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 2698 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I will come back later if I have time, Mr Doris.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
—and the rights of the tenant to ensure that the market is not damaged. The committee had concerns that that balance had not been struck.
It is for those reasons that I am unable to support the bill at stage 1.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I have a very brief question on costs. Does Bob Doris share my concern that it is not just costs on the landowner that would increase—he has addressed that—but costs on the Land Commission, which has already been told that it has to find the money from existing budgets?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Will the member take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
It might not be a no.
We broadly support the need for local management plans, but they have to be focused on who they impact and the communities with which they will interact. Well-funded special interest groups must be held in context when it comes to those consultations. Local people, businesses and voices must have priority.
Colleagues across the chamber have raised crucial points in the debate. I want to mention my colleague Tim Eagle’s comments. He was not long ago working in the area, so we should listen to him. He said that the community right to buy is under review and asked why we should make the changes at this time. That point was also made by Liam McArthur.
Tim Eagle also raised the issue of how the bill could affect small land sales. The Scottish Land Commission has raised the possibility of de minimis exemptions, which sounds sensible, but we need to look very carefully at the legislation that would be brought forward on that.
We also heard about huge legal risks. Tim Eagle mentioned compensation and criteria for lotting. Fergus Ewing intervened and brought up the issue of retrospective changes and possible ECHR implications. My biggest worry is that the lawyers may be the biggest winners from this bill.
Ariane Burgess mentioned lower thresholds, but showed no concern for the increased workload on the Scottish Land Commission. The financial memorandum says that the SLC has to do most of the work, using “existing budgets” and reducing its current activities, which would be a concern for many.
I agree with Michael Matheson that continued reform is needed. He said that repeated legislation has not worked; I am afraid to suggest that this piece of legislation will not work either.
Bob Doris mentioned the inspection of land management plans for compliance. I agree that that would be a good idea but, once again I worry—especially if the threshold is reduced to 1,000 hectares—about the impact on the Scottish Land Commission.
In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives will be voting against the bill at stage 1. I know that many of my committee colleagues hope that the major flaws in the bill can be amended and addressed, but that will require hundreds of amendments, and the bill may look completely different by the time it becomes law.
The committee agreed that part 1 of the bill “risks not delivering” and that its approach is “potentially burdensome and bureaucratic.”
Part 2 of the bill requires major revisions to get it right. At present, from the conversations that I have had, I believe that there is a serious risk of unintended consequences and of less land being available to let. The Government needs to balance the rights of the landowner—
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
I totally welcome that flexibility, but this feels like retrospective regulation. I am concerned that businesses have made decisions on the basis of existing regulations and, as those change, they might have to retrofit and spend more.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Thank you.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
ESS received some criticisms last year in the “Report on ERCS’s first 11 representations to Environmental Standards Scotland” by the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland. They include criticisms that you are taking too long following representations to decide whether to investigate and that you are relying exclusively on using informal resolution rather than exercising enforcement powers such as issuing compliance notices. What is your reaction to that criticism?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 25 March 2025
Douglas Lumsden
Would you like that work to go faster? Are you taking into consideration what SEPA went through and the resources that it has?