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: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. Did you recognise the 6,000 figure? Did that seem familiar to you?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Who specifically might we contact?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Item 2 is the consideration of continued petitions. I should start by offering apologies from two of our colleagues. David Torrance, the deputy convener, and Fergus Ewing are both unwell and not able to be with us. Unfortunately, the Scottish National Party substitute is not available to be with us, either, so there are just three of us considering the petitions this morning. However, our colleagues have obviously received the papers and have had an opportunity to contribute any thinking that they might have to our deliberations.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
That is a fair point. Are we content with following up, keeping the petition open and taking it forward with those further lines of inquiry?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Thank you very much. I know that you are not here to give evidence, but I was going to ask a question about the number of people who might be involved, and you have answered it. I think that you have quantified that at around 6,000.
I suppose that the other potential reason, which you did not volunteer, is that this request has been blended in with other requests for extension to the scheme and, therefore, rather than moving on any, the Government moves on none, in case it is then used as the basis for an argument in another area of extension. I am not arguing that that would be the right thing to do, but I wonder whether that is also in the minds of people who have not taken this issue forward.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
I am happy to include that, as well.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
We could write to the Government asking what the outcome of any of that was. That would be perfectly reasonable, particularly in relation to this point. Is there anything else that we could do?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
The next petition is PE1977, which was lodged by Helen Duncan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law and update the “National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2021” to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children.
We previously considered PE1977 at our meeting on 18 January—although it seems to be fresher in my mind than that; the year has gone in—when we agreed to seek views from a number of stakeholders.
We have received responses from Shared Parenting Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, The Promise Scotland, and CELCIS—Scotland’s Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection. Many of the responses highlight the need for discretion and flexibility in relation to informing parents about welfare concerns, and note that there are some circumstances in which an obligation to inform a father risks undermining efforts to protect the safety and wellbeing of the child or children.
Shared Parenting Scotland suggests that there is already an obligation on social work and other agencies to inform both parents of concerns about their children, and questions why that is not happening in practice.
According to CELCIS, existing legislation and guidance are sufficient to support best practice, and a more effective way to address the issues that are raised by the petition would be through improvements to workforce learning, knowledge and skills in this area.
In light of that, do members have any comments or suggestions?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
That would be useful. In addition, if it is the case that all members of the NatureScot board are appointed through a public appointments process, we might ask the Scottish Government what weight is given to local knowledge in the determination of any appointment that is made. Perhaps, in fact, that does not count and, therefore, the petitioner’s underlying concern about the absence of it might have some validity. Do we agree to keep the petition open and act accordingly?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 20 September 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Yes, we could do three things: ask how many people applied, ask how many were offered places and ask how many took them up, aggregated in five-year increments. We might highlight that we were a bit disappointed with the response, that we take the petition very seriously and that it might well be that we will consider taking evidence on PE1982, before we make recommendations to the Government in relation to funding matters. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.