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 2063 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
Okay. Related to that is the transfer test. The original recommendation was for a public interest test. You will have heard our earlier witnesses talk about the advantages of that, rather than a transfer test being applied to the seller before sale. May I have your reflections on that? I go to Sandra Holmes first.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
Yes. Clearly, the land management plans need to reflect the aspirations of people who want to hold land and wider landscape-scale recovery.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
I want to get your reflections on the ministerial powers over lotting decisions. I will go to Tara Wight first, as she had quite a few reflections on that issue in her written evidence, so it is obviously a concern for her members.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Mark Ruskell
Leaving aside your comment about the cost of engagement and following the logic of your argument, would that save you money? Instead of having perhaps a speculative housing development on an area of green belt, you would have been able to say, “The community does or does not want this. Therefore, we have done all the consultation. We can go straight into consulting on a land management plan that is driven largely by the local place plan and what the community wants.” I take the point that you did a process that took £70,000 for a couple of days—that is eye-watering—but are you saying that the local place plan sets the agenda and you feed off that and that is a bit simpler?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Mark Ruskell
Thanks. Dennis Overton, you want to come in. Could you also cover the specific Land Commission proposals?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Mark Ruskell
Why, do you think, has the Government gone down this particular route? I think that the original consultation suggested a public interest test on the buyer rather than the transfer test on the seller. I am curious. Do you or any of the other witnesses have views about why the Government has gone down this route, and why it rejected the original proposal?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Mark Ruskell
You see what is in the plan as a summation of work that is already on-going.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Mark Ruskell
Thank you for highlighting the DPLR Committee’s consideration of the bill. Andrew, I sense that you probably want to come in with your thoughts on the public interest aspect.
11:45Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Mark Ruskell
I am asking all the witnesses.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 28 January 2025
Mark Ruskell
I want to drill down a bit into the Land Commission’s proposals for land management plans. It has come up with two specific recommendations. One is that there should be a duty on the landowner to demonstrate how community engagement has effectively informed the land management plan. The other proposal is to ensure there is a duty to refer to local place plans in the land management plans.
I want to get your quick reflections on both or either of those proposals. Are they useful? Would they, from your perspective, enhance the process of LMP development? I can see that Megan MacInnes has a hand up.