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 2042 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Graham Simpson
I am talking about not policy, but planning and timescale.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Graham Simpson
I have a comment about the Scottish Law Commission. You will know that the committee works closely with it, as we do with you. Mr Sweeney highlighted that the Law Commission has felt some frustration for a number of years about the amount of work that it puts into developing proposals, a lot of which sit gathering dust. From the committee’s point of view, it would be useful to have some kind of timetable from you, even if it is just to say whether there is a chance of progressing each proposal.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Graham Simpson
That is good. That would be useful.
You are right about the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill. I had a quick look at it. It is quite daunting, but we will get stuck in and do a proper job on it.
My area of questioning is on something that you mentioned earlier: the frustration that you and your officials feel about having very little time to scrutinise UK bills. We have found the same thing with Scottish bills. We had a case of that last week, with the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. The day before the stage 3 debate, the committee received a letter telling us about possible new powers relating to the establishment of a food commissioner. We had no time to consider that.
As you said earlier, today the committee will look at the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill following stage 2. Stage 3 amendments have to be laid by noon today, but we are discussing the bill only at this meeting. If the committee decided that there should be an amendment, we would, by the end of the meeting, have less than an hour in which to produce one. That is not acceptable, is it?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Graham Simpson
We do not set the timescale—you do. Things need to improve; we should not be in this position.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Graham Simpson
The committee has not seen that yet.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Graham Simpson
My question is not about policy but about giving the committee enough time to deal with whatever is in front of it. I have not mentioned the policy behind the bill.
10:15Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Graham Simpson
Lovely, thank you.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 21 June 2022
Graham Simpson
I was talking about not the UK Government, but you, Mr Adam.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 9 June 2022
Graham Simpson
I do not particularly want you to, but—
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 9 June 2022
Graham Simpson
The DPLR Committee said that the default position should be the affirmative procedure. It did not completely rule out the made affirmative procedure, but it recommended that certain things should be put in place if that procedure is to be used. That was the purpose of amendments in my name that you have voted against, Mr Mason, despite saying that you agree with me.
Given that the committee rejected those amendments, I will not move the amendments in my name in this group and force a vote. However, I am keen to work with the cabinet secretary—if he is up for it; it is up to him—to see whether we can improve things in the area. I make that offer.