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 3572 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
That is helpful.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
I am sorry. We would be happy to hear from Doug Howieson again. You contributed to our discussion a fortnight ago. Would you like to come in on any of the points that we have touched on so far?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
PE1884, which was lodged by Steve Gillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the national health service, or to provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults where all other NHS epileptic drugs have failed to help.
When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to seek information about the progress of clinical trials and further information on his discussions with the UK Government. The cabinet secretary’s response stated that he thinks that
“the lack of evidence on the quality, safety and efficacy”
of cannabis-based products for medicinal uses is “the main barrier” to them being prescribed by NHS clinicians, and he stressed the importance of development of the trials. He outlined plans to undertake two randomised and controlled trials of their use in early-onset epilepsy. The trials will compare medicines that contain only cannabidiol with ones that contain CBD and tetrahydrocannabinol and with placebos. That is to help answer the question of whether adding THC to CBD improves anti-epileptic properties. He also indicated that commercial discussions about the supply of products to the trial are under way, and that further details of the trials, including the timetable, will be dependent on the conclusion of those discussions.
The cabinet secretary stated that a meeting was scheduled for early February with the UK Minister for Patient Safety and Primary Care, Maria Caulfield MP. It was to include a consideration of ways in which the trials can be expedited.
The committee also requested information on existing evidence from other countries from the Scottish Parliament information centre. Its review is included in your papers pack at annex D. It provides information on current guidelines from Australia, America, Ireland and Canada. It highlights that a review on medicinal cannabis in Australia was examined by the UK Government. The UK Government stated that the review showed
“limited but high quality evidence for the use of medicinal cannabis products”
to treat epilepsy.
The use and efficacy of THC treatments is addressed in the guidance from Australia, Ireland and Canada. It indicates that the evidence base for THC is complex in that it may have either pro or anti-epileptic properties.
Much of the guidance in other jurisdictions acknowledges that limited evidence is available for the use of cannabis-based products for medicinal use and frequently advises that such products should be prescribed as an add-on treatment with existing anti-epileptic drugs.
The petitioner points to three existing prescriptions across the UK, and reiterates that he does not accept that there is a lack of evidence for prescribing. He explains that the prescriptions have been in place for three years, and he considers that to be an example of “reliable evidence” for its use by the NHS.
Again, that was quite a long introduction. Do colleagues have any comments that they wish to add?
11:15Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Thank you. Again, that is quite a comprehensive series of recommendations. Would anybody like to add to that, or is the committee content to support that?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
The petitioners are concerned about the native content in new forest planting. It is interesting to hear that the Government is seeking to increase the percentage of native trees. What is the balancing act in that? It would be helpful if people could understand why it is not all native. What calculation is made in determining the percentage that can be native species?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Are other colleagues content?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Please do.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
I am not aware that any committee is considering bringing forward a bill or anything such as that on the matter.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
One of our committee members, Paul Sweeney, joins us remotely.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 23 March 2022
Jackson Carlaw
That is interesting. If the Scottish Government will not expand the remit of its inquiry or, as has been suggested, if a separate inquiry were not to take place, is it possible that some of the themes, lessons and recommendations that emerge through that inquiry in England and Wales could crystallise into actions that campaigners could pursue more directly with the Scottish Government here? In other words, is it possible that that inquiry will lead to recommendations of which Scotland should be taking note, too?