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 ˿ and committees will automatically update to show only the ˿ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ˿ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ˿ 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 350 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 January 2025
Roz McCall
In the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s fantastic piece of work on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, the committee stated that
“The increasing use of ‘framework’ bills that ... provide future Governments with enabling powers”
does not provide “the best estimates” of all likely costs and
“undermines Parliamentary scrutiny. It also risks the Parliament passing legislation which may in the end, once outcomes are fully understood,”
lead to significant cost increases. I accept that. The bottom line, which I want to highlight, is
“whether ... the outcomes the bill seeks to deliver ... outweigh any financial or affordability considerations.”
It is the outcomes that I really want to question.
Given the ambiguity around what a framework bill is or is not, and given the fact that we sometimes do not know that even at the inception of the bill, how important are the outcomes? Should they outweigh any financial situation? Should that be sacrosanct? Are we not putting enough emphasis on outcomes in the first place? Is it about saying that we just do not know what a framework bill is at the outset and that we should do more, especially from a financial position?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
Is that purely because the key outcomes were not as defined as they should have been, or were they there but, as the co-design went through, it became more obvious that the outcomes were not achievable? I am sorry to be daft about that.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
Good morning, everyone. You have already touched on the topics that I am looking to speak about, especially co-design.
I come back to something that Lloyd Austin mentioned—the idea of having a weak framework to start with and then secondary legislation coming in. One of my biggest concerns about this issue has always been, again, the financials. A financial memorandum is attached to a bill, but if there is no detail coming through, you have no idea, and we always end up with legislation that does not have the financial clout on which to follow through in secondary legislation.
Is that a legitimate concern if we do not get the framework side of things right in primary legislation, right up front? What are the consequences of weak bills and co-design, where everything seems come in secondary legislation?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
Thank you. My apologies to Jonnie Hall, but I think that other witnesses have answered on where they think this is a good idea. I do not want to encroach on that.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
Thank you. That was very helpful.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
Does anyone else want to come in on that?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
That is very helpful, thank you. My next question is on Henry VIII powers. Are they appropriate or inappropriate?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
That is helpful.
I will go to Vicky Crichton, and then to Kay Springham. With regard to the idea of improving scrutiny and accountability in relation to secondary legislation, should we be looking at any safeguards or controls?
11:30Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
It goes back to the case-by-case basis that was mentioned earlier. I will have to wind up so I return to Rosemary Agnew. In an earlier answer, you spoke about the co-design core principles. Will you give me an idea of when a framework bill is the wrong approach? As Adam Stachura has just said, for the national care service, is a framework the wrong approach? Please give us your insight on that, as well. I am throwing it all at you now, unfortunately, Rosemary, but I have a limited timeframe.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 14 January 2025
Roz McCall
I want to narrow things down a little bit. The information that you are giving is very interesting, but I want to delve into NFU Scotland’s criteria, which the convener started to look at. After all, we are looking at this from a scrutiny and accountability point of view when it comes to secondary legislation.
In your opinion, if we are looking at this through a scrutiny and accountability lens, should there be additional safeguards and controls to ensure appropriate use of framework legislation, given the secondary legislation that will follow? I will start with you, Mr Clancy, because I think that that follows on very nicely from your last answer.