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 1231 contributions
|
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Interests
Meeting date: 23 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
Because I have not sat on the committee previously, I declare that I am still a councillor on Renfrewshire Council.
Education, Children and Young People Committee
Scottish Attainment Challenge Inquiry
Meeting date: 23 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
It is important that organisations do not work separately with no overall consideration of all the issues that a family or child face at home.
I am not sure whether any of the other witnesses want to speak on that, but I would like Sara Spencer to respond.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 22 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
Thank you for your comments so far, minister.
From what I have heard today, I believe that, in order for local authorities to carry out those tasks in the best possible way, the regulations should be passed. They are essentially about empowering local authorities to create and implement a system that best works for their communities; we have talked a lot about that already.
Do you agree that empowering local authorities in that regard is a wholly positive move? Can you elaborate on the position of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? I understand that COSLA broadly supports the regulations. Although we are talking about empowering local authorities, there has not been much discussion this morning about what they actually think. Can you provide any information on the support in principle from local authorities and leaders, perhaps cross-party leaders, across the different council areas?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 22 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
On my last point about support from local authorities themselves, have you had discussions with local authorities in Scotland?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 22 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
This morning, we have heard legitimate concerns about the proposal, but we have also heard legitimate responses to those concerns. I do not think that we should delay the proposal any further.
There has been a lot of emphasis on the cap on charges, and we have heard examples of extreme circumstances relating to the implementation of the levy, but I have lost count of the number of times that the point has been made that it will be for local authorities to decide what happens in their areas. As my colleagues Jackie Dunbar, Fiona Hyslop and Mark Ruskell have pointed out, those opposed to the levy seem to have very little faith in the ability of local councils to implement the levy in a way that works for their areas. As a councillor, I find that shocking. Councils are best placed to know what is going on in our local areas and what would work in those areas. The consultation, and the regulations that have to be implemented in line with the levy, back up even more the point that local authorities are best placed to take the levy forward.
I do not understand the idea that local authorities in Scotland should not have the same powers as those in England. We have seen that the levy has been effectively used in England and Wales.
The levy will not happen overnight—we have heard that it will take years. Local authorities have to go through a due process and consultations to find the way that, in the end, works best for them.
Achieving our 2030 target of a 75 per cent reduction in emissions will require significant changes to behaviour. This is a tool for local authorities to support that. I am absolutely behind it. It is extremely positive that the revenue that will be raised by the levy will be used to support the objectives of local transport strategies.
I completely understand members’ sentiments about the cost of living crisis that we are experiencing, but transport improvements that could come about as a result of the levy could be hugely beneficial to people in poverty and on low incomes, who are disproportionately affected by poor public transport services. Again, it will be for councils to decide what is best in their areas.
I concur with what we heard about Mr Simpson’s 2017 comments about empowering local councils to take decisions. I am wondering what has changed. This morning, there appears to have been more interest in playing party politics than in empowering local communities to follow through and tackle climate change.
The levy will be hugely beneficial for some areas. There are areas where that will not be the case, but councils, which know their areas best, will have the option whether to implement the levy. They will be able to shape the scheme, set fees and, as we have heard, provide exemptions. Again, councils will be able to decide whether the levy is right for their area.
We talk about localism and handing more power to local authorities. We should continue with the proposal and I will vote against the motion to annul.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Meeting date: 10 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
I want to say a truly heartfelt thanks to our witnesses. Your comments and responses have been very helpful.
I want to focus on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which has received some criticism based on its limitations and eligibility criteria and the fact that the UK Government is including in the count the total number Afghan refugees who are currently in the UK. What are your views on eligibility for the scheme? I would like to start with Pinar Aksu.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Meeting date: 10 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
Good morning, panel. I direct my question to Graham O’Neill.
Graham, I thank you for your thorough response in your first comments, which were very helpful. I originally had some questions around contingency accommodation, but you have answered those. What is your assessment of why asylum decisions take so long? What can be done to address the backlog as a result? What impact does that have on those who are waiting for decisions?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
National Planning Framework (NPF4)
Meeting date: 8 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
I am not sure whether I came across right there. Policy 34(c) says that there are “additional public benefits” that would justify the removal of woodland. Are you saying that you would like the policy to be strengthened so that the removal of woodland would not be possible or would be an absolute last option?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
National Planning Framework (NPF4)
Meeting date: 8 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
That is no problem at all.
Iain, do you have anything to add?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
National Planning Framework (NPF4)
Meeting date: 8 February 2022
Natalie Don-Innes
Good morning. I want to focus on woodlands. Is the wording in policy 34 on trees, woodland and forestry sufficiently clear and directive to guide development in a way that is sensitive to existing woodlands? Do you have any examples of the “additional public benefits” that are mentioned in policy 34(c) that would justify the removal of woodlands?
