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 3582 contributions
|
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
And which can be closed in a national pandemic, aside from anything else.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
I fully agree with Fergus Ewing. The petition is, at heart, about the introduction of reusable metal bottles through some method. I would have thought that the minister would be keen on that, as it would alleviate the pressures of implementing of her deposit return scheme if young people were not contributing to the situation and were able to adopt reusable facilities as an alternative.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Are members happy to accommodate that proposal, too?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
The first new petition is PE1998, on ending legal loopholes for the monarchy. The petition has been lodged by Tristan Gray on behalf of Our Republic and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to abolish adaptations and exemptions to legislation requested by the monarchy; to ensure that all future communications between the monarch, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament with representatives of the monarchy are fully transparent and public; to publish details of all cases where laws have been adapted at the request of the monarchy; and to prevent any such alterations to our laws from being implemented in the future.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that
“seeking Crown consent is a requirement under the Scotland Act 1998”
and that it is required
“to follow the same rules that apply to UK Bills when it comes to seeking consent from the Royal Household.”
I should also say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the 1998 act is outwith the responsibility of this Parliament.
On the issue of sharing correspondence between the monarchy, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, the response notes the importance of confidentiality in order
“to hold free and frank discussions”.
The Scottish Government also states that it
“does not record how Bills have changed as they have been developed or where stakeholders have queried aspects of that legislation”
—at all, I would presume.
Do members have any questions or suggestions in view of that directive response from the Scottish Government?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
PE2000, which has been lodged by Dr Marie Oldfield, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that universities are held accountable to students under consumer protection law by extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or by creating a new body, similar to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, to enable students to access redress without the need for court action.
Members will be aware that a similar petition—PE1769—was considered by our predecessor committee in the previous parliamentary session. It was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had no plans to seek to extend the SPSO’s existing powers and that the Scottish Funding Council had stated that there was no evidence that the current approach had not been effective in protecting the interests and rights of students.
In its response to this new petition, the Scottish Government highlights that higher education institutions are “autonomous bodies” with their
“own arrangements for handling complaints from students”
and that
“Any individual who is not satisfied with the outcome of the”
university’s
“complaints process may refer the issue to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman”.
As noted in response to the previous petition, the remit of the SPSO does not apply to matters of academic judgment.
The briefing that we have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre also notes that consumer protection legislation remains a reserved matter, with the Scottish Government highlighting that Scottish ministers have no power to legislate on the
“redress and enforcement aspects of consumer protection”.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner. In it, Dr Oldfield calls for the consideration of
“a more joined up approach from existing bodies”,
including the SPSO and the Quality Assurance Agency, and also raises concerns about the policy and decision-making processes of those bodies.
Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might take matters forward?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
I am quite keen to hear those views.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
That is perfectly reasonable. Are colleagues agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Are colleagues content?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
It does seem ridiculous that an individual in such circumstances should have contacted 100 people only to receive 100 rebuffs as he tried to access justice. It is an important petition, and we will take it forward.
That is the final new petition this morning, so I now close the meeting. We will meet again on Wednesday 3 May.
11:37 Meeting continued in private until 11:46.Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 19 April 2023
Jackson Carlaw
PE2001, which has been lodged by E Phillips on behalf of Safeguarding Our Schools Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to withdraw the “Supporting transgender young people in schools: guidance for Scottish schools” resource and await the outcome of the Cass review before developing a new resource.
In her response to the petition, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Shirley-Ann Somerville, stated that:
“Development of the guidance for schools was informed by key stakeholder groups, including LGBT organisations, women’s groups, education organisations and teaching unions.”
The cabinet secretary also suggested that,
“It is wrong to claim that the guidance recommends that young people are encouraged to socially transition.”
Her response notes that,
“the Cass Review ... only extends to current and future services offered by NHS England”,
but she states that,
“The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland will closely consider the ongoing findings of the ... Review within the context of NHS Scotland services”.
The committee has also received a submission from the petitioner that highlights that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is reviewing its technical guidance for schools with regard to evolving policy on issues of gender identity. The petitioner also raises concerns about the statistics that are used in the Scottish Government’s guidance and the organisations that are signposted as part of the guidance, as well as highlighting an impact statement from a parent with personal experience of how the guidance subsequently impacted on their family.
The petition raises some important issues. Do members have any suggestions as to how we might seek to proceed?
As there are no suggestions from members, I am minded to suggest that we write to some stakeholders who would be able to help inform our understanding, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland and LGBT Youth Scotland. Are there any other suggestions from colleagues to add to that list?
