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 975 contributions
|
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of NHS Highland”
Meeting date: 13 January 2022
Craig Hoy
Thank you.
You have almost read my mind in respect of the next question, but I will seek confirmation from you. You referred to the fact that the Scottish Government provided additional funding of £8.8 million, which was what would have been anticipated through brokerage. Will you confirm that and tell us why the Scottish Government provided the £8.8 million as additional funding, and not brokerage?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of Bòrd na Gàidhlig”
Meeting date: 13 January 2022
Craig Hoy
On recruitment challenges, the first bullet point in the report highlights that
“The Bòrd has amended its policy regarding the recruitment of Gaelic speakers. A post will be advertised twice before the essential skill of Gaelic is reviewed.”
However, the board still includes a requirement for any new staff joining the organisation to commit to learning Gaelic if they are not already Gaelic speakers. That sounds to me to be a very reasonable approach. Do you know whether that has led to any tangible improvements in the board’s recruitment process?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
The question is about skeleton legislation and the delegated legislation that stems from it. Do you think that the increased use of such legislation is consistent with the need for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
Could it not be argued that your somewhat intemperate and bad-tempered response to legitimate questions proves my point that you are not overly happy with parliamentary scrutiny at the moment?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
I have one final question. There is still an underlying concern that Government—in general, perhaps—has used Covid and the pandemic to do what Government often quite likes to do, which is to take decisions free from as much parliamentary scrutiny as it can be. Sir Jonathan Jones QC suggested to us that one solution could be for each and every piece of delegated law to be brought by the minister to the floor of Parliament for even brief consideration and debate. The debate could be for 10 or 15 minutes, given that a lot of it is relatively uncontentious. However, it would mean that that delegated legislation is questioned and subject to scrutiny. Would that not overcome the view that you have something to hide and are running from scrutiny in respect of certain regulations?
11:15Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
Would you concede that it is unhealthy to go down the route of having very broad-brush legislation that, in effect, allows ministers to flesh out that law in regulation, free from the constraints of parliamentary scrutiny?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
The inquiry is looking specifically at the use of the made affirmative procedure, although the committee has general concerns about the wider use of delegated legislation. The fundamental element of the made affirmative procedure is that scrutiny comes after a law is introduced and implemented. What made you determine that there was an emergency situation and that Covid passports would have to be introduced under the made affirmative procedure?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 11 January 2022
Craig Hoy
That was a major change with wide-reaching implications. You had obviously thought about it for a long time and you subsequently delayed the enforcement, so could we not rightly conclude that it was not an emergency?
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?
