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 MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs 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 1119 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
I thank Mr Fitt and Mr McIntosh for coming in and offering such helpful contributions so far. I am mindful of your overall position regarding consumers being removed from the proposed bill.
Concerns have been raised in written correspondence in relation to the enforcement implications in particular. Those concerns are around the fact that people could agree not to be subject to a court order to recover goods with the security attached, and around what arguments people would be able to offer in defence in court against a move against them by a creditor. Being mindful of those issues, are the processes in the bill sufficient to protect consumers? Do the enforcement issues present concerns?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
I am interested in the position of the Faculty of Advocates. The advocates are against the idea of waiver-of-defence clauses because they believe that that would very quickly become established practice across all financial institutions, that transactions would become pro forma on that basis, and that that would diminish the rights of third parties. They say that that is weighing the protection of small businesses against the marketability of claims. Do you recognise that as a major risk? Might that become normal behaviour, thereby diminishing the ability of businesses to protect themselves against faulty products that they might have sought security against?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
That is an important point. It also carries over to the point about sole traders. If you remove the means by which they can earn money to service the debt, you are compounding the problem, not solving it. There is no public interest in that happening.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
That is very helpful.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Paul Sweeney
The potential for licensing to provide a product to the Scottish market is interesting.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 27 September 2022
Paul Sweeney
That is reassuring. Perhaps committee members can reflect on the matter as we proceed with the bill.
More broadly, we are interested in understanding more about what the commission did to seek the views of consumer groups. What feedback or evidence did you receive in the course of preparing the draft legislation?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 27 September 2022
Paul Sweeney
I mentioned sections 63, 65 and 66.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 27 September 2022
Paul Sweeney
I have no further questions. That was a helpful series of responses, so I am happy to rest on that.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 27 September 2022
Paul Sweeney
I thank the commissioners for their helpful evidence and statements so far. I will touch on some of the aspects around consumer protections, in addition to the issues mentioned by Mr Mundell, with regard to how we can create a mechanism that is effective at protecting consumers.
There has been some focus on the £1,000 placeholder, which, with hindsight, has perhaps been a bit of an unfortunate red herring. In private session, the committee has considered lodging an amendment to provide automatic controls on that figure—some sort of deflator that would automatically correct every financial year. Would you endorse such a mechanism? Would that be a reasonable undertaking, and would you, perhaps, assist us in designing it?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 27 September 2022
Paul Sweeney
That is helpful background and provides some degree of reassurance on the commentary that we have heard on the proposed legislation.
Responses from law centres were mentioned. We have received a response from Govan Law Centre, which, in effect, compared the enforcement of statutory pledges to warrant sales. I assume that you do not think that that is a fair characterisation.
Particular sections of the bill have been highlighted in that regard. Section 63 entitles a creditor to serve a pledge enforcement notice on a debtor if payment has not been made. Section 65 enables an authorised person—in other words, a sheriff officer—to enter someone’s home to remove moveable goods, subject to the statutory pledge. Section 66 gives a creditor the right to sell someone’s moveable goods at a public auction.
Bearing in mind the fact that we have discussed the protections that we can introduce in relation to particular goods, household vulnerability and exposure, will you explain why the characterisation of the enforcement of statutory pledges as warrant sales is not fair? That will allow us to understand the context better.