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 2045 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
That is helpful. Convener, you will be relieved to hear this is my final question—I know that other members need to get in and that you want to move on the lines of questioning.
Some concerns have been raised about the reporting process and it has been suggested that we should widen the scope of who can report and that investigations should be more robust. I must admit that I am not across the detail of this particular area, but I would be very keen to have witnesses to put on record their thoughts to better inform our consideration of this legislation.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
That is helpful.
I move on to penalties for non-compliance. Mr Russell said at the start that it is nice to have land management plans. Hopefully landowners will have consulted meaningfully and effectively with communities and other relevant interested groups so that the plan is sensible, practical and sustainable for the land, the people on it and all those who benefit from that land. However, if a plan is not implemented in practice, it is irrelevant. I understand that there are fines of up to ÂŁ5,000 for not producing a plan but that, within the bill, there is no consequence for non-compliance. Is that your understanding, Mr Russell? Do we have to look at that again?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
Engagement is the crux of the question, along with time constraints. What will be the requirements for community engagement under the legislation? If a landowner has 3,000 hectares, any community directly impacted by that ownership should have an absolute right within the land management plan to be meaningfully consulted. There should be cognisance of that and steps should be taken to address their concerns and aspirations. How will the bill, and the management plans—if done properly—achieve that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
My question is inspired by your question, convener, about potential financial burdens on the Land Commission and compromising other areas of what it does. Right now, in relation to those with the broadest shoulders paying, what about the largest landowners or large management companies? Gresham House, for example, owned no land in Scotland in 2012 and currently has 53,000 hectares. We see a direction of travel there. Is there any levy on those largest landowners or land management companies in relation to regulatory functions and is there an opportunity to do that in a proportionate and responsible way?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
I asked you not to go there because I am definitely going to go there. I just wanted to break the questions up a bit.
The Land Commission initially considered that land areas from 1,000 hectares up to about 3,000 hectares should be within the scope of land management plans—and beyond 3,000 hectares of course—but the Government has opted for 3,000 hectares.
Convener, can I check that people can still hear me? My screen has gone blank.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
I hope not, convener, because this is my line of questioning.
So, 3,000 hectares is 30 million square metres, which is 5,000 football pitches. Should the scope not be 1,000 hectares? Are there any concerns that the Government has gone too high? Some suggested going as low as 500 hectares and the Land Commission thought maybe 1,000 hectares but the Government has gone for 3,000 hectares. What does the Land Commission think about that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
Will you take a position on it?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
Okay. That is very helpful.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
I have a very general question that might be more about part 2 of the bill. In response to Jackie Dunbar’s question about patterns of land ownership in the country, Mr Russell referred us to Andy Wightman’s 2024 update to “Who Owns Scotland”.
More generally, what will a successful bill look like in 10 years’ time in relation to the pattern of land ownership in Scotland? Should we still expect to see the same 20 huge companies having the same extremely dense levels of ownership in the country? Should we see land being owned by much smaller concerns? What will success look like in that regard? How can we monitor the impact on tenants and those with smallholdings? Data can be used to show anything. What we are interested in is the impact on the ground and whether the bill improves the quality of experience for individual leaseholders and for communities. What does success look like?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2024
Bob Doris
Can I push you on that, Mr Russell? Cross-compliance is not direct compliance. Some family concerns can be very large companies and they might consider it to be cheaper to just pay ÂŁ5,000 rather than comply fully, which is burdensome.
Could we increase the fine threshold? Could we look at penalties based on turnover of the business?