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 1812 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
I think that Monica Lennon was going to come in next.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
Thank you, minister. My point is about panels being created. Thinking about the trajectory that SPT is on, when would you envisage the panel being created, whether the SSI is approved or not? Would it be in 2026, 2027 or 2028?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
This last amendment is quite brief. It simply involves making all the regulations under the bill subject to the affirmative procedure. The bill proposes that some regulations be subject to the affirmative and some to the negative procedure. We all agree that climate change is too important an issue not to give supplementary legislation full scrutiny. Making the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure would ensure that they get the scrutiny that they deserve.
I move amendment 51.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
I can perhaps understand some of the reasons for not accepting the proposal but, for the sake of compromise, is there other wording that might be acceptable to strengthen the bill without tying the Government’s hands?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
Amendments 64, 49 and 50 are basically all the same. The Climate Change Committee is named in UK legislation but not in the Scottish legislation. Amendment 64 would specifically name the Climate Change Committee or any successor organisations as the relevant body from which ministers must take advice. We all agree that, in order to be non-partisan, advice on climate change plans and budgets should come from an independent source. The amendments would simply name the Climate Change Committee in the bill.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
I will leave it there, convener.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
Yes, but after speaking to your neighbours, you would think that you would learn some lessons. From your evidence at question 6, it seems that the Government has no plans to revisit the 2019 act, so I guess that you are not really going to be changing anything.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
Would our panels not consider the financials, too?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
Yes.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 29 October 2024
Douglas Lumsden
I will briefly wind up. Like others, I did not come to the meeting today convinced that a motion to annul was the right way forward, but that was before I listened to the minister’s answers. There seemed to be no real commitment to the process changing, so I think that a motion to annul is our only option. I do not think that we will be doing our scrutiny function any justice were we to continue to use the model, given the evidence that we have taken.