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 1523 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Monica Lennon
Thank you for that.
You made a point about language that could be in the bill. I take your point about the phrase “large land holdings”. Do you want to expand on what you mean when you talk about “significant landholdings”? In the committee, we think about the meaning of words and their definitions.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Monica Lennon
I see that Linda Gillespie does not wish to comment. That is fine.
I will move on to land management plans. The plans are required to set out how the land is being managed in a way that contributes to achieving net zero, adapting to climate change and increasing or sustaining biodiversity. Is that adequate, or are there other criteria that it might be appropriate to include? Should those be addressed through primary or secondary legislation?
Josh Doble is again maintaining eye contact, so we will go to him.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Monica Lennon
We have had evidence that suggests that large landholdings are more likely to attract private investment and deliver against woodland and peatland targets at pace and scale. Is that the witnesses’ view, or do you have a body of evidence or examples of smaller landholdings achieving that or working together to deliver at scale?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Monica Lennon
Jon, you have been nominated.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Monica Lennon
If we have more small landholdings, is there more scope for collaboration and working differently?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Monica Lennon
I will stick with land management plans. Is there a risk that production of the plans will become quite a formulaic exercise with a big role for external consultants, such that we start to lose meaningful engagement with communities? Does anyone have a view on that or any advice to the committee, as we look at this part of the bill?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Monica Lennon
I just wanted to be clear about that.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Monica Lennon
Thank you for that.
To expand on my initial question that I put to all the witnesses, you might remember that, back in April, the Scottish Government announced a consultation on a new carbon tax on large estates to incentivise peatland restoration, tree planting and renewable energy generation. Do you have a view on that proposal? Do you agree or disagree that taxation is the best way to achieve decarbonising land use and agriculture? I do not know whether anyone has a strong view on that or wants to go first. I will go to Josh Doble, and then to Jon Hollingdale.
09:30Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Monica Lennon
No—I do not agree with that. I think that the bill as it is currently drafted, in using the term “have regard to”, is weaker than many of us would like it to be; the evidence that we heard at stage 1 reflects that.
My amendments would strengthen the requirement to act in accordance with CCC advice, but they would provide for a departure where there are “exceptional” circumstances. In my view, that would be a better balance than what is currently in the bill.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Monica Lennon
I am pleased to have worked with the Scottish Government on amendment 57. The amendment would require the Scottish Government to lay a section 36 report within six months of a target being reported as missed. The amendment would replace the current requirement for such a report to be laid
“As soon as reasonably practical”
after the report that indicated that the target had been missed. Ministers would continue to be required to set out proposals and policies to compensate in future years for excess emissions resulting from any missed target.
I heard what Mark Ruskell said about his amendment 13. I gently suggest to members that, given that I have worked closely with the Government on the issue following stage 1 evidence, they should support my amendment 57 as the alternative.
I do not intend to speak to all the other amendments. I was looking for clarification from Douglas Lumsden in relation to his amendments 39 and 40, because I thought that they were alternatives to each other. I understand the intent behind Graham Simpson’s amendment 23, but I am concerned that it would be too impractical or place too much demand on the Scottish Government, given that we have amendment 48, which would provide a mechanism for ministers to monitor whether the Government is on track to meet a carbon budget and take remedial action when it is off track.
I have no further comments to add.
12:00