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: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 298 agreed to.
Amendment 536 moved—[Emma Harper].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Everyone was very quiet there. I have obviously lulled members into a false sense of security.
Amendments 269 and 270 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.
Amendment 544 moved—[Tim Eagle].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 544 disagreed to.
Amendments 271 to 273 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.
Amendment 535 moved—[Tim Eagle].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I do not know, Mr Eagle. Maybe it is all down to my intervention; perhaps that confused you.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 276 agreed to.
Amendments 277 to 279 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 277 to 279?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I do, too, so two of us object. Therefore, we will vote on each amendment in turn.
The question is, that amendment 277 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 278 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 307 agreed to.
Amendment 308 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 June 2025
Edward Mountain
As no other member wishes to speak, I will say a few words, if I may. I find this really difficult because, during the evidence session, we heard that there has been a definite slowdown in the tenanted farming sector as a result of previous changes to legislation under which contracts had been entered into and agreed by both parties. I believe that we need a thriving and stable tenanted sector for Scotland’s rural economy to survive; we do not need to see it reducing in size. Amending provisions that were agreed in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 will just exaggerate the problem of the decline in the tenanted sector. I also take the view that if the tenant farming commissioner or his predecessor—both of whom I have huge respect for and have worked with during their time in office—have made a recommendation, it is dangerous to go against them, given that their view is probably based on experience.
In my experience, resumption of parts of farmland either for the landlord or to give bits up—as I have done myself—usually involves a conversation around the kitchen table and is done amicably until an agreement is thrashed out. My problem with the amendments that are being made to both the 1991 act and the 2003 act is that they make the situation open-ended. I totally agree that the multipliers of one times the rent for disturbance and four times the rent for reorganization are completely overtaken by events, because costs have risen. That is why I tried to push for a multiplier of 15 in order to give a clear signal to both parties. If the rent on a bit of land was £1,000, a tenant in the old days would get just a £5,000 payment, whereas, under the system that I was proposing, they would get a £15,000 payment. That would be a significant uplift, which, to me, reflects the cost.
To be honest, I am also disappointed that, although I thought that one had been reached, we do not seem to have any agreement on this between tenants and landlords. The very fact that they have not agreed means that we are in a situation where neither side can work out what is best for the tenanted farming sector. What is clear is that where we are is not suitable and will cause a further reduction in tenanted farms. For that reason, I make it entirely clear that, until agreement is reached between the parties, I will vote against any amendment on this matter that I see before me at this stage, and I encourage members to vote against it, too.