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 成人快手 and committees will automatically update to show only the 成人快手 and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of 成人快手 and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of 成人快手 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 2043 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
That is quite helpful. I do not want to misinterpret what you are saying. Rather than there being a statutory duty on the landowner to deliver everything in the land management plan, you seem to be saying that, if reasonable, good-faith efforts have not been made to deliver the contents of such a plan, that should be a compliance issue. Have I interpreted that correctly?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
I have a final question and will go to Gemma Cooper first. If you have any reflections on my previous question, please feel free to share them, Gemma.
Who reports compliance issues or breaches of the land management plan? The bill as it stands is relatively restrictive, in that only certain groups are able to do that. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between the obvious bodies that could report on a potential breach or lack of compliance versus what could be malicious reporting.
I will not come back in after this, convener.
Irrespective of who can or cannot report on compliance or on breaches, should the commissioner be able to undertake proactive work on a small scale in order to see what is happening with land management plans, so that we are not reliant on issues being reported?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
There may be and there may not鈥攚e have looked at cross-compliance previously, but it is still not clear whether there will be cross-compliance. At face value, if it costs up to 拢20,000 to produce a plan and the fine for not producing one is 拢5,000, there seems to be an incentive either to not produce a plan or to produce one that is pretty threadbare. Do you not see any case for increasing the maximum fine from 拢5,000?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
Thank you, convener. I apologise for attending the meeting remotely. I have been following the evidence with interest. I hope that the requirement for a break after my line of questioning is not a reflection on me, but there we have it.
To return briefly to the 3,000 hectare threshold, I said last week to witnesses that that is just a number to many people鈥攃ertainly to someone based in Maryhill, as I am.
Glasgow鈥檚 botanic gardens and grounds sit in my constituency鈥攊n part, anyway鈥攁nd they would fit 150 times into 3,000 hectares. It would seem remarkable that, if the gardens fitted only 149 times into 3,000 hectares, they would not be required to have a land management plan. Given that comparison, which I made to make the number real, does Mr Bean have any further reflections? How much more, or how much less, than 3,000 hectares should the threshold be?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
That is really helpful. David Bean, do you have anything to add?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
So, a proactive approach would be helpful?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
David Bean, do you have any reflections on that, before we move on to my next question?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
I get that. Are there any other reflections? Sarah-Jane Laing, if Glasgow botanic gardens fitted into the required threshold 100 times, would that be reasonable? Is there a case for bringing the threshold below 3,000 hectares, given the comparison that I am drawing?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
That is interesting. I need to move on, so I apologise to Gemma Cooper for not bringing her in on that point. It is interesting to hear about the idea of having a backstop of 3,000 hectares, but perhaps with a lower threshold based on other criteria. That is really interesting for members as we scrutinise the bill.
On compliance, we heard that land management plans could be positive for landowners and communities鈥擲arah-Jane Laing made some positive comments about that. Land management statements might be happening already in some cases, and there are real opportunities there. However, there is a debate around having a high-level strategic document versus specific localised elements and requirements. There seems to be a slight tension in relation to some of that.
Whatever we end up with, if the penalty for not producing a land management plan is a maximum of 拢5,000 but it costs up to 拢20,000 every five years to produce one, would it be easier for people to just not produce one? Do we have to look again at the fines and compliance? Fining is a last resort, but is 拢5,000 just too low in that context?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 19 November 2024
Bob Doris
Would it be correct to say that that is your view, unless the landowner has not acted in good faith or made reasonable efforts to implement the terms that are in the land management plan?