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 1783 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 March 2026
Kevin Stewart
:In my constituency, it is the majority of folk, quite frankly. In energy-rich Aberdeen, we are the ones who are being screwed, which, unfortunately, has always been the case.
It may well be that the Climate Change Committee does not have the remit to look at every aspect of market reform and all the rest of it, but you are advisers to the UK and Scottish Governments and, surely, because you have talked about all the risks—change at the level of households is one of the biggest risks—those conversations have to include a drive towards cheaper electricity.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 March 2026
Kevin Stewart
:I am glad that we violently agree; we got there eventually.
I will turn to another point that you covered earlier, which is about utilising the North Sea basin rather than importing resources. You talked about the counterfactuality of using domestic supply compared with importing oil and gas, and you said that that is a complicated area. I do not disagree with you on that front. You offered to brief the committee further, which we would welcome. However, the difficulty is that briefing the committee will not get the message about your reasoning on the counterfactuality out to the public.
You may say that this is not in your remit, but surely it would be wiser to utilise resource here, which is often less carbon intense, than to import liquefied natural gas from Qatar. With the current volatility, who knows whether that will even be possible in the future?
Beyond that, what are you and others looking at regarding jobs? Utilising our own resource, rather than importing, would protect jobs here, rather than in Qatar, the United States or elsewhere.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Kevin Stewart
It would be interesting for the committee to get examples of where you think comments have crossed the line and where they have had an impact on your staff. I would also ask you to recognise the difference between scrutiny and what you may think is crossing the line.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Kevin Stewart
One of my colleagues will probably go into more depth about this, but are there conflicts of interest with some of the assessments that you are carrying out because you are also a statutory consultee?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Kevin Stewart
I am not trying to trap you in any pitfalls here, Mr Halfhide. You said that you do not understand the question, but the question about conflicts is asked by a number of people. I would have thought that you might have tried to find an answer for those folks who are sceptical and think that conflicts exist.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Kevin Stewart
Professor Higgins, as a board member, can you counter some of the folks who question your role and say that there may be conflicts?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Kevin Stewart
I would not say that I have knowledge, but the minister is correct in saying that 1 per cent is not a huge amount for the administration of any scheme. If most schemes were run with 1 per cent spent on admin costs, that would be good.
The minister has agreed to send a breakdown to the committee. It would be useful for us to see every aspect of the administration cost, including for the scrutiny of the schemes, because some folk have questioned whether there could be abuses of the scheme by operators through ticketing and all the rest of it.
When I was the minister for transport for a short period of time, I asked for a fair amount of scrutiny, to ensure that we were getting the best value for money. If we could have those breakdowns—including scrutiny of the 1 per cent—that would be wonderful.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Kevin Stewart
In those discussions, it might be found that the removal of bus passes in such cases would require further legislative change that is outwith your remit. However, thank you for that commitment.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Kevin Stewart
On peatland and nature restoration—and on peatland restoration in particular—we have already heard from Professor Higgins, just a few minutes ago, about an example of the University of Edinburgh investing in peatland restoration. Are there other examples of private finance that you think can be used? Are there any changes to taxation that you think might be viable for peatland restoration? Given the importance of peatland restoration not only to Scotland’s climate change plan but to the UK’s climate change plan, do think that the UK Treasury should invest more in peatland restoration?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
Kevin Stewart
I return to my point about whether the UK Treasury should be investing more. You said that we need continuous multiyear funding in order to get this right. Do the funding streams need to change from the HMT level to become multiyear in order that we get this right?