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 6747 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 January 2026
Edward Mountain
Thank you, convener. Just to avoid any dubiety, I remind witnesses and committee members that I farm 1,000 acres, 500 of which are tenanted; I have a 160-strong pedigree beef herd and I mix-farm using the principles of rotational farming promoted by Turnip Townshend—something that I am sure all the panellists will know about.
My first question is about my concern that farmers are being pushed every day—as are crofters—to get their carbon budgets sorted out and work out all the carbon that they are using, but the industry is claiming those savings for itself. Do you think that there is double counting in the plan? For example, the production of barley has to be zero carbon; the farmers produce it, and the industry says that it has decarbonised its whisky production to zero, but somebody else has done all the work. Do you think that that is accounted for in the plan?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 January 2026
Edward Mountain
I will end there, but I just want to say that we have an uncosted plan with provisional figures and with no idea of who is going to pay for it, what the benefits are and who will benefit. It is an amazing plan to me.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 January 2026
Edward Mountain
You will not be surprised to hear that I want to look at annex 3. On page 67, it clearly says that, because of the slow development of the ARP, it is impossible to
“fully assess the costs and benefits to industry”.
It goes on to say:
“All figures”—
that is, on the carbon reductions and costs—
“should therefore be treated as provisional”.
On page 72, the chart setting out what it is going to cost says that the benefits to the environment over the period are worth £9.6 billion and, over the same period, the net costs are £90 million. However, the problem is that the costs of the agricultural support scheme, if you tot them all up as it rolls forward, are £12.8 billion. So, none of the figures match up. Can those people who have considered the plan tell me how much it will cost farmers and the industry more widely? I cannot work it out.
Dave, you anticipated the question, because you smiled. I will come to you first, because you must know the answers.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 January 2026
Edward Mountain
If they have heard previous evidence sessions, the panel members will not be surprised that, for my second question, I am directing them to page 67 of annex 3, which talks of the agricultural pathway and tries to give some idea of what needs to be achieved. The problem is that it says that no benefits or costs have been worked out, because the ARP has not been developed and it is not possible to develop it at this stage, so the annual budget for farm subsidies will run forward to 2040, which, clearly, is not in the budget at the moment. Do you understand from this climate change plan—which, to be a plan, must be properly costed—what its proposals will cost farmers and crofters? It can be a yes or no answer if you want. I will go along the whole panel, starting with Lorna.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 January 2026
Edward Mountain
In summary, you are saying that we have a plan without a route map of how to get to where we must get to, and we have no idea of the cost. It sounds like a good plan to me.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 14 January 2026
Edward Mountain
Does anyone have the answer?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Edward Mountain
You will not be surprised by my question. I refer you to page 77 of annex 3 of the draft CCP, which says that there is a Government commitment to produce 258,000 hectares of new woodland by 2040. You have told us that there needs to be confidence in the market to achieve that target. I suggest that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 and the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill might muddy the water—that is certainly the evidence that we heard.
Based on the figures that you suggest, and adding a small proportion of uplift, to achieve the Government’s planting figure of 258,000 hectares, it will need to invest at least £880 million. That is based on today’s figures. Given that costs might rise, we are probably looking at closer to £1.2 billion. Could you tell me where I will find that investment? According to the table on page 78 of annex 3, it is all good news; there are no costs. Are you confident that the plan is properly financed? A yes or no answer will do, as the convener is short of time.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Edward Mountain
If not pump-priming it. The Government is not making a commitment in the climate change plan; all that it is committed to doing is spending £250 million between now and 2030, of which it had already spent £45 million at the end of 2023. I do not have the latest figures, as I cannot get them. We are way off target. The natural capital market will not invest in something if there is no certainty. You are not giving me certainty and I am not seeing it in the draft plan. Please try to give me certainty so that I can understand that the climate change plan is deliverable.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Edward Mountain
My final question is this: do you believe that the costings produced by the Government in the draft climate change plan are actually believable? A yes or no answer will do me.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 7 January 2026
Edward Mountain
I will take that as a no.