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 ˿ and committees will automatically update to show only the ˿ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ˿ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ˿ 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 921 contributions
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
Thank you. I understand that.
While I have the floor, I will ask some other questions on the same themes. We have narrowed in on particular definitions of digital assets. Professor Buchanan advocates that only crypto-style tokens and that technology should be the basis for the definition on the basis of immutability. How do Mr Ferry and Mr Gray feel about restricting the definition or using the more broad definition that the bill uses?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
That is how I have understood it. Thank you.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
We have touched on this already, so I will not go over the same ground, but I want to get your general thoughts on the record about how future proofed the bill is. If I understand the bill’s intention properly, it is a starting point. It establishes the existence of digital assets in Scottish law, and from that point onwards, we have the opportunity to bring in regulations, definitions, guidance and that kind of thing if we want. Given that it is just a starting point and the technology is emerging very quickly, what are your thoughts on the definition of digital assets and how future proofed it is? Have we largely got it right?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
Just to clarify, do the electronic trading documents that Professor Yüksel Ripley mentioned exist separately from the law, or would that point need to be clarified in guidance or elsewhere?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
Are housing deeds an example, or is that a totally different thing? I am sorry; I am opening up a whole thing—do not go there. [Laughter.]
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
I can certainly do that, convener.
Professor Buchanan, I want you to help me to understand something that we discussed with our witnesses in committee last week, which is the nature of the term “immutable”. In the case of this bill, it is probably a legal term rather than a technical one. If I understood what was being said, “immutable” in this context does not mean that it cannot ever be changed; it means that it can only be changed in a tracked way. It seems to me that that would apply to both the distributed ledger and the permissive ledger, as long as you knew who had permission to change it, as opposed to a mechanism in which anybody could change it and where there is no traceability of those changes. Is that your understanding of the term “immutable”?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
I understand that completely. My question is in relation to the bill, which does not, as far as I am aware, restrict itself strictly to blockchain technology and therefore also covers items that would be in a permissive ledger or some other record-keeping mechanism, provided that changes are tracked. I understand that blockchain technology is rigidly immutable in that way, but other technologies that would be covered by the bill are not. Is it an issue that the scope of the bill is broader than just the particular type of technology that includes blockchain and crypto?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
I am interested in hearing from Mr Ferry and Mr Gray, but my understanding is slightly different. The original question was about the bill not dealing with tokenisation directly and whether you think that that is an issue. My understanding is that the bill seeks to give legal reality to something that currently does not have it—a digital asset. Given that tokens can represent digital assets or physical assets, tokenisation is kind of by the by, and I am not clear why legislation would be required on that. It sounds as if the current system works fine but people need to sign up to it. As I understand it, the bill is about establishing digital assets in law, but I might have misunderstood. Perhaps you can clarify.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
Given that the bill is what we have in front of us, is your recommendation that, although there are other approaches, its approach is adequate, or is your suggestion that we need to go back and change the definition?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 December 2025
Lorna Slater
That is useful.
I will move to my second question, which touches on tokenisation. Tokenisation is a key growth area in the sector, but it is not mentioned directly in the bill. We have heard a lot of evidence on how tokenisation is used in conjunction with digital assets, and on how it can be used in conjunction with normal assets—physical things that we are all used to dealing with.
What are the legal barriers to the development in Scotland of tokenisation that could be addressed in the bill? Is there something that is being missed that we should be looking at?