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 2597 contributions
|
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
I presume that that is because it simplifies the payroll process and the terms and conditions.
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
Is there any real disadvantage to that format?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
My next question has been answered in a general way, but I would like a simple assurance that the framework document sets out the roles and responsibilities of those who are involved in the governance of the commission, particularly the board’s responsibility for strategic, as opposed to operational, decision making and the chief executive’s accountability to the board for performance. Is that adequately sketched out in the framework document?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
In discussions with the commission, it became clear that it is entirely staffed by Scottish Government officers—I am not clear about whether they have been seconded or permanently transferred—and there is no direct recruitment outside of that particular pool of available staff. That formula is not common. What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach? Is it particularly efficient?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
When we met the representatives of the Crofting Commission, I took away a strong impression of complacency and a very strong feeling that that was all in the past and had been sorted. There was a sense of, “What’s the problem?” and, “There’s nothing to see here; move on.” I found that to be disturbing. I have found there to be a slight whiff of that again this morning in one or two of the comments that have been made. I will address my questions to Roy Brannen first, but I ask others to comment if it is appropriate.
I would like reassurance about how seriously this is being taken. Section 22 reports are a serious issue and usually reflect serious problems, which is why this committee becomes involved. I would like an assurance that the Crofting Commission is taking it extremely seriously and that there is no element of complacency.
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
Would I be correct in saying that there has been clear prioritisation of the steps that the commission requires to take and that there is no additional funding required beyond the additional staffing, which has already been absorbed?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
So, as things stand, we do not yet have clear prioritisation of the next steps to be taken and we are, at this point, uncertain of what the bottom line will be with regard to additional funding requirements.
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
The sponsorship side of things clearly did not work as well as it should have. As we know from other reports that have come before the committee, there is a history of failures on the sponsorship side and, from what I can see, that contributed to the issues that arose in this specific case. Let me ask you a very simple question: how is the Scottish Government sponsorship division’s relationship with the commission now, and what support does the division consider that the commission needs most at present?
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
I specifically asked what support the sponsorship division considers that the commission needs most at this time.
Public Audit Committee
Section 22 Report: “The 2020/21 audit of the Crofting Commission”
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
Colin Beattie
I have a random question, which has nothing to do with sponsorship. I hope that you have an answer. I have just picked up something in the audit report about the commissioners having to go into the office to service crofters’ needs during lockdown. That seems to be a bit odd. Where was the chief executive? Why did that happen? What arrangements were, supposedly, in place to cover that? Do you have any knowledge of that?
