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 ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ 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 1174 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Would a fixed-penalty scheme to immediately impose a financial penalty on such an infringement help to drive behaviours better? If there was a beefier or more robust sanction on bad practice, it would probably drive behaviours. As you said, prosecutions are difficult to achieve, so you might end up in a situation where prosecution is hardly a viable sanction and you are trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
This has been a very interesting discussion, because it is establishing where the balance lies between providing positive incentives for people to undertake best practice in management and ensuring that there are sufficient penalties for malpractice. I will be interested to hear witnesses’ views on where that balance should lie.
The petitioners presented an example from Argyll of a private landowner who had cleared 21m3 of ancient woodland and was reported to Forestry Scotland. An enforcement exercise was pursued, but apparently that has quietly been dropped. The penalty is something like £5,000 per tree felled—I think that that is the level of penalty that is levied. I am concerned that enforcement was not pursued for quite an egregious breach of the 2018 act. Is there a problem with enforcement?
The point was raised about public money being used to clean up other people’s mess. Do we have a perverse situation in which the community is cleaning up for private interests that profit from the land but do not contribute anything to cleaning up their contamination or bad practice?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Do councils enforce tree preservation orders or are they a national thing? Can it be both?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Should that be carried out on a national basis rather than being left to individual councils, which might have radically different attitudes?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
When the listed buildings system was first introduced, a national survey was done of all potential candidates and the list was compiled by experts at the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Does something similar have to happen for trees and woodlands? Is there also a role for public nominations of potential sites?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Is there no enforcement of that?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
There is a similar issue with the bluebell wood example. The landowner is at liberty to do what he or she likes with the asset and does not need planning permission to make any changes. Is something more akin to planning consent needed for forestry and woodlands? Should they be designated similarly to how listed buildings are designated? Is that what you look to achieve?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
That is really helpful. I just needed to get it clear in my head. Thank you for indulging me, convener.
The key point for me is the lack of enforcement. I was concerned that the petitioners mentioned that Scottish Forestry was initially gung-ho about enforcement in the case in Argyll and then seemed to have a gentleman’s agreement to let it lie, which is a bit problematic. There is also the question of how we enforce more robust measures, like we do with ancient monuments.
That helps to clear the matter up for me. I do not know about the rest of the committee.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Yes, convener. I briefly emphasise the point about what seems to be a grey area. The Cathkin Braes country park BMX trail, for example, was done as a result of planning permission for the Commonwealth games. I am astounded that such a development does not require planning consent. If a ski slope was developed in Glenshee, for example, planning consent would be required. There should be further investigation into where we draw the line. Why are councils not looking at that issue, perhaps not in relation to legislation but as a gap? There is also the issue of enforcement when people just do stuff without seeking planning permission.
10:45Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
I would like some clarification. During opening remarks, there was consensus about the importance of Scotland’s ancient woodland. For the record, I am directing the question to the witnesses from NatureScot, Scottish Forestry and Confor. Do your organisations agree that the current protection regime is insufficient? I would like to have the answer explicitly established and to hear each of you agree or disagree.