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 łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of łÉČËżěĘÖ 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: 3 December 2024
Mark Ruskell
I am interested in the link between local place plans and the public consultation process in the planning system on one side, and land management plans on the other. Andy Wightman, you have already said that those will be controlled and steered by private interests and that land agents will be involved. Should those two things work together and how would we get them to do so?
I am thinking of the example of Taymouth castle, where the estate would currently not even fall within the provisions for land management plans but where some people in Kenmore and Aberfeldy are concerned that the estate has in effect aggregated a range of assets—some urban and some in the wider estate—and there is a lack of transparency about long-term plans for housing and land management. There is a mixture of issues, some of which might be part of a land management plan if the estate were eligible for that while others would be in the local place plan. I am interested in how, from the community perspective, we join up those two things.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2024
Mark Ruskell
Is the bill in the same position as the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill was in 2005? Does the Government need to reflect on it?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 3 December 2024
Mark Ruskell
Okay. Peter, will you comment?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 27 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
I am a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that recently scrutinised the regulations that were approved—if very narrowly—by the Parliament.
It is important that bus services, which are public services, are run in the public interest. Franchising is an important part of the public control that is needed, and that is reflected in the 2019 act. As Patrick Harvie has said, the issue is that, in the years since the act was passed, franchising has progressed very rapidly in England, while we have yet to see that kind of progress in Scotland.
Some of the reasons for that are down to the fact that we have not had the legislation in place to enable us to proceed. However, the petitioners also have concerns about whether the decision-making process for a franchise for bus services could be influenced by vested interests.
At the moment, the process that was agreed by the Parliament focuses on the role of the traffic commissioner, who is appointed by the UK Government, not by the Scottish Government. It is the traffic commissioner who appoints the panel that ultimately makes the decision. That is a problem, because one of the traffic commissioner’s stated objectives is to minimise the regulatory burden on operators. If operators who are actively frustrating bus franchising go to court to challenge the bus franchising process, their interests could effectively be represented in a roundabout way through a decision-making panel. That would put the panel in direct opposition to what the 2019 act was trying to achieve, which is to encourage more public control through franchising.
The initial consultation on the act indicated that ministers would make the decisions on franchising, but now, it is the traffic commissioner and a panel that will do that. That requires more examination. The NZET committee has yet to approve the final piece of legislation in the jigsaw that would allow franchising to go forward. This committee could look at the issue again, take evidence from the petitioners and look critically at the issue of a potential conflict of interest between the traffic commissioner and the panel.
11:15
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
Other members might want to come in on that point. Earlier, we talked about thresholds, but, in the evidence that the committee has received, there has been quite a consensus on the importance of sites of community significance. It is not a case of saying, “Here’s a threshold. Either you fit within it or you don’t,” because there are sites that are of huge significance to communities, particularly rural communities, so it is important to provide for the local context. Calum, do you want to comment on that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
Thank you.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
The Government said in July that discussions between you and BAE about the frigate programme were in their final stages, but it is now almost December.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
What are the themes of barriers? Are they caused by sign-offs or technical specifications?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
I appreciate that, and I think that every member of the committee wishes you well. We want to see the business expand and grow in the future.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
I want to ask about subcontracting more generally. David Tydeman said at the time that 801 and 802 were more complex than a type-26 frigate; I do not know whether you agree or disagree with that.
Is there something about the size of yard and the expertise that you have, and your place in the market, that points towards subcontracting or building smaller vessels being more of an opportunity for the business in the future than very complex bespoke engineering contracts like 801 and 802?