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 1311 contributions
|
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
Your colleague mentioned the phrase “ad hoc”—
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
I thank Evelyn Tweed for taking an intervention. I absolutely agree that it must be planned. In December, we will have a planned budget, which will then be decided on. Both of the amendments in the group would give certainty about plans. It is not new money that is having to be found from a set budget—this is a new budget. What more planning needs to take place, given that we will have budget negotiations over the next few months?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
Can I just seek clarification on my point? If I go to a tribunal for a hearing on my personal independence payment, which is going to be run by Social Security Scotland, and I am looking for an advocate to represent me, at the moment, I have the choice of advocating for myself or having a CAB, the advice shop in Edinburgh or other organisations across Scotland to do that. Are you saying that the only people who will be allowed to advocate at a tribunal will be from the organisation that you are paying for? Are we closing the door for other organisations to be able to provide a service of advice at tribunal? Is it an exclusive contract?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
Does that mean that funding for citizens advice bureaux and other organisations will be cut? The advice shop in Edinburgh gets money from the City of Edinburgh Council or the Scottish Government to offer advice and assistance at tribunals. Will that funding be reduced in due course because such organisations are no longer able to give advocacy services?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
We had an important debate earlier. Amendment 2 is a bit nerdy and more technical, but it is important that we debate it and come to a view on it.
The amendment relates to how the committee and the Parliament should consider any regulations that the Government introduces, in due course, under the bill. We heard from members and the minister that there is a power in the bill for the Government to introduce regulations to vary the amount of the supplement.
Regulations often end up at a committee at a late stage and do not get the proper scrutiny. That is no criticism of anyone; it is just how the system works. However, if we used the super-affirmative procedure, it would at least give us time to pause and examine any regulations properly. It would allow a third party a valuable tool for examining them as well and would ensure that they had no unforeseen consequences. It would also allow us a bit longer to consider them.
The super-affirmative procedure would provide a proper check. When the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 went through the Parliament, in the previous parliamentary session, we all—including the Government and the Parliament—were keen to get it right because many of the benefits affect vulnerable people. Using the super-affirmative procedure for any regulations that the Government introduced would allow us a bit more scrutiny. It would make the Government think about them a bit more quickly, because they would have to be produced more quickly and they would go through the proper scrutiny.
I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say on that.
I move amendment 2.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
I thank the minister for his reflections on my amendment. I agree with Marie McNair that there are capacity issues with regard to SCOSS that we, as a Parliament, will need to look at. In any case, the regulations that I am talking about are future ones. Perhaps the minister misunderstood me, as I am looking to ensure that any such regulations do not affect the December payment.
The minister has made some interesting points, which I would like to reflect on. With the committee’s permission, I will withdraw amendment 2 and see where we are at stage 3.
Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
If you are not reporting to Parliament, what reporting are you doing internally? If reporting to Parliament would remove resources, what reporting will take place? If you are reporting internally, why can that information not be shared with Parliament?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
I reassure Marie McNair that, as someone who has drafted amendments on advocacy, I think that I have a reasonable understanding of the difference between advocacy services and advice and professional services.
I want to go back to a point that was made by my colleague Miles Briggs. What would happen if I lived in Orkney or Shetland and I was looking for an advocate to come to a tribunal with me? I presume that VoiceAbility has no presence in those areas. How will it provide services there or in, say, Stornoway or more rural Highland areas? How many people will it have working in those areas, given that there might be tribunals in Inverness and Stornoway on the same day? Can I be guaranteed that the advocacy that I need will be there on the day?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
The amendment is welcome. It will open lots of avenues for everybody who offers advice to the most vulnerable, so I support it totally.
I have a few questions about how the advocacy service will develop. If I give you three questions, minister, I hope that I will not have to come back.
My first question relates to funding. Is the funding that will be paid to the service new? Other organisations already provide advocacy services that get Scottish Government money. Is it new money or will the money be taken from advocacy services that already operate?
Secondly, how will parents and others know about the service? How will it be advertised so that people will be able to make use of it?
Thirdly, how will the changes fit into providing advocacy services for tribunals? Citizens advice bureaux, advice shops and other organisations already do that. Will the VoiceAbility service be exclusive or will people still be able to choose to go to another organisation and get funding for it?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Meeting date: 30 September 2021
Jeremy Balfour
I understand where the member is coming from. The Parliament debated universal credit a couple of days ago, and I have no doubt that the debate will continue. However, I am slightly concerned that these changes will mean that one group will get ÂŁ711.46, while other carers will get nothing. Rather than picking on one set of carers, is it not better to deal with all carers? Is this the right methodology?
