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
I will comment on four amendments. Amendments 375 and 376, in the name of Mark Ruskell, are quite interesting. I think I know the case that he has in mind when he talks about somebody failing to register—it was brought to my attention as well as his, and I believe that the cabinet secretary was also warned about the person. However, it seems that that was a one-off event. I have not yet had any other information regarding people failing to register—I have not heard of anyone doing that at all. Therefore, amendments 375 and 376 seem to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. My view is that the law is there and people should be encouraged to register. If they fail to do it, the penalties in the law should be imposed.
On Mercedes Villalba’s amendment 377, my concern is that she said that people hiding behind security declarations was a serious problem, but I am not aware of any reports of situations in which people refusing to have their names divulged for security reasons has affected the operations of any of the tenants or people associated who want to know about the ownership of the land. If there were some evidence of that, I might be minded to look at the amendment in a different way, but, as there is not, I find it difficult to support amendment 377.
On Monica Lennon’s amendment 475, which would require the Scottish ministers to prepare a report on Scotland’s land information service, I am always in favour of hearing what is going on and having accurate reports, so I am minded to support amendment 475, because it would result in our having a more detailed picture.
I have no other comments, so I will bring in the cabinet secretary.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Amendment 355, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is grouped with amendments 356 to 358, 486 and 514. I call Mark Ruskell to move amendment 355 and speak to all the amendments in the group.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 451 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
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 451 disagreed to.
Amendment 452 not moved.
Amendment 453 moved—[Tim Eagle].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 453 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I would like to make a few points; I am very happy to take interventions. The first point is on the timescales involved in lotting. I am taken by Tim Eagle’s amendment, which allows for 60 days. My experience in practice has shown that 60 days is an easy time frame in which to make a decision on whether an estate should be lotted for sale.
If that is taken in conjunction with Michael Matheson’s amendment 156, which refers to taking advice from others regarding the lotting, that could also be done within 60 days. Holding out for six months is an unnecessary delay, which is probably acceptable only in Government, rather than in the private sector. Therefore, that is completely unnecessary.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I call Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 514 and any other amendments in the group.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I invite Douglas Lumsden to contribute next; I will then make some comments myself.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Thank you, Mark. I am looking around the table, but I do not see any other members who want to speak.
I understand what amendment 467, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is trying to achieve. However, I think that there could be some confusion over one aspect that takes me back to a long time ago, when I was a practising surveyor, which is the application of the Crichel Down rules. Their effect is that where land is purchased under a compulsory purchase order by local authorities for various purposes, and, ultimately, that land is no longer required for those purposes, it must be offered for sale back to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased. Therefore, for amendment 467 to have any validity, that aspect would have to be considered.
That issue slightly concerns me, and I look to the cabinet secretary, who might have a lot more information from her many advisers on how the Crichel Down rules might affect how amendment 467 would work in practice. For that reason alone, I cannot support it, but I would love to hear the cabinet secretary’s views.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Mark, do you wish to press or withdraw the amendment?