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 3592 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
Are you saying that, if we give it another couple of years, it will be fixed? Is the HSE telling you, “It’s fine; we’ve got it under control”? The industry does not know what it is meant to be collecting right now.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
Okay, but the committee cannot see it.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
I am finished, convener. I will let other members come in.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
I think that this is a mess. The UK REACH process was set up in 2018, and I do not think that it has ever worked. I appreciate the comments that the cabinet secretary has made. This is a situation that Scotland does not want to find itself in with Brexit.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
No, that is fine. I have problems with both of them, but I will start with that one. I have concerns in relation to the role of the HSE. It is acting as both a regulator and a policy maker, which feels a bit like a power grab.
There is certainly a lack of transparency. We do not even have a consultation document for the regulations. I am concerned that decisions are being made without transparency. I do not know what is meant by alignment with the wider UN rules. I do not know whether we are going to end up aligning with the regulatory regimes of other nations, rather than with those of the EU. There are particular concerns about certain classes of hazards, such as children’s toys and endocrine disruptors. There might be other cases where we are effectively falling out of alignment with the EU, which would have serious implications. It would also have implications for trade.
I am concerned. I do not think that we have been presented with the full picture, and the HSE should, at the very least, be in front of the committee to answer questions before we agree to such a far-reaching set of chemicals regulations that could take us further out of alignment with the EU.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
I am not going to be content with what is before us.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
I am objecting in principle to what is before the committee this morning.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
It is quite clear that the system is broken. I have sat in this committee and in our predecessor committee, and we granted extension after extension. I do not see the system ever working. It is important that the UK Government thinks again about whether having a separate UK REACH database will ever get us to the point of having up-to-date data about public health and safety. I do not think that we will ever get to that point.
It is for the UK Government and other ministers around these islands to think about what the next system should be. If, in two years’ time, we get to a point when the Government cannot meet the deadline and is seeking to extend it again, I do not know what that will look like. Perhaps the system could fully align with the EU. Perhaps the Government could take another approach.
Right now, there is no alternative but to add another two years on to the deadline. I want it to be noted that we have a completely and utterly dysfunctional system, which is not gathering the data. Industry does not know what kind of data it should be gathering. The whole system is broken, and serious concerns need to be raised with both Governments about the adequacy of that system. It is a joke to have an eight-year extension for something that was envisaged as taking only two years, in replicating the database. We are effectively being forced to vote for something that is redundant, inoperative and dysfunctional. I will do so through gritted teeth.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
I want to ask about negative emissions technologies, which are a massive part of the climate change plan. Your modelling shows 12 megatonnes of carbon reduction as a result of NETS, which is double the 6 megatonnes that the Climate Change Committee recommends. You just outlined how, with some of the policy choices over livestock and peatland restoration, NETS will be picking up some of the slack, although we will find out exactly how much later on.
Given where we are with Acorn, and that the Fife ethylene plant at Mossmorran and the Grangemouth refinery have now shut, there are questions about where the emissions will come from to make Acorn viable. What is your thinking on the viability of Acorn? Is it viable if the Peterhead gas-fired power station does not feed into it?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
Right. I am reading into it that there may be a route to Acorn being viable without Peterhead. However, we are where we are.
Let us imagine that Acorn does not get the go ahead or is not viable. Is there a plan B? Is there a contingency plan? You will remember that the Climate Change Committee has been calling for years for Government to have such a plan. Is there one? I know that you want to talk up Acorn—that is fine and I understand—but let us imagine that it does not happen. It may be unimaginable but, if it does not happen, what is the contingency plan?