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 3461 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
I think that we can seek that information in any event, without keeping the petition open.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
The proposal is that we close the petition and bring the information in the SPICe briefing to the attention of the Scottish Government, so that we can see whether it has given any thought to any of that. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
Do members have any other thoughts? I am minded to close the petition, but is there any merit in writing again to the Scottish Government to get some further guidance on when in the session it might bring something forward? The session is quite a wide canvas at this stage; it has only just begun, so it could be at any time in the next five years. It would be interesting to know when the Government is thinking of lodging any secondary legislation. However, we could close the petition in any event, seek that information and advise the petitioners of it. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
Mr Sweeney, did you want to add anything?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
What do you advocate?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
PE1859, which has been lodged by Barry Blyther, on retaining falconers’ rights to practise upland falconry in Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.
In its submission, the Scottish Government explains that, during the passage of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, an amendment was made to schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to include mountain hares as a protected species. The submission confirms that, when considering the amendment to include mountain hares as a protected species, it took into account the recommendations from the grouse moor management group report, which stated that
“the shooting of mountain hares should be subject to increased legal regulation”
and that
“should the conservation status of mountain hares prove to be ‘unfavourable’ then a licensing system for the shooting of mountain hares should be introduced.”
The submission highlights that, in certain circumstances, birds of prey can still be used to take mountain hares for purposes including to protect timber or agriculture.
In his submission, the petitioner explains that mountain hares need to be conserved at a high density to attract falconers, which in turn creates significant commercial value and supports isolated rural economies through visits by falconers.
The petition references UK animal welfare standards and guidance from the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that states that there is a
“legal obligation to allow ... trained captive-bred birds of prey ... freedoms”,
including
“the freedom to express the natural behaviours for the species”.
Therein, I feel, lies a bit of a conundrum with regard to consideration of the petition.
The petitioner has sent us a response to the Scottish Government’s submission. In it, he takes issue with what has been said about the ability of the species to exist by eating other species that are unsuitable.
Do members have any comments? I have to say that I found the issue to be quite complicated and technical as I tried to understand the relative merits of the legislation that is in place and the rights of birds of prey to express the natural traits of their species.
10:45Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
We will see what we get back.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
I have quite a complicated note for the next petition. PE1853, which was lodged by Councillor Donald Kelly and Councillor Douglas Philand, calls on the Scottish Government to provide an all-year-round freight and passenger lifeline ferry service from Campbeltown to Ardrossan.
The Scottish Government’s submission advises that the request to extend the ferry service
“was discussed with elected members from the Argyll & Bute Council and other stakeholders”,
including, I presume, the petitioners. The Scottish Government states that
“it is not ... operationally possible to extend the current operating period of the Ardrossan-Campbeltown service as there are no available vessels.”
The submission highlights that the Scottish Government remains
“committed to securing the two new ferries currently under construction, with the delivery of MV Glen Sannox expected in April-June 2022.”
The Government suggests that, once the Glen Sannox is delivered, the potential for a year-round Ardrossan to Campbeltown service could be explored, subject to a robust business case being made and the availability of funding.
The petitioners have discussed the possibility of potential vessels with well-known ferry consultants, who have advised that vessels that are currently available outwith the CalMac fleet could be procured to meet the requirements of providing a lifeline service.
We have received a late submission from Donald Cameron MSP, who was hoping to be able to attend the meeting for consideration of the petition. Members have been provided with a copy of that submission. The submission states that the petitioners have identified the need for alternative forms of transport from the Kintyre peninsula to the central belt. Donald Cameron addresses the suggestions in the Scottish Government’s submission regarding options such as flying from Campbeltown to Glasgow and using ferry services at Dunoon and Hunters Quay. He offers that those alternatives are not suitable on the basis of above average cost or notable travel time.
10:15The submission continues by raising concerns about possible links with
“the anticipated depopulation of the Kintyre area”
and suggesting that
“the creation of a permanent ferry service”
could contribute to
“encouraging people to remain in the area”.
Donald Cameron states that he supports further exploration of potential vessels that meet the requirements of a year-round service by Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government. He concludes by stating that the inability of Transport Scotland and CalMac to offer an all-year-round ferry service for one of the major towns of Argyll and Bute is simply not good enough.
This is obviously an important petition. Would members like to offer any observations?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
That seems reasonable. We might also ask the Government to be more expansive on the process for evaluating a subsequent business case for the route in the event that, as the submission says, it becomes possible at a later stage. It would be useful if people knew how that was going to proceed.
Do members agree to keep the petition open while we pursue those two lines of inquiry?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 1 September 2021
Jackson Carlaw
The point is that we do not pursue individual cases—that is outwith our remit. The issue is the general provision. It would be useful to find out whether the safety net is assisting anybody or whether it is not known about and is not being used, in which case there is a deficiency.
Are members happy to do that?
Members indicated agreement.