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: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
My colleague Foysol Choudhury has a supplementary question.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Yes, thank you for that. In the written evidence that we received, the Royal College of Pathologists put up what the committee felt was almost a smokescreen—I do not think that that is too strong a word to use—in discussing the issue, by saying that a decision would have to be made that the tissues were no longer of use; that if the tissues were to be buried or cremated, that would delay the process; that if the tissues were not to be buried or cremated with the body, the options would need to be explained and understood; and that the process would be very complicated, which could lead to delays and to the family not properly understanding matters. You mentioned the Home Office; here, matters would be referred to the procurator fiscal. That would be a completely different type of event.
From what you have articulated, it seems as though an operational practice has been established where you are that has not led to a massive increase in cost and which has worked perfectly satisfactorily for all those concerned. That is quite an important piece of counter-evidence.
I am sorry—in summing things up, I hope that I have not editorialised anything that you said.
Ms Edwards mentioned brains. I want to come back to a couple of general issues that arose out of the petition that have not been covered in the commentary that we have had to date. In her petition, the petitioner asks that all post mortems
“can only be carried out with permission of the next of kin”
and that post mortems
“do not routinely remove brains”.
What is your view on those two propositions?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Please do.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Thank you. Like you, I hope that our guests in the public gallery who are directly concerned with the issues have appreciated the evidence session that we have held this morning, which will certainly help to inform the committee. It seemed that, in a number of areas, there is clear opportunity for progress; in others, it might be more complicated.
In summation, colleagues, we will clearly want to further reflect on the evidence at a future meeting. We might anticipate that, following that consideration, we would then want to have the opportunity to put questions to the minister in relation to some of the issues that have been raised. Do members agree that we should seek to secure a session with the minister, and that, before then, we should have the opportunity to reflect further on the evidence that we have heard?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Thank you, Ms Baillie. Indeed, you pointed out to us on a previous occasion that we have a reputation for liking to get out and about from Holyrood and, in our response, we said that we might even manage to come and visit at some point. It is a little early to admonish us for not having managed to do that already. However, the recommendation about the STAG report is significant. Do members want to comment or make any recommendations on that?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
Thank you. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
I am happy with that. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
I think that the evidence that we received talked about an expectation that the Scottish Government would conduct such a review. As much as anything, we need to establish that such a review is in prospect.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
That will give us further information, and we will consider the petition again in due course. Thank you, Mr Marra, for joining us for your first appearance at the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 17 May 2023
Jackson Carlaw
We are agreed. We can all see the substance of the issue at hand, but I am struck by the Scottish Government’s suggestion that local authorities look at innovative ways to reduce allotment waiting lists. I am struggling to think of what an innovative way of dealing with an allotment waiting list would be but, notwithstanding my puzzlement with that concept, I am afraid that I am reluctantly of the same view.
The very clear advice from the Scottish Government is that the matter is for local authorities to deal with and, as SPICe points out, the petition seeks to give an entitlement to several hundreds of thousands of people, which is impractical.
I think that we are agreed that although we understand the substance of the issue, we will close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Is that the view of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.