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 łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of łÉČËżěĘÖ 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.
Filter your results Hide all filters
Displaying 1897 contributions
|
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Town Centres and Retail
Meeting date: 25 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
That is a very honest answer.
Economy and Fair Work Committee
Town Centres and Retail
Meeting date: 25 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
Without my leading you, it sounds like you are almost promising me that you will reflect on that as you develop your women’s strategy.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
I, too, was going to drift on to that subject, with your permission, convener. I was very interested in the SCVO submission, which makes a number of comments that allude to something that I asked the earlier panel about, which is the complexity of aligning national outcomes with budgets, and the situation being about more than that. Wellbeing measures are relatively immature in economic terms. You referenced the advisory group on economic recovery electing not to use the NPF, but instead using the four capitals framework. I have absolute sympathy with that approach being adopted, and with your comments. My question is this: is it not just really difficult?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
I agree with what you said about the human rights element, which will give a different perspective that should be enlightening. My question is, to what extent is the NPF already not gender blind, but fully aware at every step and every measure. I appreciate that this is a huge question to ask, but in general terms, what assessment—red, amber or green—would you give it?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
It is a very interesting area but I will move on, as it is quite a big area, too.
This is my final question. In this evidence session and in others, we have touched on the lack of linkage to budget planning. My observation is that the means of measuring wellbeing in economic terms are still relatively underdeveloped—academics such as Rutger Hoekstra, the author of “Replacing GDP by 2030”, are still puzzling over that. Is the real issue the fact that our adherence to gross domestic product—because it gives firmer measures—makes it difficult to measure wellbeing and link it to economic activity, and therefore to the budget? Is that the real challenge, which we have to accept is difficult and have to keep working on?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
I have given you a get-out.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
I want to ask Jamie Livingstone a question that was asked at the tail end of the previous session. To what extent is the NPF gender blind? I fully accept the need to take account of the other protected characteristics as well, but I am asking about gender blindness specifically in terms of processes and culture. Gender blindness can often be part of culture without organisations being conscious of it. You reference Engender in your submission, so I would like your thoughts about that.
11:45Finance and Public Administration Committee
National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
On that point about data, I noticed that Paul Bradley referenced methodology in his submission. I brought up the point with the Deputy First Minister—it seems like ages ago, now—that I did not have any sense that methodologies were being used. We have not really even begun to consider that whole area. I am not saying that there is a right or wrong way, but that is incredibly important when it comes to data. Furthermore, the lack of data is just as important as the data that we have.
Finance and Public Administration Committee
National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
Good morning, and thank you for attending. I have a couple of brief questions.
First, I will take things back to the top. We discussed earlier the legislation requiring you to have regard to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. My general question, which sets aside some of the issues with the NPF that we have covered, is whether, in a perfect world, it would be beneficial to have something tighter than merely “having regard to” the national performance framework, along with a sexier name, clearer linkages and so on. These are national missions, so would that be beneficial? In other words, does the concept of “having regard to” allow agencies some wriggle room?
Finance and Public Administration Committee
National Performance Framework: Ambitions into Action
Meeting date: 24 May 2022
Michelle Thomson
Before you come in, Tim, you referenced—I am quoting loosely—raising our game with regard to the climate emergency. What I am trying to get at is this. I fully accept your comment that, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority, so if we had fewer national priorities but they were utterly compelling—climate change, for example—could it be advantageous to have something tighter than merely the duty to have regard to them?
