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 MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs 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 937 contributions
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
The only policy that you have identified is the decoupling. Are there no others that you would consider?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
Does anyone else want to come in on my question?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
Understood. I turn to the credibility of negative emissions technologies. As I understand it—I am happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood—there are, in essence, two flavours of negative emissions technologies. In one version, you would attach an interim measure, perhaps a chemical process or a reverse process, to a specific installation to deal with the emissions of that specific site. The other version is a bit more hypothetical, whereby you would take those emissions and stuff them back under the North Sea and hope that they stay there. Have I got that right, and how credible are the two pathways? I heard Professor de Leeuw talk about negative emissions technology as an interim solution. I would agree with having that as an interim solution for key industrial sites until we can get electrification going, but I am very sceptical—because it has not been proven—about the idea of long-term carbon storage under the North Sea.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
Do you mean a specific subsidy as opposed to policy change?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
With the convener’s indulgence, I will ask a supplementary to Michelle Thomson’s question before I move on to other questions. It is about net costs versus gross costs of the investment that is required for decarbonisation. I think that we all agree that investment is required, but this is a long-term project, as David Thomson has mentioned, and, during that time, factories will have equipment that comes to its end of life, as well as normal maintenance and repair. We are definitely talking about large sums of money, and there will be some natural attrition of equipment that needs replacing, which would be part of any normal business planning, and of course there will be some amount—a fraction—of savings from insulation and efficiencies as we go forward. When sums are being quoted, are they net or gross?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
That is really helpful. One of my frustrations with the plan—it sounds as though Professor de Leeuw and Ms Dingwall have a similar frustration—is that it is not specific about businesses. We know who the big polluters are in Scotland. You can google to find a very quick list, which includes the Peterhead gas power station, the Ineos Grangemouth complex—that will have changed since the list was compiled—Mossmorran, the Shell St Fergus gas plant, the Tarmac cement works and a whole host of biomass and waste incinerators, whisky distilleries and glass plants. That is before you get to a typical small business. I would assert that we know where the big polluters are, which are not the average everyday small businesses—it is those big guys.
Any climate change plan that does not sit down with the big businesses and ask, “What is your plan for decarbonising?” is not worth the paper that it is written on. They are the ones that are creating the pollution and they are the ones that will have to fix it. To some extent, there is frustration that those businesses have very broad shoulders and do not need Government handouts. What are your views on how we tackle the big polluters and how we prioritise them and lean on them to come up with a plan for how they will reduce their emissions, instead of making small businesses feel like they ought to be doing something when they are not really the problem?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
My final question to the whole panel—anyone should feel free to come in on it—is a general one about credibility. Does the climate change plan from the Scottish Government look credible? I note that, in several cases, it is kicking the can down the road a bit compared with what the Climate Change Committee has recommended—starting later and catching up later. Is that credible? Is it more realistic? Are we on the right track here?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
The question is to both of you, but please start, Mr Woolley.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
You have raised a very good point about the importance of driving down electricity costs. Do you have a shortlist of the actions that the Government needs to take to do that? I assume that one of the actions would be undoing the artificial link between electricity costs and gas costs that we have in the United Kingdom. What else do we need to do? I agree that electricity costs are a key driver.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Lorna Slater
Thank you, convener.