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 成人快手 and committees will automatically update to show only the 成人快手 and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of 成人快手 and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of 成人快手 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 1879 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Bob Doris
I have no further questions, but may I write to you about the specifics of that case to see whether a best-practice template could be embedded in public practice?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Bob Doris
Can you say a little more about why you think that embedding this topic in core education is so important, and why it is important that parents are involved in what that will look like? I guess, from what you are saying, that you would also expect Education Scotland to be speaking to you about what that might mean in practice.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and Social Justice and Social Security Committee (Joint Meeting) [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Bob Doris
I thank everyone for their answers. I am sure that Public Health Scotland, Education Scotland and the whole family wellbeing fund will be listening to this exchange in order to engage with you on an on-going basis.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Bob Doris
So you are open minded about reviewing the level of fines that could be levied.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Bob Doris
I do, convener鈥擨 am inspired by your line of questioning. We heard evidence that large landowners who are doing their job properly do all this community consultation and meet all the requirements of land management plans anyway, because that is what good landowners do. However, the same landowners tell us that it is going to be really expensive to do what they are already doing anyway. What is the cabinet secretary鈥檚 view on the idea that many of the costs that are associated with land management plans are the costs of activities that good landowners are probably already doing anyway?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Bob Doris
My colleague Mark Ruskell made an interesting point about local place plans. Cabinet secretary, I think that you made the point that I would have made, which is that having an additional focus on local place plans might create inequity in the approach, given that they are not consistent and that not every local authority has one. However, I draw your attention to the 10-year strategic plans that local authorities should have for their areas. What will be the relationship between a 10-year planning document and land management plans? I ask because community consultation is a core aspect of 10-year local authority plans and we would not want local authorities to assume that community consultation that took place in relation to a land management plan would suffice in relation to the job that they should already be doing directly with the communities that they serve.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Bob Doris
It sounds as though the Government is open minded but has not made a final decision on whether the list should be extended. One reason for extending it would be to give anonymity to some who would like to report a breach, because of the power imbalance that can exist in some rural areas. Those people could, for example, go through their community council or an enterprise agency to report a breach.
Another way to address that issue might be to allow the new land and communities commissioner to have the proactive power to instigate their own investigation if they believed that there was potential evidence of a breach. Would you like to see that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Bob Doris
I will return to it and put in my final question along with it, because of time constraints. What are your thoughts on the land and communities commissioner having the power to proactively instigate their own investigation if they have reason to believe that there could be non-compliance or a breach?
More generally, what are your thoughts on general monitoring of compliance across the board, not just to catch landowners who might be non-compliant鈥攁lthough that would clearly be welcome鈥攂ut to identify best practice and share good practice and expertise on what an effective and compliant land management plan looks like?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Bob Doris
Can you say any more at this stage about what overall monitoring of compliance will look like?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 February 2025
Bob Doris
We could return to the matter when we consider the evidence but, as Mr Ruskell mentioned local place plans, I wanted to tie together where they sit in the planning framework.
A breach of a land management plan could be simply not preparing one in the first place, or it could be not fulfilling the obligations in the plan. There has been much debate about the costs of producing a plan. If the maximum fine is 拢5,000 for not producing or not complying with a plan, might there be an incentive to simply pay the fine and not produce a robust plan that is compliant? How was the figure of 拢5,000 arrived at? Will it be a one-off fine of 拢5,000 or might it be 拢5,000 levied on an annual or a recurring basis, depending on the level of compliance or otherwise? What more information can you provide?