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 1139 contributions
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Colleagues will delve into some of the details in greater depth but, having looked at the definition in the bill and at your report, two questions occur to me. In essence, the definition in the bill requires the asset to be “rivalrous”. I wonder whether potential issues exist there, in relation to the exclusivity that that might or might not confer, because not all digital assets are rivalrous—although some things might have restricted access, they might not necessarily be exclusive or unique.
Likewise, might we inadvertently capture digital objects even if we do not seek to do so? For example, although some objects might confer exclusive or rivalrous control, they are not non-fungible tokens—which I believe is the terminology used for financial exchange—but only a matter of information technology security passcodes and so on. Does an issue exist with regard to the inadvertent capture of other aspects that we are not seeking to capture in the legislation?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
I think so. [Laughter.] I might need to go away and consider that.
Lord Hodge, do you have anything to add?
09:45Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Good morning, and welcome to the 33rd meeting in 2025 of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. We have received apologies from Sarah Boyack, Willie Coffey and Stephen Kerr.
We have two matters to consider in our public deliberations this morning. The first is consideration of subordinate legislation. The instrument, which is subject to the negative procedure, amends the financial thresholds for when Scottish procurement regulations apply to the award of contracts. The Scottish ministers update the thresholds every two years to reflect currency fluctuations.
No motion to annul the instrument has been lodged. I invite the committee to note the instrument. Do members agree to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
We move to the opening session of our stage 1 consideration of the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill. I am delighted that we have with us Lord Patrick Hodge, deputy president of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; and Professor David Fox, professor of common law at the University of Edinburgh. Both were members of the expert reference group on this area that the Scottish Government convened.
Neither witness has asked to make an opening statement, so I will open up the discussion. At the outset, I would like to say that, with the exception of Murdo Fraser, none of the committee members is a lawyer, so please bear with us if the questions that we ask are basic.
Having looked at the bill and read the expert reference group’s report to the Government, I ask both the witnesses whether you are content that the legislation meets the requirements and suggestions that you made in your report. Lord Hodge, I invite you to answer that question first.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
I have a final question. Lord Hodge referred to what we are talking about being analogous to some of the innovations that occurred in the 19th century. I am always fascinated by the way in which patent law develops; in a sense, that is attempting to provide legal constraints and controls for something that is even more ethereal than something electronic, which is ideas.
Is it fundamentally right that, in the bill, we consider the source of things such as electronic systems, by which I mean where they have emerged from? We have spent a long time this morning talking about the nature of the relationship involving the individual and a register. Would an alternative approach consider the rights and responsibilities that flow from the function of registration, rather than the essential source of the things and where they emerged from? With some of the innovations in the 19th century, the focus was more on the conditions in which the things operated, rather than the thing itself. I hope that that question is clear.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
I assumed that that was the answer, but I thought I would ask the explicit question, just to be clear. With that, I hand over to my colleague Lorna Slater.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Yes. Like with the point about AI, there are a number of other questions to be asked. For the purposes of this morning, your answer to that particular question and your answers overall have been very useful and illuminating.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Of course.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Please do.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 November 2025
Daniel Johnson
Thank you.
Michelle Thomson, the deputy convener, has a brief supplementary.