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 3627 contributions
|
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I apologise for our slightly late start this morning.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of continued petitions. The first petition that we will consider is PE1900. The petition, which is a very important one that we have previously heard evidence on and considered, is on access to prescribed medication for detainees in police custody. It was lodged by Kevin John Lawson, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.
We are joined by David Strang, who is the former chair of the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce, and Carole Hunter, who is a former member of the task force. Carole is joining us remotely. I warmly welcome both of you. Obviously, we are aware that the task force is no longer operational, so we are grateful for your taking the time to discuss the petition with us, even though you have been decommissioned, so to speak.
Members would like to explore a number of questions. I recognise that you have produced a report and have moved on from the task force. We are very keen to understand where you think that that report can assist us.
Do you have a preference as to who will answer? David Strang can indicate to me whether he will lead or invite Carole Hunter to take the flak on each question. We will see how it proceeds.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Carole Hunter?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
I very much agree. In some of the evidence that we heard, and in particular the Scottish Government’s initial response, superficially the alternatives looked as if they might have been an effective way of proceeding. However, in the face of the evidence that we heard subsequently, I too have been persuaded that we require a specific charge to be included in the 2018 act.
Wearing a completely different hat—my Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body hat—I am struck by the fact that we have 17 members’ bills already before Parliament in this session, which is a record number. The prospects of any additional members’ bills finding scope to proceed before 2026 are probably nil. We must either take the view that this is just something that we are going to nod at and move along from, having said that it is all very terrible, or we have to be prepared to take more decisive action.
Mr Ewing drew attention to the fact that we discovered that the offence in England and Wales grew out of provisions that were passed at a much earlier time and to meet entirely different circumstances. Until we heard that, maybe we assumed that the offence had been brought in for this purpose. I think that we would like to hear more about that.
I think that the committee’s feeling is that we would like the clerks to prepare an appropriate representation of our consideration to the Scottish Government, subject to that final evidence being heard, which would recommend, on behalf of the committee, the specific offence being included in legislation.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
We have actually identified a number of candidates that we think might be suitable for a chamber debate. We will potentially make a specific recommendation in respect of the action that might be appropriate, as we might like to see that added to the matters that we could potentially seek to raise for a chamber debate. We will, I think, be making a fairly consequential recommendation arising from a very sensitive petition. Are we happy to consider that?
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Are we content to proceed on that basis? I should note in passing the further representation that we have received from Sue Webber in relation to the petition. We will write to the First Minister to seek an update and to express our disappointment that neither Callum nor the committee has received any response, particularly given the personal engagement that the First Minister had with Callum on the occasion of his giving evidence to the committee.
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
The next petition is PE1930, which was lodged by George Eckton, on ensuring that, as part of any new ScotRail contract, customers are always given information on the cheapest possible fare.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is for customers to be given information on the cheapest possible fare as a matter of course, and to recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering on that aim.
We are joined by Monica Lennon. Good morning, Monica; it is lovely to have you with us again. We will hear from you in a moment.
The committee previously considered the petition at our meeting on 29 June, just before the summer recess, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Transport for London. I am pleased to say we have now received responses from Transport Scotland and TFL, as well as two submissions from the petitioner.
Transport Scotland has indicated that the Scottish Government is considering whether Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd will be covered by the consumer duty legislation. Its response also contained information on the progress and purpose of the fair fares review, which is expected to be concluded in full at some point during 2023, and on the work that is being undertaken to develop and trial smart ticketing options.
The response from Transport for London provides information on how its fare-capping and pay-as-you-go system operates, and on the work that goes into ensuring that customers can trust that they will always be charged the correct fare for their journey.
The petitioner has also been in touch to update the committee on the freedom of information requests that he has made to ScotRail about how the £5 city-to-city advance fares are advertised. Mr Eckton has shared information on how easy it is for passengers to miss out on cheaper fares when using the ScotRail app, and he has set out his view on why ScotRail should be included in the consumer duty.
Before I open it up to wider discussion, I invite Monica Lennon to speak in support of the petition.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
You are not a witness, so we cannot ask you questions.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
No. That is a fair point, which—as I said—relates to the petition.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Continued Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
Your points have been noted. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.
Members indicated agreement.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
New Petitions
Meeting date: 23 November 2022
Jackson Carlaw
The next agenda item is consideration of new petitions. PE1954, which was lodged by Lorna Buntain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the current permitted development rights for digital communications infrastructure to encourage the use of underground ducting for new broadband service installations and avoid the installation of unsightly telegraph poles and overhead cables; ensure that local communities are made aware of plans to install digital communications infrastructure in their areas and are given an opportunity to share their views prior to any installation work taking place; and ensure that all digital infrastructure, including underground ducting, is routinely maintained by the developer.
Lorna tells us that, as part of the roll-out of ultrafast full fibre broadband, Openreach has erected hundreds of telegraph poles across Lennoxtown and Milton of Campsie. That work was carried out without prior consultation with the local community. Having received no prior notice, local residents raised objections with Openreach about the installation of the telegraph poles only to receive what they felt were unhelpful and dismissive responses.
As we do with all new petitions, the committee requested an initial view from the Scottish Government. In its response to that request, the Scottish Government has highlighted that, although
“land use planning is a devolved power”,
telecommunications remains “a reserved matter”. In response to the petition’s aim to amend permitted development rights, the Scottish Government notes that the permitted development right for digital communications infrastructure was included in phase 1 of its review of permitted development rights and was amended following a public consultation in August 2020. The Scottish Government believes that, having been recently reviewed and updated, the
“current provisions ... strike an appropriate balance”
and it has no plans to further amend permitted development rights in that area.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
