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 2901 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
Last week, we asked the Cabinet Secretary for Transport about how the net zero assessment was working. She indicated that it is used in the early development of policies but that you would be the best person to talk about how it is being rolled out across Government.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
It would be great to see more detail about that, particularly if there is early thinking about capital infrastructure projects or programmes. This goes back to the conversation that we had about the climate change plan. If the work is being done, it would be good to know whether it is being done across the whole Government, with the 10,000 tonne threshold being the trigger for the work, or whether it is being done just in the transport and housing portfolios. If there is such evidence and information, that would be good to see.
Climate change is clearly not the only factor in making decisions, but, if a policy decision results in going over the 10,000 tonne threshold, it would be good for that work to be considered and for us to see the output. That would let us know the impact of the policy and whether it is positive or negative. The taxonomy just puts the spend into groupings; it does not tell us the extent of the impact of policy decisions in a positive or negative way.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
One of the areas of deviation is hazard classes. This is complicated, but let me break it down into something that is quite simple to understand. Endocrine disruptor chemicals are in children’s toys. My understanding is that the EU is banning those—it has put them in a hazard class, which means that they cannot be sold. My understanding is that, in this country, the view of the HSE is that it is fine to continue to sell toys with endocrine disruptors. Is that an area of divergence, and how do you justify it?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
Which is what the HSE has been saying since 2018.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
Yes.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
I am interested in finding out where we are with divergence from EU standards. How are you monitoring that? What are the main areas where we are starting to diverge from the EU?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
No.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
I am sorry to intervene, but there is a missing megatonne of emissions. You have identified some policies that were accelerated or improved on, or for which there was greater ambition. Can you provide the figures on that? To go back to the deputy convener’s point, there is a need for a bit of transparency. There is a clear implication for a policy change, and there has been a conversation among the Cabinet. Other cabinet secretaries have stepped up and said that they can provide a third of that through increasing the roll-out of zero emissions HGVs, spending money in certain ways or investing in CCUS. Can we see how that megatonne breaks down and the thinking around the bidding process, with cabinet secretaries coming in and saying, “We can make this work by increasing our ambition; this is what we’re putting on the table in terms of carbon emissions—it all adds up”?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
Yes. That is not my question, but I think that the cabinet secretary will answer that, which would be good.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Mark Ruskell
Do you recognise the difficulty that exists because of the fact that the plan relies so heavily on NETS and, by default, Acorn? You cannot answer questions about Peterhead power station because of the Scottish Government’s responsibility for giving or denying consent, but it is really hard to answer the question about whether the 12 megatonnes figure is viable without understanding whether Acorn is viable and without understanding whether Peterhead is critical to Acorn.
You are not offering a view on Peterhead, but I cannot see how what happens in that regard will not have a major bearing on whether Acorn will be viable and, therefore, on whether a major part of your climate change plan is viable. I appreciate the situation that you are in, but is it not a bit of a conflict for the Government to present a climate change plan in which you cannot really talk about the options because some of those are dependent on the Government’s role as a consenting body?