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 2048 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
Yes—they would not necessarily be to catch the landowner out but to see what is happening out there in the real world and make recommendations about how land management plans can be improved more generally.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
That was a helpful conversation between Mr Fleetwood and the convener. The debate is really about the cost versus the affordability of land management plans.
We have heard evidence through our scrutiny that good landowners will already be doing all the things that you would expect to see in a land management plan. That will now be placed on a statutory footing. Landowners come to the committee and tell us that they do the consultation anyway. Is it not the case, convener—the question is for Mr Fleetwood, of course—that good landowners would have nothing to fear and that the work to draw up a land management plan, including community consultation, should already be taking place, if they are a good, responsible landowner? What are your thoughts on that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
That is helpful. The committee has to contrast cost and affordability with what best practice looks like out there.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
Does anyone else have thoughts on that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
It does help. I have a final brief question, which I will ask more about later. Is that an argument for a proportionate approach to what the new commission would deem to be an appropriate level of endeavour to produce a good-quality plan rather than an argument against land management plans? Is it more about being balanced in how we take this forward, rather than about not taking it forward?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
The provision says that there should be a reasonable grounds test. The commissioner could say, for example, that they have not had a formal report of a potential breach from a group that has a statutory right to report it, but that something has been brought to their attention and that they have reasonable grounds to investigate—there will be a permissive power to investigate. Are you fine with that, Max?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
Okay. Sarah, I want to know whether you have a view on my follow-up question.
The bill will be amended and I imagine that it will be enacted, and we will be left thinking about what the quality of land management plans across the country will be—whether we decide on 3,000 hectares or 1,000 hectares. We will also be left wondering what outcomes we have achieved. Should the new commissioner do a bit of sampling of land management plans to ensure that they are of good quality and that they have positive outcomes, rather than waiting for a breach? What about a proactive role for the new commissioner? Maybe a sample survey of various landowners’ land management plans could be carried out to drive up good practice.
There will also be some plans that do not cut it—not because of wilful acting against the interests of communities but only because landowners have not got it together. What are your thoughts on a proactive role for the new commissioner?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
I get all that, and although that answer is very helpful, I am slightly concerned that work that landowners are doing anyway and that has a cost to it will be subsumed under what will be a new endeavour for the land management plan, and that it will be quantified as a cost of the new endeavour rather than an on-going cost that exists anyway, as Mr Carlow has outlined.
Mr Clark, it sounds to me as though those tens of thousands of pounds are moneys that will be spent anyway on all the things that we would expect responsible large landowners to do as a matter of course. Will you say more about what happens already and whether there is a cost to that? Are we perhaps double-counting some of the costs?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
I want to ask a little about how we identify breaches in land management plans. The commission has recommended that the proposed new land and communities commissioner should have the power to instigate investigations into potential breaches resulting from a lack of a proper community consultation and engagement process. It has also recommended that the commissioner also have a more general power to instigate its own investigations, irrespective of who can or cannot report a breach, if the new commissioner is aware that there are reasonable grounds that there has been a breach about any matter to do with land management plans, and not specifically to do with a consultation. I would like Mr Carlow’s initial views on that.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Bob Doris
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but are you, in effect, saying that, although it is perfectly good to award the power, because of the resource that an individual commissioner might have their ability to use it might be pretty limited?