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.
Criathragan Hide all filters
Displaying 862 contributions
|
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 14 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Thank you, Sir Jonathan. You have made a complex situation very clear.
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of National Records of Scotland”
Meeting date: 9 December 2021
Craig Hoy
If the census had gone ahead in 2021, there would have been costs for Covid-19 mitigations. Do you have a view on what those additional expenses might have been? Would you have expected NRS to have quantified those costs?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of National Records of Scotland”
Meeting date: 9 December 2021
Craig Hoy
You referred to £1.5 million-worth of financial pressures, which you said had been reduced to £0.5 million by mitigating actions. What were those actions? Are they continuing? Are you certain that those actions will bring balance in the coming financial year?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of National Records of Scotland”
Meeting date: 9 December 2021
Craig Hoy
You alluded to another possible delay to the census. Do you know whether anything has been done since the first delay to look again at the contracts and to make provision for a delay that might not impact the finances of NRS quite so extremely as the first delay seems to have done?
09:45Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of National Records of Scotland”
Meeting date: 9 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Good morning. I want to probe a little bit deeper into the additional costs of delaying the census, to ensure that the costs have arisen because of the delay and not because the project was going off kilter prior to that. Your report says that moving the census from March 2021 to 2022 will cost an additional £21.6 million, which is about 20 per cent of the programme’s overall costs, and that £14.4 million of that increase is due to
“an increase in the cost of goods”
and
“extending supplier contracts”.
Can you provide more detail on the costs? Are you concerned that, perhaps because of the way in which the contracts were framed, people are being paid for doing nothing as a result of the delay instead of producing more?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 7 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Do you see merit or benefit in giving a committee such as this one or the group of parliamentarians who look at the regulations some authority also to probe the impact of the policy? Should that committee or group consider not only whether the regulation or instrument is well drafted, but ensure that it leads to good outcomes when it is applied in policy terms? Is there merit in bringing those two functions together within the same group?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 7 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Dr Fox, I have a question about the differences between the ways in which Holyrood and Westminster look at such instruments. We were able only to ensure that the Covid passport regulations were soundly framed; we could not dig deeper into the policy, although some members of the committee thought that that was defective and deficient. How does that differ at Westminster? Would those who were looking at the instrument also look into the policy, or would they look only at how the legislation is framed?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 7 December 2021
Craig Hoy
I will backtrack a bit. Is there a contradiction or tension between the necessity for emergency legislation to be urgent and of significant importance, and the fact that it gets the least, or a limited, amount of scrutiny? One example, to which Ms Ross might have been alluding, is the recent Covid passport scheme regulations, which were before this committee. As a new member of the committee, I was concerned that, although the regulations might have been framed exactly as they should have been, the policy to which they gave effect was sadly deficient. The passport did not prove that the person who presented it was the person to whom the passport had been issued, so there was an element of possible impersonation. In addition, when we introduced lateral flow tests to the scheme, it did not involve proof that a person had had a negative test; they could simply declare themselves negative, whether or not they had had the test.
The question that I am getting at is this: how do we manage the tension between the debate that is held and what seems to be an absence of scrutiny, both of the detail of the made affirmative instrument and, more importantly, of the policy to which it gives effect? How do we manage that tension between the debate and the lack of scrutiny when the legislation comes forward?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Made Affirmative Procedure Inquiry
Meeting date: 7 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Do you foresee that there would be more recourse to the courts as a result of continued application of the made affirmative procedure if we carried on in these circumstances? Would that be a route that industry would look to utilise if Parliament is not effectively scrutinising instruments or holding the Executive to account for those laws?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 2 December 2021
Craig Hoy
Good morning, Mr Mathieson and Mr Barron. The impression that I am getting from what you have said so far is that, in effect, what went wrong was circumstantial rather than systemic or attitudinal. Mr Mathieson, could you say at what point you got the impression that the leadership and governance arrangements had broken down after a period of apparent stability?
