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 3584 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Jackson Carlaw
I am sure that colleagues would be happy to include the latter and to reflect on the former.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Jackson Carlaw
To summarise, we are taking a decision in principle to close the petition, but we are deferring the taking of a formal decision until the regulations are introduced, or at least until we are told that regulations will be introduced, at which point we will either close the petition or inquire why the regulations have not been introduced.
Does that meet with members’ approval?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Jackson Carlaw
I thank the petitioner, but, for the reasons stated, I hope that they will understand the limit on how we can proceed.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Jackson Carlaw
I am particularly interested in Mr Choudhury’s suggestion in relation to the Care Inspectorate, which I think is quite right. “Adequate and suitable” is very vague terminology, and I would have thought that it is certainly not a benchmark against which any definable standard introduction could be monitored.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 April 2024
Jackson Carlaw
We will close the petition. Unfortunately from the petitioner’s point of view, we have to have a realistic expectation of taking matters forward, and the Government advice is very clear in relation to vaccinations and the empirical evidence basis for them.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 March 2024
Jackson Carlaw
Fergus Ewing mentioned his association with you over 25 years. Have you seen a change in the centres of gravity in organisations such as NatureScot in the time that you have been engaging with them?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 March 2024
Jackson Carlaw
You said that you were in Teesdale yesterday. I have visited Teesdale and I seem to recollect that it is renowned for its waterfalls. Am I in the right place?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 March 2024
Jackson Carlaw
PE1952, which was lodged by Jane Clarke, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland’s NHS to form specialist services, training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction, or dysautonomia. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 May 2023.
A recent submission from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health highlights the results of a questionnaire to a sample of general practices, which included questions on the clinical guideline “Managing the long-term effects of COVID-19”. The survey found that 60 per cent of responding practices were aware of the guideline and 25 per cent were aware of the implementation support note. The content of the implementation support note is being reviewed and updated.
The University of Leeds has been contracted to support the initial evaluation of long Covid services in Scotland. That work will provide an analysis of demand and capacity and of longer-term outcomes for patients, and will compare differences in service models where possible.
The petitioner has stressed that the petition concerns all patients with dysautonomia and not just those with long Covid. She notes that there are no specialist autonomic clinics in Scotland and that cardiology consultants have told PoTS UK that they do not have the expertise to manage patients with dysautonomia. The petitioner welcomes the training resources that are available to healthcare professionals but would like to make it clear that those are not a suitable substitution for specialist services.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 March 2024
Jackson Carlaw
If there no other suggestions, are we content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 6 March 2024
Jackson Carlaw
PE1967, on protecting Loch Lomond’s Atlantic oakwood shoreline by implementing the high road option for the A82 upgrade between Tarbet and Inverarnan, was lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensburgh and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade of the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan, and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges-based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance.
When we last considered this petition at our meeting on 17 May 2023, we agreed to write to the Minister for Transport, and we also looked at the suggestion made by Jackie Baillie, who joined us at that time, with regard to options for a site visit. We have received a response from the then minister and now Cabinet Secretary for Transport, which refers to previous submissions setting out the development and assessment of the A82 Tarbet to Inverarnan scheme, and the Scottish Government’s view that the STAG-compliant assessment has already been completed. The minister states that the Government is not willing to carry out a reappraisal of its preferred route option, as that would repeat work already carried out and would likely lead to considerable delay and additional costs. The minister also notes that Transport Scotland has considered the alternative option put forward by the petitioner, with the Government not considering it as a viable alternative to its preferred option.
The petitioner has commented that the minister’s response does not add anything new to the evidence that we have gathered so far, and notes that both route options pose considerable engineering and environmental issues, with the Scottish Government’s preferred option requiring the extension of viaducts affecting the tree line and wildlife along the banks of Loch Lomond. However, the petitioner does welcome the minister’s assurance that stakeholders will have an opportunity to make formal comment or objection during the statutory consultation period and offers once again to facilitate a visit to the site. The committee has also received a submission from Stuart Cordner in support of the petition, which shares concerns about the likely impact of the low road option on local tourist businesses.
I am not certain that a site visit would assist us, given the fairly strong direction that we have received from the Scottish Government. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?
10:15