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 691 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 18 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
That completes my questions. I think that I just lost the last word or so of what you said, but I hope that everybody else heard you.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
Good morning, Mr Avery. Can any lessons be learned by HIAL about the way in which it has handled the whole thing?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
Good morning, Mr Henderson. I joined the committee only recently, so please forgive me if this question covers ground that might already have been covered in the history of the petition thus far. You are asking for an independent assessment to be carried out. Who do you think could conduct such an assessment? How might that person or persons be appointed?
I ask because it seems to me that the Civil Aviation Authority has the role of conducting a proper assessment of any proposal. Given that it is the statutory body that is charged with the responsibility of regulating air safety in the United Kingdom, and given the critical importance of that function, it is not immediately obvious to me who else could be expected to carry out an assessment of a system that, at the end of the day, is designed to protect people against air accidents, which would almost certainly result in fatalities. I would like to get a sense of how, in practice, an independent assessment could be carried out and who could do it.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
That is very helpful. If you have further thoughts after the meeting, given that these questions are being sprung on you, we would be very keen to receive them.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
I am sorry to interrupt. I got the gist of that—it is more a question about the financial and managerial aspects of how HIAL has failed thus far, as you see it. To be clear, in your view, should it be somebody in the Scottish Government who carries out that independent assessment?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
I suppose I should declare a former interest, in that I was minister with responsibility for what has developed in respect of R100, or at least parts of it.
In addition to the recommendations from Alexander Stewart, with which I thoroughly concur, it might be helpful to approach the contractor—I think that BT has been awarded the contracts—to seek more practical information as to how it goes about the difficult task of sequencing and prioritising the roll-out of the work. The amount of work is considerable in each of the three areas, which all have separate contracts, so the matter is not straightforward at all.
Given that the programme is regulated by contracts, it might be helpful if, in writing to the Scottish Government—and, if colleagues agree, to the successful contractor, which I understand is BT—we were to ask specifically whether the relevant contractual provisions could be shared with us. I do not see any reason why they should not be; now that the tender process has been completed, they should be in the public domain. I just wanted to flesh out and expand on Mr Stewart’s suggestions.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
It would be good to write to Scottish Forestry, too, because it has various enforcement responsibilities in respect of inappropriate felling, which was one of the issues that was raised.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
As I said earlier, the petition has quite a long history. I have only recently become a member of the committee, but I have been aware of, and have followed, matters. It is plain that progress has been made, partly as a result of the work that Prospect has done and the engagement from MSPs and the petitioners. Do you feel that that progress has covered some of the defects—as you see them—that you have just described? In other words, are you confident that, going into the future, HIAL will listen more to staff and engage more with communities? As I understand it, you have been in the thick of it.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
Yes. Those issues are hugely important to all the islands that are served by HIAL with what are, in many cases, lifeline services.
What about the financial side? Do you have an idea of how much HIAL has spent on the now-aborted air traffic management strategy?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 4 May 2022
Fergus Ewing
Okay. Do you think that those figures should be made public, or are there good reasons why that should not be the case?