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 2716 contributions
|
Meeting of the Parliament
National Planning Framework 4
Meeting date: 11 January 2023
Graham Simpson
Will the minister take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament
National Planning Framework 4
Meeting date: 11 January 2023
Graham Simpson
Does Douglas Lumsden have any idea what a 20-minute neighbourhood is? Because I do not.
Meeting of the Parliament
National Planning Framework 4
Meeting date: 11 January 2023
Graham Simpson
It is an absolute pleasure to take part in the debate today. The very fact we are having the debate is down to amendments for which I was responsible and which were voted through during the passage of the Planning (Scotland) Bill in the previous parliamentary session. Members might do well to reflect on the fact that, if that bill was going through Parliament now, I do not think that those amendments would get through. However, it is good that they did.
Kevin Stewart was the minister responsible for the bill, and it was certainly a stressful time for him. We ended up with a bill that was better than it was at the start, although it was not perfect, and I think that that is where we are today with NPF4.
The first draft NPF4 was flawed in many ways. The final version is better, although it still has some holes in it. However, we have in Tom Arthur—for whom I have a lot of time—a minister who has listened and made changes for the better. Any minister who does that should be praised, and I do praise him, but in planning, as he knows, we can never please everyone.
I will start with the good bits. I strongly believe that the planning system has not been robust enough when it comes to protecting the environment, particularly in three areas: woodland, wild land and the green belt. Wording matters when it comes to planning policy, and woolly wording provides developers and landowners with loopholes that they can exploit. Paul Sweeney made reference to that. The first draft of NPF4 would have made it too easy for woods to be erased and for wild land to be built on.
I met the John Muir Trust and the Woodland Trust—of which I am a member—to discuss what we could propose to the minister to make the wording better. We came up with something, and I sent the wording to Mr Arthur. Mr Briggs and I then had a virtual meeting with him and one of his officials. I heard nothing after that, but the revised draft is considerably better and people are generally happy, because the wording is better than it was.
However, policy 6c is an example of the woolly wording that I referred to. It says:
“Development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits in accordance with relevant Scottish Government policy on woodland removal.”
Canny developers will be able to argue that their fantastic scheme with footpaths and swing parks will achieve just that, when it will not.
Meeting of the Parliament
National Planning Framework 4
Meeting date: 11 January 2023
Graham Simpson
I am sure that Mr Ewing is right, but I was referring not necessarily to forests but to areas of woodland, which are slightly different.
The policy goes on to say:
“Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will most likely be expected to be delivered.”
Most likely? That is pretty meaningless and, in any case, compensatory planting will never be the same as what was there previously. The wording is better, but it is still not quite good enough for me.
The references to wild land are much better, and policy 8 on green belts looks pretty robust. However, in relation to Fergus Ewing’s earlier point about farmers, it should not be the case, as it is at the moment, that farmers have to pretend that new houses are being built for workers in order to get them built.
The planning system can play a huge role in helping to drive down emissions, and I note the gushing response of Scottish Renewables to Mr Arthur’s offering, but I will never agree with the Scottish Government’s view that nuclear should play no part at all in that.
Miles Briggs and others have mentioned the lack of policies to deliver enough housing of the right quality in the right places. A big debating point has been around targets, how to set them and how to ensure that they are then delivered. I have to agree with the house-building industry that there are flaws in NPF4, which will not deliver enough housing. As the RTPI has said, it is vital that enough resources are provided, because councils will have to deliver on all this.
The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 introduced 49 unfunded duties on councils. Those duties could cost up to £59 million over 10 years to implement, but councils are not being given the money. How on earth are they meant to deliver all Mr Arthur’s exciting policies if they do not have enough planners? The NPF4 is good, but it could be better.
16:25Meeting of the Parliament
National Planning Framework 4
Meeting date: 11 January 2023
Graham Simpson
Will the member take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament
General Question Time
Meeting date: 22 December 2022
Graham Simpson
Will the minister accept that it is underfunding of Scotland’s councils that is leading to the deteriorating road network?
Meeting of the Parliament
General Question Time
Meeting date: 22 December 2022
Graham Simpson
To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures good governance in Scotland’s colleges. (S6O-01737)
Meeting of the Parliament
General Question Time
Meeting date: 22 December 2022
Graham Simpson
The minister will be aware of the situation at South Lanarkshire College, where the highly respected principal, who had been looking into serious allegations of theft and malfeasance, has been suspended on full pay for 13 months. That is not due process in anyone’s book. The college board has still not taken a decision, and the costs are just going to rise.
Does the minister agree with the comments of the college principals group in a letter to the education secretary, which said that
“This raises fundamental issues about good governance and the process relating to how college principals are treated in such circumstances”?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Business Investment
Meeting date: 21 December 2022
Graham Simpson
I will be quick. I have a couple of questions for Fergus Mutch and Clare Reid, so the other two are off the hook.
Fergus, I will ask you about your comments on tax rates and the need for Scotland to have a more competitive regime in business and personal tax. Is it the view of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce—I am not asking for your personal view—that Scotland’s having higher personal tax rates is a disincentive to people coming here?
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Business Investment
Meeting date: 21 December 2022
Graham Simpson
That modelling would be useful.
There is one other area that I would like to ask you both about. Clare Reid, you mentioned free ports and the delay in the announcement on Scottish green free ports. Fergus Mutch, I notice that you did a survey of your members in Aberdeen and they are asking for a free port in the north-east.
Clare, what do you think the impact of Scotland having two free ports would be on local economies and on the national economy?
