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 ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ 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 2022 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
I am sure that Tim Eagle followed very closely the evidence that we received at stage 1. Does he recognise that large landowners told us that, by and large, all the things that are to be contained in the plans are best practice and are taking place anyway? If that is true, where is the additional cost?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
If I understand—
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
Cabinet secretary, I hope that you can give further clarity in relation to amendment 31. I am pleased to work with you ahead of stage 3 to make sure that it is drafted accurately and appropriately, but I do not think that my amendment, which seeks to make it easier to access a land management plan that the Parliament has so far agreed should be accessible anyway, will have any implications for commercial sensitivity whatsoever. The amendment does not require additional information to be published in the plan; it simply requires that the plan is published in an accessible way. I am still not sure where commercial confidentiality or sensitivity comes in with this amendment.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
Will the member take an intervention?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
I thank Mr Eagle for giving way. I point out that the spa activities in Deeside are much more like what I would dream about than what you apparently dream about, but we will leave that hanging.
Some of your amendments to part 1 are simple deletions, but some of them would have amended part 1, on the basis that you thought that they would improve it. Had those amendments been agreed to—not the deletions but the other amendments—would you still move your amendments to delete part 1 in its entirety?
I am trying to understand whether your presence at the committee last week and today, which is always very welcome, is destructive or constructive. Would you ever have agreed to part 1 in any shape, size or form?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
Will the member give way?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
I did.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
I was not going to bother but I shall now, Mr Ruskell.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
You said that everyone expects there to be repeated fines. For me, that is not the best starting point. The £40,000 maximum fine is a backstop for non-compliance, not a first course of action. It may be that there are repeated fines—we will establish that through the passage of time—but do you agree that the aim is that there should be a positive, correct, initial relationship with the new commissioner, in much the same way as the tenant farming commissioner has built up an excellent relationship with everyone that he has responsibility for in relation to regulations? If we get that right at the outset, although we might end up having fines for some very large businesses and large landholdings, that positive relationship will mean that, for many, fines do not have to be regular. To say that fines have to be regular sets the wrong tone for the relationship that we are trying to build with landowners in Scotland.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 June 2025
Bob Doris
I apologise—I think that I am also cutting across the deputy convener, who I think was also about to make an intervention.
Your last few comments were welcome, convener, because we can see your rationale and the fact that you are comfortable with a fine of £40,000 as a backstop so that landowners who do not comply would eventually get to the stage where they could be subject to a fine of £40,000. Have I picked that up accurately?