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 2616 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
It would be good to see how that plays out through the model, rather than it just being—
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
I did not ask for a comparator with other parts of the UK. I want to know, on the best evidence that we have, whether the current standards are adequate to deliver a healthy environment.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
If you have more detail on the status of those conversations, specifically in relation to the WHO guidelines, that would be useful.
On greenhouse gases and ammonia, the CAFS strategy says that you have been working with
“the agricultural industry to develop a voluntary code of good agricultural practice for improving air quality in Scotland.”
You are directly involved in that CAFS workstream. I am interested in what progress you have made towards developing that code, who has been involved in that development and whether you think that a voluntary code is the right way forward or whether we should be moving towards using regulation—or a mixture of both.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
It would be useful for the committee to see any update that you have in relation to how you have adopted those ESS recommendations in a timely manner, if we have missed it.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
Do we fully understand the impact of damage caused by game? I am thinking about avian flu. Would a mass release of pheasants in the countryside have an impact on the spread of avian flu and disease? Is that seen as damage? It feels as though we do not have a full grasp of some of the impacts of game. That came up in some of the committee’s private discussions with stakeholders.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
Thanks for the useful detail.
My last question is about deer. If tenants have a limited right to control deer on their land, does that preclude them from claiming compensation for deer damage?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
I think that that is me on the technical stuff.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
I have a concern about the process that the new regulations have gone through. As I understand it, we are signed up to an international convention on these “forever chemicals”. That convention is meeting again in April for a conference of parties to decide which chemicals will be exempted from the regime. The parties will come up with a technical formal wording, which signatories can adopt.
It seems a bit odd that the UK Government is laying the regulations in March—three weeks ahead of the international convention meeting, which may end up requiring rewriting of some of the terms that the Government is introducing on exempt chemicals. I do not understand that thinking. Does it relate to a notification at the beginning of last year, which set a particular timeline running? I am not sure. However, if we sign up to an international convention, and we want to stick with it and its rule-making process, it is odd for the UK Government to lay regulations in advance of that. It does not feel right in terms of process. It would be ideal if this regulation were brought forward in May, after the meeting in April.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
We have had evidence from the Scottish Land Commission and a lot of stakeholders that focuses on the thresholds in the bill and where to draw the line. The Land Commission has made a very clear recommendation that all thresholds need to come in at 1,000 hectares. We have had practical examples of where a significant landholding, such as the Taymouth Castle estate, has had a big impact on surrounding communities and where there has been a lack of transparency over the long-term objectives for that land. Stakeholders have raised the fact that having transparency through a land management plan would be beneficial in that case, yet Taymouth Castle would currently sit outwith the provisions of the bill.
I am interested in your reflections on the evidence that we have heard, and particularly on the conclusion that 1,000 hectares is a more appropriate threshold than the current one.
09:45Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Mark Ruskell
I ask you to consider what the bill looks like to communities where there is a significant or powerful landowner. They will see that the bill will not change the concentration of land ownership overnight, because that depends on many factors, including an eventual sale of land, lotting and everything else. The bill might deliver transparency but, at the moment, it does not apply to very significant landholdings—I go back to the example of Taymouth Castle. Communities will look at the bill and ask how it provides transparency that will benefit them. They will ask how they can be sure of what the future is, and how they can understand major landowners’ plans for their communities. At the moment, the bill does not seem to apply to those communities.
The setting of a threshold seems to be quite arbitrary anyway. Setting it at 3,000 hectares clearly excludes a number of very significant landholdings in Scotland.