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 502 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
You think that they should be notified before it goes on the register.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
Again, that is very clear. Although the provision addresses some of the concerns, do you think that it goes far enough for consumers to be protected if they pay the wrong person? Does it need to go further?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
I worry about mischaracterising what was said, but what I heard from the previous panel was that, if a person is in a student block of flats and they are paying money, it is easier for them not to know that the person to whom they owe money has changed. As long as they have the account details to pay it into, it is actually easier for the person not to get a notification every time that the future debt changes hands. Do you think that that is right or are you saying very firmly that it is wrong?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
I will ask a couple of questions about assignation. Principally, will there be any challenges if assignation is able to occur by both intimation and registration? Do you have a view on whether both types of claim might continue?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
If that happened, a person would know and would instantly be able to change their behaviour or their approach to how they manage that debt within their business.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
The bill makes it easier for debts to be transferred, and it makes it easier for that to happen without a person knowing.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
Why is there felt to be a need to restate it in the bill?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
I have another question to ask before Mike Dailly comes in. It is slightly out of my area of questioning. If consumers or individuals know whom they owe money to, they have an idea of how that debt might be treated and how they will act. It is the same for smaller businesses: if a person thinks that they owe money to a friendly supplier with which they have done business for a number of years and the business that they owe money to changes without the person knowing, they could suddenly find that the debt is handled differently. Does that consumer protection issue arise, or should we not worry about it?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 4 October 2022
Oliver Mundell
I will push back a bit on that with the same line of questioning that I used in the earlier evidence session. In my constituency work, I see people who are accessing bad lending all the time. It is not that I think that these products are good, but, as you have said, when people are in desperate straits, they are at the end of their options for accessing safer products. It is a case of balancing that moral question—why do we think it is okay to let people access existing products but not this?
The other issue is that we know that there is a problem with unregulated debt: there is a black market in debt where people borrow illegally. For people in that very vulnerable position, is there any advantage in bringing some of that into the open? For example, to take your example of a hire purchase agreement on a car, there are people who cannot access hire purchase agreements because of their credit records or because they are not allowed to borrow at all. This is not my personal view, but, in scrutinising the bill, I feel that I should push back on that and ask for your thoughts on it.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 27 September 2022
Oliver Mundell
Following on from that, I guess that, if someone is in possession of something, the risk is lower. At the lower end of the market, there is potentially an advantage, where people have credit issues and other things, to the individual or small business being able to hand the item over, in terms of the cost—