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 796 contributions
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
There is much more that I could ask, but I think that we are out of time.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
Thank you. In view of the time, I will leave it at that.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
I have one more question about the draft regulations. There is a provision in new regulation 7E that sets out the list of exempt events. Subparagraph (c) of regulation 7E exempts
“an event designated by the Scottish Ministers as a flagship event according to criteria, and in a list, published by the Scottish Ministers”.
That gives a very wide power to the Scottish ministers. We have no definition of what “a flagship event” is. Will you explain what is envisaged there? What would fall under that list?
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
Thank you, convener, and apologies for my late arrival, which was due to a train being cancelled.
Picking up on Professor Drury’s interesting comments about backfire effects, I think that one would have expected the introduction of vaccination passports to encourage take-up of vaccinations, but your argument is that, according to some evidence, it might be having the opposite effect on some groups. That seems counterintuitive, and it would be worth exploring that further with Professor Drury and the other panellists.
I have two questions that might help to form the discussion. First, would it assist with the groups that you mentioned if the vaccination passport had an end date? Would that make any difference? Secondly, as an alternative exclusively to vaccination passports, would it make a difference if, as has happened in other countries, there were an alternative to testing at venues? For example, people could either be double vaccinated or produce negative test results.
Perhaps we could start with Professor Drury.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
Good morning. I have a large number of questions that I would like to ask, but time constraints will allow me to ask only a fraction of them. However, we will see how we get on. My questions relate to the draft regulations and evidence paper that we got yesterday afternoon.
On the issue of allowing negative polymerase chain reaction tests as an alternative to proof of double vaccination, at paragraph 5.1 of your evidence paper, you say:
“Scotland will be the only European country that will adopt a vaccine only certification scheme with no option to provide a negative PCR or antigen test result or proof of recovery from a previous COVID-19 infection within a predetermined time period.”
In evidence this morning, we heard from experts, including Professor Drury, who talked about the backfire effects of requiring vaccination certification, and how it might depress vaccine take-up among those who are already vaccine hesitant. On that basis, and given that every other European country allows testing as an alternative, why was that not considered by the Scottish Government?
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
Do I have time for one more quick question, convener?
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
I will follow on from the convener’s questions and her comments about evidence. Perhaps Professor Montgomery could answer first.
To put the debate into context, there are people who are ideologically opposed to vaccination passports in all circumstances. Most people are not in that category. The replies that we have heard today show that there is an issue of balance. There are human rights considerations to the introduction of vaccination certification, but human rights must be balanced against the public health objectives of any such scheme.
You have all talked to a degree about evidence. My question is to Professor Montgomery in the first instance. Is the evidence base solid and has the Scottish Government made a compelling case for the introduction of vaccination passports in the short timescale proposed? Does that evidence outweigh people’s human rights concerns at this point?
09:15COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
Thank you. I ask Judith Robertson the same question.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
I will ask the same question to Rob Gowans, but I will throw in something else. In the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland’s written submission, you ask for a
“thorough and robust Equality Impact Assessment ... and a Human Rights Impact Assessment ... on the impact of introducing vaccine passports”.
You also ask that any scheme is
“co-produced with disabled people, people living with long term conditions, unpaid carers”.
To your knowledge, have either of those things been done, prior to the introduction of the scheme?
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 September 2021
Murdo Fraser
A few moments ago, we were discussing the situation in other countries. I am aware that in France, for example, people are given the opportunity to provide a negative test result as an alternative to vaccination certification. If the Scottish Government were to go down that route, would that alleviate the concerns that you have about the human rights issues that we have discussed?