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 5976 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I call Tim Eagle to speak to amendment 544 and other amendments in the group.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 382 and other amendments in the group.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 225B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
There will be a division.
For
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
There will be a division.
For
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Against
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 277 agreed to.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
There will be a division.
For
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Against
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 304 agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
After section 25
Amendment 520 not moved.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
After section 27
Amendment 305 moved鈥擺Mairi Gougeon].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
If no other member wishes to speak on this group, I will say a couple of things before I invite the cabinet secretary to come in. When we considered the bill at stage 1, the issue of game damage was discussed. There was some evidence of game damage being a problem, but the majority of people from whom we heard evidence suggested that it was not.
My problem, when we have considered the issue, has always been with the inclusion of fixed equipment, buildings and fences. I am not sure how one attributes damage to fences to game management. For example, if deer are crossing a boundary fence where there is a tenancy, it usually falls to the landlord to maintain it, so it is a responsibility of the landlord anyway. Under convention, there is a 50-50 split between the two landowners on either side of the fence. That is the way that things have always been done, to my knowledge.
Internal fences then become the issue. My struggle with the proposal is this: if deer are moving, for example, over a boundary fence from land owned by Forestry and Land Scotland and then trash an internal fence, I have a problem understanding why the landlord of the holding is responsible when there has clearly been a failure on the part of the neighbour to manage the deer within their holdings. I struggle with that.
I also struggle when it comes down to the definition of ditches. In my career I have seen very little damage to ditches due to game. I have seen more damage due to beavers, in the short time they have been moving all the way round Scotland, than due to pheasants or deer.
Turning to another issue, I am not sure that I fully understand the reasons for removing game management purely on the principle of it. Perhaps that proves that the committee does not necessarily divide along party lines, and that we are instead examining issues individually with regard to their importance, which I think that we have done throughout stage 2. I will leave that observation for those who have commented otherwise in the press.