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
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
I agree with that suggestion. There are provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 to place additional conditionality on operators to adhere to certain standards, whether the service is involved in a bus service improvement partnership, is subject to a franchise agreement—although I do not believe that a franchising scheme has yet been established in Scotland—or is in direct public ownership, which is the case with regard to City of Edinburgh Council-owned Lothian Buses. Therefore, I suggest that we ask the Scottish Government what scope there is to introduce conditionality on operators to adhere to standards that improve accessibility. Given the amount of public subsidy of the industry, the Government has significant leverage in that regard.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
This has been a very interesting discussion, because it is establishing where the balance lies between providing positive incentives for people to undertake best practice in management and ensuring that there are sufficient penalties for malpractice. I will be interested to hear witnesses’ views on where that balance should lie.
The petitioners presented an example from Argyll of a private landowner who had cleared 21m3 of ancient woodland and was reported to Forestry Scotland. An enforcement exercise was pursued, but apparently that has quietly been dropped. The penalty is something like £5,000 per tree felled—I think that that is the level of penalty that is levied. I am concerned that enforcement was not pursued for quite an egregious breach of the 2018 act. Is there a problem with enforcement?
The point was raised about public money being used to clean up other people’s mess. Do we have a perverse situation in which the community is cleaning up for private interests that profit from the land but do not contribute anything to cleaning up their contamination or bad practice?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Do councils enforce tree preservation orders or are they a national thing? Can it be both?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Should that be carried out on a national basis rather than being left to individual councils, which might have radically different attitudes?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
When the listed buildings system was first introduced, a national survey was done of all potential candidates and the list was compiled by experts at the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Does something similar have to happen for trees and woodlands? Is there also a role for public nominations of potential sites?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Is there no enforcement of that?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
I would like some clarification. During opening remarks, there was consensus about the importance of Scotland’s ancient woodland. For the record, I am directing the question to the witnesses from NatureScot, Scottish Forestry and Confor. Do your organisations agree that the current protection regime is insufficient? I would like to have the answer explicitly established and to hear each of you agree or disagree.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Do your organisations agree that the current protections are inadequate? That is the nub of the petitioner’s issue.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
Yes—that was very helpful.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 9 March 2022
Paul Sweeney
That is helpful. The issue with restocking is that, if someone has felled a load of trees that have been around for centuries, it will take another 100 years for the landscape to recover. It feels like the damage is done permanently, at least in a human’s lifetime.