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 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.
Displaying 2049 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 27 February 2024
Bob Doris
That is fine. Is the overall tonnage the same? What I got from your exchange—and this is what I want clarity on—is that weight-bearing vehicles and lorries have to be placed strategically and safely on the vessels to make it seaworthy and safe for everyone travelling on them. Has the maximum tonnage that the vessels can take remained the same or has it had to be reduced?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 27 February 2024
Bob Doris
That would make it more palatable to the public purse.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 27 February 2024
Bob Doris
I will make the briefest of comments rather than ask a follow-up question. I am not trying to be awkward about the issue. It appears to me that, under your tutelage, Ferguson and the workforce representatives whom I can see sitting in the public gallery have come through a really difficult period and a quick learning curve in recent years in fixing a lot of errors that predecessors made, and Ferguson is very close to being in robust health. However, for additional taxpayers’ money to go in, we have to be very clear and transparent about what we are getting for our money. It almost seems that Ferguson could be held to a higher standard than otherwise would have been the case because of what has happened previously.
I hope that we get to a position at which appropriate capital investment could be made, we can be clear about the efficiencies that that would give to the yard, and we can retain strategic commercial shipbuilding and the workforce in Scotland. However, we need transparency about what we get for our money.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 27 February 2024
Bob Doris
I have a much more mundane question, coming back to clarification on Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa. I do not know whether other members have questions on this topic.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 27 February 2024
Bob Doris
I am sorry if I get the numbers wrong—the exchange between you and the convener was complicated—but was it always intended that the original design would hold 127 cars and 16 lorries all at the same time? My understanding was that that was not the case.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 27 February 2024
Bob Doris
It would be good to hear from the witnesses, convener.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 22 February 2024
Bob Doris
First, I welcome the fact that we are in a place, in this Parliament, where there is an obligation and a statutory duty on Government to uprate certain core benefits by inflation. That is a very powerful thing.
It is, however, always reasonable to ask—and we had this debate during the passage of the social security legislation—why some benefits have been picked for statutory obligations to uprate while others are discretionary. I, of course, welcome the fact that the discretionary ones are being uprated by inflation under the draft order, but that might not always be the case. What is the rationale? What is the latest thinking of the Government in relation to that?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 22 February 2024
Bob Doris
I am hugely supportive of the Scottish child payment, but my understanding is that, in effect, it is a top-up for families because of the insufficient universal credit levels in the UK. That is how people access the Scottish child payment.
What are the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on the New Economics Foundation’s report of October last year? It said that, even with the UK uprating of universal credit for this year, because of the end of cost of living payments, a lone parent in the UK who has one child will be £350 worse off in April this year than they were in April last year. Surely that is unacceptable. Surely that has to stop.
The current or any future UK Government must surely do what the Scottish Government is doing and uprate benefits properly, rather than give with one hand and take away with another. There is £450 million of Scottish taxpayers’ money—quite rightly, I should point out—going to subsidise the UK universal credit system, which in effect is not fit for purpose.
We do not need reviews of that system; we need fundamental principles that drive our attitude to welfare, and I am pleased to say that that is the case with the Scottish child payment. Has the cabinet secretary made representations to the UK Government about the insufficiency of universal credit? Will she do so consistently, irrespective of which Government is in power?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 22 February 2024
Bob Doris
I understand that this is another example of the Scottish Government stepping in to provide support that would otherwise not be available elsewhere in the UK, so I support it.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 22 February 2024
Bob Doris
I am interested in the financial realities of some of this. You said in your opening statement that the spend on social welfare provisions in Scotland is £1.1 billion more than what we get in comparable Barnett consequentials from the United Kingdom Government. That is additional spend that we have invested in Scotland due to our priorities. As the gap grows between what we get from Westminster and the additional money that we spend, does it reduce the Scottish Government’s flexibility to do more?