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 1360 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
First of all, affordable housing is exempt from the levy. You are correct to say that all these matters have to be considered in the round as part of our discussions with the sector and others about the need to support house building. However, I take you back to the point that, if the sector did not make the proposed relatively small contribution to the overall costs of addressing cladding, those funds would have to be raised elsewhere.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
We are very conscious of that issue. We have indicated that there will be relief for brownfield sites; we just need to work through the details of the extent of that relief. In England, it is a 50 per cent reduction, so developers pay half the levy for developments on brownfield sites. In Scotland, we are very conscious of the need for relief for such sites, because of the additional remedial costs and because of their location in town and city centres, where we want to encourage development.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
It is a competitive market with a lot of different pressures on it, so it will depend on the situation for the particular developer. The market price is set by a range of factors, so it might well be that there is a mixture. How much of the cost developers absorb from their profits and how much of it is passed on will vary depending on the developer and the circumstances.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
It comes back to ease of use, because these numbers are well known in the building process right from the planning stage. Architects and developers will know those numbers, so they can plan on that basis. The end price, on the other hand, might move around right up to the last minute, depending on a range of factors, so it would be harder for them to assess what the levy would be to allow them to factor it in. As a result, this seemed the most robust and straightforward methodology.
I do take your point about different types of houses and so on, but what we are doing through reliefs on the affordability element will go a long way towards addressing that.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
Yes.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
Yes, and if I were sat here with an underspend, I am sure that you would have something to say about that as well.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
I believe that that is the process that was followed down south, where indicative rates were given 18 months ahead of the secondary legislation.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
That is a good point. If we look at the numbers, we can see that a relatively small percentage of the total cost of the remediation is covered by the levy. The remediation timetable, which is outside the scope of what we are talking about and has been taken forward by the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, is running as fast as it can in terms of the on-going work around the call for buildings to be identified so that they can be assessed. The funding is in place for the assessment of those buildings, and the work to get developers signed up to that activity, where the developer is identified, is continuing—the delay from the deferment has no impact on that.
It is worth recognising that the remediation is being implemented earlier in England because the transitional arrangements there are configured at the building control stage. That is earlier in the process than the completion certificate stage. There is recognition that there is quite a lead-in, so the revenues in England in the first year will be a small percentage of the total revenues that are expected in future years, when everything has flushed through the transitional arrangements.
Within the process that we are implementing, taking the revenue charge at the completion certificate stage means that we will immediately start to gain the full revenues from 2028.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
From a practical point of view, that would be extremely challenging. Officials might want to comment on that, as they have been closer to the detail and would have investigated that. We came to the same conclusion as the UK Government on that for many of the reasons that you have identified, such as that many of them will no longer be around, and many will be international companies, so it would be hard to identify their involvement. We have made a provision to extend the time period for up to 15 years to enable developers to pursue supply chain companies.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Ivan McKee
Maybe two, if we do something on brownfield sites.