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: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
I want to follow up on one point with Dr Neal. You referred—as did Nicola Murray in her evidence—to the fact that Scotland stands alone in this regard, and that there is a far higher level of protection in law, or at least an offence that can be pursued in law, elsewhere in the United Kingdom. What impact has that had on the way in which such matters are pursued or on their incidence elsewhere in the UK? Let us establish and agree that such matters sit apart and that there is a separate offence that can, therefore, be pursued in that way. What has been the impact of that legislation in those jurisdictions?
09:30Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
This is a general question, but would you say that that has led to a different kind of sentencing?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Thank you, Monica. You said that the report is 900 pages long—that is almost as big as the number of days on the waiting list. It occurred to me that Parliament will potentially have dissolved before some people are at the top of that waiting list. It is getting close to 2026 before people will be seen, which is an indication of the scale of the issue.
Before we close, does Karen McKeown want to say anything in conclusion?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Thank you. That has been helpful. We have covered quite a lot of ground, and we understand where you would like to see us move in relation to that. Monica, would you like to contribute?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Have charges led to successful convictions in Northern Ireland and England under the specific provisions of those acts?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Paul Sweeney, who is online, will ask a couple of questions.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
I will let you respond in a moment, Dr Neal, but I should also say that a members’ bill is often the catalyst that leads to the Government adopting a proposal. It is difficult to quantify the success of members’ bill because, on quite a few occasions, the objective has been achieved because the bill has led to the Government understanding and adopting the issue rather than because the bill itself has passed into law.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. The first is PE1949, which was lodged by Alexander James Dickson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules regarding dual mandate MSPs and to legislate to bring those rules in line with the Senedd and Stormont by preventing MSPs from holding a dual mandate in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2026.
The petitioner has reminded us that, since the formation of the Scottish Parliament, MSPs have been allowed to take their place at Holyrood, while retaining a role or having a dual mandate in other local or national levels of Government. He notes that members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not permitted to have a dual mandate and members of the Welsh Parliament have a grace period of eight days to resign if they also hold a seat as an MP. He also states that Welsh Parliament members who are peers would have to take a leave of absence from the House of Lords and that those who hold a role as a regional councillor can remain in post so long as the expected day of the next regional election is within 372 days.
As we do with all new petitions, the committee requested an initial view from the Scottish Government. In responding to the request, it stated:
“the Parliament is responsible for all matters relevant to its internal operation, including the terms for seeking its membership.”
Therefore, the issue is not a matter for the Scottish Government per se.
Are colleagues content for the committee to write to the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to inquire about the deliberative processes that led to the introduction of the legislation that prevents dual mandates in those legislatures, and to ask about any issues that they have encountered in the implementation of that legislation? Are members also content to write to the Electoral Reform Society to seek more information about the issues that have been raised by the petition?
Once we have considered those responses, we would be able to progress the petition to the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament that is charged with responsibility for those issues, given that the Scottish Government has said that it is not.
As there are no other suggestions, are members content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
As a committee, we might be ready to agree that we will keep the petition open until, at the very least, we have a preferred route identified and some understanding of the timetable and financial underpinning of the recommended solution. Are members content to do that, and to follow up on Mr Stewart’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 9 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
I thank the petitioner for raising the issue. I am only sorry that I do not know whether, ultimately, we got the satisfaction that he might have hoped to get. However, we have NatureScot’s assurances on record. Obviously, it is open to individuals who feel that the provisions are not being honoured to lodge another petition in future.
