on the reasons why the board decided to pass that vote of no confidence?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Thank you. Mr Brannen, it would be good to get your view, from a sponsoring and oversight perspective, on the action that has now been taken through the framework agreement, in terms of training and so on. Will that be sufficient to rebuild trust in the commission and to rebuild trust in the relationships between the various parties involved?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Craig Hoy
We seem to be putting quite a lot of store in the training that has been provided to date. How effective has that been in ensuring that staff know what their roles and responsibilities are? How will that be measured in future to ensure that we do not fall back into bad habits?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Like you, I am new—I am a new member of this committee. One of my early impressions is that, when the full glare of the spotlight from the Auditor General and the committee is on a body, we can get quite a quick turnaround in relation to certain practices—and, potentially, outcomes.
In the longer term, how do you perceive your role and the Scottish Government’s role in monitoring implementation of the audit recommendations, and how will you ensure that concerns are being addressed effectively, not just now but in the future?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Good morning, Mr Brannen, Mr Kerr and Mr Scott.
At the outset, and for the record, I wonder whether you would like to give us a flavour of the Scottish Government’s views on why the leadership and governance arrangements at the commission broke down in 2020-21 after a period of apparent stability.
A fortnight ago, we heard from the chief executive and the board that they thought it was in large part because of the change in circumstances due to Covid, but I am not sure that we necessarily took much assurance from that that there was not a latent dysfunctionality. It would be good to get your impression of why those arrangements, in effect, broke down.
