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
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 [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Amendment 431, in the name of Tim Eagle, was already debated with amendment 426. I remind members that if amendment 431 is agreed to, amendments 141 to 146 will be pre-empted.
Amendment 431 not moved.
Amendment 141 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 371 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Thank you very much, Mr Greer. I am looking round to see whether anyone wants to make any comments. I will do so, if no one else wants to.
It is always helpful, especially when we have gone through nearly 14 months of consultation on issues relating to land reform, if the issues that come up at stage 2 have been covered at stage 1. To my mind, none of your proposals, Mr Greer, or those of Rhoda Grant, came up or were discussed at stage 1 for the committee to understand. That makes it difficult for me to take from what you say anything but your aspirations to achieve things, which might not be related to the evidence that we have heard on land reform.
I am struggling with some of the amendments, based on the evidence that we have heard. We have heard that land management is best done at scale and that, if we want to challenge nature and biodiversity loss and deal with the environment, large landholdings might assist better with that. I believe that Mr Greer’s amendment 466 would disincentivise people with larger holdings from investing in the high-quality nature restoration that we need, especially peatland restoration.
When the measure to levy sporting rates on estates came in, I struggled with it. I should make it clear that, on my farm, I am levied a certain amount of money for shooting, for which I get non-domestic rates relief. I think that the valuation on the roll is £485, so the contribution would not be hard to make. However, it is interesting to note that some of the landholders who suffer the worst are those who are trying to deliver a minister’s policies to reduce deer numbers by culling. The very fact that those landholders are culling deer means that they end up paying sporting rates when, actually, they are just trying to grow trees.
As for the proposals on non-domestic rates relief on shooting, I understand Mr Greer’s aspirations and the fact that he dislikes shooting—I have no issue with that. My issue, though, is that shooting is currently a respected and accepted form of business that is allowed by law in Scotland. Therefore, it is difficult for me to understand why those businesses should be treated any differently from any other business in Scotland just because Mr Greer does not like them.
I see that you would like to make an intervention, Mr Greer. I have almost tried to provoke you, so I am happy to take one.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Does any other member, apart from me, wish to say anything?
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 527 disagreed to.
Amendment 166 moved—[Tim Eagle].
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 166 disagreed to.
Amendment 167 moved—[Tim Eagle].
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 167 disagreed to.
Amendment 168 not moved.
Amendment 169 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 169 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
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)