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 1828 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
First, I assure the committee that I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. I know that we are up against the clock, but that should not preclude a proper debate. Nevertheless, I will try to truncate what I was going to say.
Amendment 1 states:
“A budget for a period must set out the proportion of the budget that is to be attributed to emissions from each of the following sectors”
and lists transport, energy consumption, land use, aviation and shipping as those sectors.
The committee took evidence on that when it produced its excellent stage 1 report on the bill, so I do not need to rehearse the arguments for it. The amendment is pretty straightforward; I do not need to explain it any further.
On my amendment 3, there may be differing views. It proposes full alignment with United Kingdom carbon budgets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. There was debate around that at stage 1—I remember that there were some very healthy contributions. There will be different views in the committee. My view—indeed, it was the view of the majority of respondents to the committee’s call for evidence—is that there should be alignment.
Amendment 53 came about as a result of some very good collaborative working with the cabinet secretary and her officials, which I found refreshing. Under the current provisions in the bill, ministers will be required to make a statement to Parliament setting out the extent to which each of the proposed carbon budgets takes into account the target-setting criteria and whether each budget is consistent with the latest advice from the UK Climate Change Committee. Following discussion at committee and during the stage 1 debate about the further information that Parliament might require to conduct scrutiny on the budgets, the amendment adds to the information that must be included in that statement.
Amendment 53 would also require ministers to share an indication of the policies and proposals that would likely be included in the next climate change plan, should regulations be approved. As I said, I have discussed it with the Government and, having had that discussion, I understand that it will be possible to publish that information only in “broadly indicative” terms. Members will have seen that that phrase appears in the amendment and they might think, “Why is Graham Simpson including such a woolly phrase in one of his amendments? That’s not his style.” It is not. However, I am accepting the wording in the spirit of compromise.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
You would then consider your legislative options, in the meantime. Is that correct?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
I understand that. It is a negative instrument. We either pass it or do not pass it—we accept it or reject it. If it is rejected, there is nothing to stop SPT continuing with its work.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
Thank you.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
Will the member take an intervention?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
Amendment 22 specifies a date for publication of the draft climate change plan. However, it would cut across amendment 55 in the name of Sarah Boyack, and we prefer amendment 55, so I will not move amendment 22.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
Okay, I will leave it there.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
Every committee member who has spoken today is in favour of franchising—and it is in the 2019 act. The message to SPT from the Parliament would be that the Parliament is in favour of franchising. The only thing that has been debated today is an element of that, which is about the existence of a panel.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
I will be brief. We have had a useful discussion. I have to agree with those who have commented on Brian Whittle’s amendment 46; I, too, am a bit confused by it, and perhaps Mr Lumsden might be minded not to press it. Mr Whittle can come back with something at stage 3.
I find it disappointing that, in the group of amendments, the cabinet secretary appears to be supporting only the amendment—which, granted, is in my name—that she had a hand in. It is disappointing that she is supporting nothing else, and I think that she could have worked with other members; perhaps she has.
Amendment 1, in my name, is similar to Mark Ruskell’s amendment 6. However, I have already invited members to reject amendment 6, so I ask members to accept amendment 1.
I will leave it there, convener.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Graham Simpson
This is just to assist me as I deliberate over my amendment 23. I agree that Maurice Golden’s amendment 48 is very good, so does the cabinet secretary think that my amendment 23 introduces an element of duplication?