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 5973 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 154 agreed to.
Amendment 447 not moved.
Amendment 525 moved—[Douglas Lumsden].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 525 disagreed to.
Amendment 155 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I thank the cabinet secretary for that kind and generous offer. That will help at stage 3, but it will not help at stage 2, which is where we are at the moment. We have to make a decision based on the amendments that we have and the evidence that is in front of us.
As far as Rhoda Grant’s amendment 360 on crofting is concerned, I am not entirely convinced that that is required. I am also not sure that I understand how that would happen and what kind of crofting ownership that would apply to. Would it apply to an owner-occupied or a tenanted croft? There are too many missing parts to that wheel for me to be able to support amendment 360 and the other amendments in relation to crofting.
As I said, the deputy convener’s amendment 156 holds some attraction.
I want to push back in relation to Douglas Lumsden’s amendments on employment, as I am afraid that I am not taken by the cabinet secretary’s argument. During my 15 years of private practice, I sold estates on behalf of owners who stipulated that they could be sold only as a whole and could not be split up, in order to protect the employees who might have been on the estate for a long period of time.
10:00If we look at recent sales and purchases, I could point the cabinet secretary to Glen Prosen, an area that she is no doubt fully aware of. As a stipulation of the sale, which the Government required, the employees were made redundant before the Government purchased the land. I think that that illustrates that there are problems.
I do not believe that the Government can absolve itself from responsibilities on employment if it makes a decision to split up an estate. I think that the Government has an absolute obligation to say what is going to happen and to compensate people as a result. It may not always be the estate owner’s choice to sell; it may be forced on them by other means, such as a lack of cash, or a wish to invest in other things, as we have seen with estates around the country. I am not minded to accept what the Government has said about that.
I have no further comments. I call Tim Eagle to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 434.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
There will be a division.
For
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 174A disagreed to.
Amendment 174B moved—[Mercedes Villalba].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 174B be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I ask Mark Ruskell to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 374.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I think that your point is right. The aim of grouse moor licensing was to address what was perceived to be a problem with the persecution of raptors, and I accept that raptor persecution is wrong. The trouble is that the licensing has hardly been going for the two shakes of a dog’s tail; it has just come in. We have not seen whether it has had any effect and you already want to change it. I do not understand what your justification is for that. Perhaps there is evidence that I have missed. What has changed?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Are you saying that you will not press it?