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: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I will consider that amendment when we get to it, Mr Doris. I am speaking to Ariane Burgess’s amendments in this group, about which I have concerns.
Finally, on a point of clarification, I believe that 20 years is a reasonable figure when it comes to land management plans, because it is a long-term figure. However, if the committee is not minded to support that proposal, I would find it easier to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment on 10-year plans, instead of supporting plans of five years, which, in the scheme of land management, is virtually the blink of an eye.
On that note, I will end what I am saying. As no other committee member wants to say anything, I hand over to the cabinet secretary.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Just so that I understand, you are proposing that we stick with a five-year management plan cycle.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I will be very careful not to make this into a conversation, as I am sure that I will disallow conversations later in my role as convener, but can you clarify your thought process and what you think the duration of a plan should be? It is fine to say that you will come to it later, but do you think that it should be 10 or 20 years?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I call Bob Doris to speak to amendment 16 and any other amendments in the group.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
I thank the cabinet secretary for that. I will leave my comments there.
I invite Michael Matheson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 11.
12:00Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Amendment 389, in the name of Tim Eagle, is grouped with amendments 397 and 341. I call Tim Eagle to move amendment 389 and speak to the other amendments in the group.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
The question is, that amendment 310 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Amendment 10, in the name of Tim Eagle, is grouped with amendments 390, 16, 311, 312, 17, 18, 391, 19, 313, 20, 21, 315, 314, 316, 392, 23, 317, 335, 337, 396, 33, 338 and 340. I remind members of the pre-emption and direct alternatives in this group, as set out on the groupings paper. I call Tim Eagle to move amendment 10 and speak to all the amendments in the group.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Thank you very much, Mercedes. I call Douglas Lumsden to speak to amendment 364 and other amendments in the group.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Edward Mountain
Thank you, Douglas. As no other member wishes to say anything, I wish to talk about amendments 310, 339, 150 and 174, which relate to public interest.
I understand the need to address public interest, and I have heard what has been said about it during the course of this stage 2 debate. My concern is that a certain amount of conflict would be created by the list of things in subsection (2) of the proposed new provision that amendment 310 would introduce. When you draw up a management plan as the owner of land, you cannot keep everyone happy—that is for sure—and you cannot afford to do everything that everyone wants to do. There is no definition or clarity in any of these amendments about public interest in relation to who is going to pay the person who delivers the public interest and whether, in fact, that person should be rewarded for that.
At the moment, the system pays agricultural subsidies for achieving various aims. I put my hand up and say that I am in receipt of agricultural subsidies for delivering public good in relation to the production of food.
Proposed new subsection (2)(k), as set out in amendment 310, is about contributing to food security and food system resilience. Another paragraph in proposed subsection (2) relates to a requirement for diversity. The problem is that, sometimes, intensive grazing of land to create food security is the best way forward but it might not be in the Government’s interest. At the moment, the Government is struggling to come to terms with the advice of the Climate Change Committee on whether to reduce livestock numbers across Scotland by 30 per cent. That might destroy farms and farmers who would not be able to achieve the scale needed to carry out their business. I am concerned, and I do not think that any of the tests that have been put forward under amendments 310, 339, 150 or 174 define how public interest and its delivery will be rewarded.