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 979 contributions
|
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
I have just finished my comments, but I am happy to take an intervention.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
The minister may not like to refer to chasing, but that is the reality of what we are talking about in relation to the bill. That will happen—there is no question about that. The debate is about a pack of hounds or two dogs, but that is, in effect, what will happen. Whether the dogs are flushing out or chasing, the point has been made several times that two dogs could become exhausted over a period of time. The wild mammal that is being flushed out, chased or whatever could become exhausted, too. There is no animal welfare argument for substituting two dogs.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
That probably backs up my case. If it will not happen, why are you concerned about the bill making it an offence? Mr Fairlie says that we will never get a situation where two dogs will be used and then substituted effectively by another two dogs. I do not agree with him, but, if that is the case, there is no reason at all why we should not close the potential loophole in the bill and make it an offence for that to happen in the first place. Why would you be concerned about that?
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
I am disappointed that there is no support for amendment 113. The purpose of the bill is to close loopholes that were left open by the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 while avoiding any new loopholes. I believe that there is a potential loophole.
My amendments were designed to ensure that people who are hunting cannot, in effect, use multiple pairs of dogs, one after the other, to chase wild mammals. A relay would be needed only if those dogs were relentlessly pursuing a wild mammal over a long period of time. Excluding the word “relay” leaves that possibility open as a potential loophole that could be exploited.
I am not convinced that a second or a third pair of dogs substituting for the first are not likely to chase the same quarry, and I am unsure how that would be enforced. I am not convinced that a second or a third pair of dogs would not continue in the same area, effectively chasing the same quarry.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
I will press it.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
Amendments 114, 120, 125 and 128, in my name, would remove the use of a bird of prey as a method of killing. That is neither a humane nor an efficient method of killing, and there is therefore no justification for its being a permitted method.
In written evidence to the committee, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission stated that it is
“not aware of any evidence that killing by a bird of prey is more humane than killing by a dog and would certainly doubt that it could be more humane than competent shooting”.
It is clear that the exception is not in line with the intentions of the bill, so I urge members to support my amendments to remove the inhumane practice of using a bird of prey as a method of killing wild animals. The only argument that I have heard against that is the fact that it is currently legal, which is a pretty lame argument.
Amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129 would specify that dogs are not to be used to kill an injured wild mammal. That is in keeping with a key purpose of the bill and would ensure that more humane methods are used to kill a wounded animal, avoiding the use of that scenario as a cover story. I urge members to support my amendments to ensure that emerging mammals are killed as humanely as possible and that there are no loopholes in the bill that might allow people to continue using dogs to kill wild mammals.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
In the light of the comments regarding the consistency of language and the use of the word “immediately” as opposed to, for example,
“as soon as reasonably possible”,
I will not move amendment 117 but might bring back an amendment at stage 3, because that point in the bill would benefit from clarity.
Amendment 117 not moved.
Amendment 118 not moved.
Amendment 81 moved—[Edward Mountain].
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
Mr Mountain’s comments about large areas of land probably support the point that I am making. He says that people would need more than two dogs over a period of time only in a large area of land, so he is making my argument.
Mr Mountain said in a previous comment that the issue in England is about stags and that we will not have that issue in Scotland. However, it does not matter what the mammal is—the same principle exists. It is crucial that the bill is as effective as possible in ensuring that we do not create new loopholes. I remain unconvinced about the need to use multiple groups of dogs, which is in effect what the bill will allow to continue. I do not understand why, if that is unlikely to be required in a particular area, we would allow it to continue under legislation.
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
In light of the minister’s comments on discussing the wording of amendments 115, 121, 126 and 129, I am happy not to move amendment 115.
Amendment 115 not moved.
Amendment 203 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].
Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee
Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 14 December 2022
Colin Smyth
Amendments 113 and 124, in my name, would require that “reasonable steps are taken” to ensure that dogs do not form a relay. Mounted hunts in England have been observed using multiple pairs of dogs, one after the other, to chase stags. Amendments 113 and 124 would help avoid a similar practice emerging here in Scotland by making it an offence.
It is crucial that we take the opportunity to ensure that the bill is as robust as it can be, including by pre-empting any possible consequences, which we have done in relation to trail hunting. It is 20 years since the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed by Parliament, and it is clear that there were far too many loopholes, which people have been allowed to exploit for far too long. This bill cannot be a continuation of business as usual; it must close the loopholes that still exist and it must not create new ones.
Amendment 242, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seeks to alter the definition of the phrase “under control” to include any
“dog ... carrying out an activity for which it has been trained”,
which is quite different from the common understanding of the term. I am concerned that the amendment would change the definition of “control” throughout the entire bill, which would have worrying consequences. For a start, it would allow the dog to be out of sight and hearing, which I think would completely undermine the bill.
I move amendment 113.
