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
|
Criminal Justice Committee
Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Graham Simpson
It is.
Criminal Justice Committee
Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Graham Simpson
Thank you. Let us not personalise it; let us talk not about you, but about general victims of crime.
You made the point that any victim of crime just wants that basic level of information. If I was a victim of a crime, I would want to know what had happened in that case, and I would want the police to tell me what they were doing. If it got further than the police—in this case, we are talking about a fiscal fine—all that people would want to know was what had happened. Surely that is not unreasonable.
Criminal Justice Committee
Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Graham Simpson
I will not move amendment 1026. I do not know how long you are planning to continue for, but my work is done after this amendment. If you are continuing, I would be grateful if colleagues would press Mr Whittle’s remaining amendment.
Amendment 1026 not moved.
Amendment 1008 moved—[Keith Brown]—and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
Section 40—Expiry
Amendments 1027 and 1028 not moved.
Criminal Justice Committee
Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Graham Simpson
It has been an interesting day, and I am glad that I have sat through the meeting.
This is a relatively small but important group of amendments. Members know that I sit on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which scrutinises every piece of legislation and produced an excellent and balanced report on the bill. However, prior to that, we held a mini inquiry into the use of the made affirmative procedure during the pandemic. That inquiry shaped the recommendations that we arrived at for the bill. The made affirmative procedure can be used in relation to five powers in the bill, one of which this committee is concerned with today: the power to free prisoners early.
I will remind members what the made affirmative procedure does, because that gives the background to the reasoning behind my amendments 1024 to 1026. The procedure allows a Scottish statutory instrument to be made and to come into force even though it has not yet been approved by the Parliament. That approval comes later. Law is made with no scrutiny and no parliamentary backing—there is no vote. The procedure was not commonly used before 2020, but it became very common after that.
In the DPLR Committee’s report, we held to four principles, the first of which was:
“Given the lack of prior parliamentary scrutiny and risks to legislative clarity and transparency in the made affirmative procedure, use of the affirmative procedure”—
which, of course, allows such scrutiny—
“should be the default position in all but exceptional and urgent circumstances. Legislation making provision for the made affirmative procedure must be very closely framed and its exercise tightly limited.”
Secondly,
“The Parliament will require an assurance that a situation is urgent. Provision in primary legislation will need to encompass a requirement to provide an explanation and evidence for the reasons for urgency in each case where the procedure is being used. There should be an opportunity for debate in a timely fashion and open to Members to seek to contribute”.
That does not happen at the moment.
Thirdly,
“Any explanation provided by Scottish Ministers should also include an assessment of the impact of the instrument on those affected by it and Ministers’ plans to publicise its contents and implications. This could include details of the relevant Scottish Government website where links to the instrument, including where relevant any consolidated version of the instrument it amends, as well as any associated guidance, can be found.”
People find it quite difficult to find their way through the legislation.
Finally,
“There will be a general expectation that legislation containing provision for the made affirmative procedure will include provision for sunset clauses to the effect that (a) Ministers’ ability to use the power will expire at a specified date and that (b) any instrument made under the power will be time-limited.”
We recommended that the Scottish Government lodge amendments on each power that can be used through the made affirmative procedure to ensure that the following requirements would be included. Scottish ministers should provide a written statement, prior to the instrument coming into force, that contains an explanation of and evidence showing why the Government thinks that it needs to be made urgently. Moreover, when using the made affirmative procedure, Scottish ministers should include an assessment of the impact of the instrument and ensure that statutory instruments made under the powers are subject to a sunset provision. Nevertheless, the committee restated that it expects the default position to be that the Scottish Government use the affirmative procedure
“in all but exceptional and urgent circumstances.”
My amendments in this group merely reflect the committee’s unanimous view.
The effect of amendment 1024 would simply be that any such regulations could be made only through the affirmative procedure, which is my preference. If the committee agrees to that amendment, the others in the group fall. If that does not happen, we move on to the other amendments.
Amendment 1008, in the name of Keith Brown, merely allows a minister to provide an explanation of why they think the made affirmative procedure should be used. If members have read the amendments in the group, they will have immediately realised that that amendment does not go as far as the others. It would be very easy for a minister to say, for instance, “We need to act quickly. That’s what the experts are telling us.” That would be the explanation. They could dress it up a bit, but if Mr Brown’s amendment is agreed to and mine are not, that is what the Parliament will be left with.
My amendments put Parliament front and centre in deciding whether the Government has got it right. When we are dealing with something as serious as freeing prisoners early, it is not good enough just to say, “We need to do this—okay?”
Amendment 1025 states:
“Ministers”
must
“have made a statement to the ... Parliament”
with
“an explanation, and”—
crucially—
“evidence, as to why ... regulations need to be made urgently”.
More importantly, it says that Parliament must agree to that.
12:45Amendment 1026 is similar, but it calls for
“an assessment of the impact”
of the regulations, and it includes a sunset clause with a figure of one year.
I think that I have got this right. The Government is sympathetic to the idea of sunset clauses in general, but it has not—as far as I can tell—put a figure on the limit, as I have clearly done. I think that one year is a reasonable timescale.
I hope that that is a good summary for the committee that helps members to understand the reasoning behind the amendments.
I move amendment 1024.
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Urgent Question
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Graham Simpson
My word—the minister’s answer to football fans who go to tonight’s game is, “Walk to the city centre.” There will be no alternative, unless they have taken their own car.
I am encouraged to hear that there will be talks tomorrow. I know that the minister has not bothered to dirty her hands by getting involved in the talks so far, but can she tell us how confident she is that the situation will be resolved tomorrow and that we will not have a summer of chaos?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Urgent Question
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Graham Simpson
So, the answer is that no provisions have been made for fans to get home.
Football fans have been used to leaving matches early to beat the rush. In this case, they have been told to leave early because there is no rush—there are no trains. Does the minister agree that the situation is not acceptable? Would she like to apologise to the tartan army?
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Urgent Question
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Graham Simpson
To ask the Scottish Government what provisions it is making for Scotland fans to get home after tonight’s Nations League match at Hampden against Armenia, in light of the reported announcement by ScotRail that they should leave early if they want to catch a train.
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Portfolio Question Time
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Graham Simpson
That was a very encouraging answer from the minister. I was going to ask her whether she would commit to conducting such an audit, and she has. What is the timescale for that? Having that information would be extremely useful for disabled people across Scotland.
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Topical Question Time
Meeting date: 7 June 2022
Graham Simpson
It seems to me that we need full transparency here. The minister should be telling us what the contracts are worth and not hiding behind commercial sensitivity. While the minister is thinking about that, will she commit to telling us what the new chief executive and chief operating officer are being paid out of the public purse? We do not know that, either.
Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)
Portfolio Question Time
Meeting date: 1 June 2022
Graham Simpson
What has been going on at South Lanarkshire College is a scandal. There are allegations of private businesses operating from college premises, using college materials and lecturing staff time.
In my view, the new principal, Aileen McKechnie, was cleaning up the mess. She was suspended, and she should be reinstated. The local EIS-FELA branch had a vote of no confidence in the board. I was at a branch meeting last week, and it was announced that the national executive is backing the branch on that, which is quite unprecedented.
Much of what happened allegedly took place while the head of human resources at the college was Kirsten Oswald, who is now the Member of Parliament for East Renfrewshire. People have told me that she knew what was going on. Has the cabinet secretary had any discussions with Kirsten Oswald about that, and does she agree with me that, as a public figure, Kirsten Oswald should say what she knew and whether she was asked to do anything?
