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 3572 contributions
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
Amendments 146 and 147 seem to give a pretty clear definition. It could be tidied up a bit, but I am inclined to support one of those amendments. I do not see what the member’s problem is with amendments 146 and 147 and why he feels that we do not have a definition.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 February 2026
John Mason
I have some sympathy for the idea of having general principles in a bill. However, Sue Webber mentioned prevention, and subsection (2)(e) in her amendment 87 refers to “preventative measures”, which seems to me quite a vague term. Does she not think that it is a bit vague to put that in the bill?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
John Mason
No. I am saying that you would be selling the units in the fund, not the asset.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
John Mason
I was interested in what the convener was saying. Looking at the impact assessments, when we first discussed the bill, the situation was thought to be more difficult for island communities because they do not have the same choice about where they get aggregates.
We are told that
“No new impacts have been identified for Island Communities”,
but perhaps there were existing impacts that could be dealt with. Has it been suggested that we could consider different rates for the islands?
09:15
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
John Mason
If the convener and I were to set up a fund and buy some land, and then we both sold to Mr Harvie and Ms Smith, no tax would be payable because the fund would still be in place. Is that correct?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
John Mason
I will make a note to watch the proceedings online.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
John Mason
The fund is still there, but it could be owned by completely different people and there would be no tax. Is that right?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
John Mason
Okay. I will not pursue that any further.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
John Mason
I understand the logic that we should keep things steady this year, but it would be worth looking at varying the rate for the islands in the future. We know from the evidence that we took that it is very expensive to move aggregates around, so it is unlikely that people would take aggregates on a ferry to or from the islands. I will not be here next year, but perhaps someone in my place will ask that question.
Under “Impact Assessments”, there are two separate paragraphs on sustainable development. One of them is very brief. It says:
“The instrument will have no impact on sustainable development.”
The other one is a bit longer. It ends by saying:
“the instrument will have no impact on sustainable development, and no adverse effects on the environment.”
This follows on from the convener’s question and, again, it is perhaps more of a question for next year. If there was a higher rate, that might have an impact on the environment, because people would use more recycled and less new material.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 February 2026
John Mason
I wonder whether there could be a loophole here for people to avoid tax. If the land was owned by A and B and, separately, A sold to C, and B sold to D, there would be a complete change of ownership but no tax would be payable.