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 3405 contributions
Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 February 2025
Sue Webber
The Scottish Conservatives will always support increased investment in Scotland and believe that it can be enhanced through our commonsense plans to drive economic growth and cut taxes for workers and businesses. However, the SNP’s high-tax, low-income budget continues its 17 years of failure. Those failures are endless and range from a failing economy, a decline in education standards and a national health service that is in permanent crisis to the highest drug deaths rate in Europe.
Investment is key to Scotland’s future, but businesses are about to be hammered by the UK Labour Government’s national insurance hike and hindered by the SNP’s high-tax, low-growth agenda. The budget this week should have cut taxes for hard-working Scots and businesses; instead, the SNP’s proposals will stifle the economic growth that is vital to the future of public services in Scotland. After Labour’s crippling national insurance jobs tax, we needed a budget based on common sense and sound finances.
Investment is linked to the availability of skilled labour, yet the SNP has made Scotland’s income tax rates the highest in the UK, limiting industry access to skilled workers and undermining investment and economic growth. Economic growth should be front and centre of the policy agenda, and tone matters when investors are looking at where to put their capital.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 27 February 2025
Sue Webber
No.
There is a risk that a lack of policy alignment across other areas of Government will undermine that clear message. Rent caps are a good example. The damage done to the build-to-rent housing sector by the Scottish Government’s rent cap schemes is severe—£3.2 billion of private rented sector investment has been halted since rent control measures were put in place. Rents in Scotland have increased faster than anywhere else in the UK as a result. Concerned constituents here in Edinburgh constantly write to us about that very fact and the crippling impact that it has on them.
Transport is key to tackling inequalities across our country. Good transport links connect communities to schools, colleges, general practitioners, hospitals, dentists, shops, leisure facilities and people’s jobs. Whether it is ferries, trains, roads, potholes or public transport, it is clear that the SNP is failing to deliver on key services that are vital not only for the people of Scotland but for the economy.
Public sector investment in infrastructure is essential, as it facilitates the movement of goods and people, enabling businesses to operate efficiently, access wider markets and contribute to overall economic growth by increasing productivity, attracting investment and creating jobs. The need for investment in our roads has been glaring for years. The improvement of roads such as the A9, the A96, the A77 and the A75 is essential for sustainable economic growth as well as the protection of the communities on those routes.
That is why the delays to and uncertainty around the project to dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness and the Scottish Government’s temporising on dualling the A96 are alarming and anti-growth. Rural communities who depend on the A96 deserve better.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 27 February 2025
Sue Webber
The Scottish Conservatives will always support increased investment in Scotland and believe that it can be enhanced through our commonsense plans to drive economic growth and cut taxes for workers and businesses. However, the SNP’s high-tax, low-income budget continues its 17 years of failure. Those failures are endless and range from a failing economy, a decline in education standards and a national health service that is in permanent crisis to the highest drug deaths rate in Europe.
Investment is key to Scotland’s future, but businesses are about to be hammered by the UK Labour Government’s national insurance hike and hindered by the SNP’s high-tax, low-growth agenda. The budget this week should have cut taxes for hard-working Scots and businesses; instead, the SNP’s proposals will stifle the economic growth that is vital to the future of public services in Scotland. After Labour’s crippling national insurance jobs tax, we needed a budget based on common sense and sound finances.
Investment is linked to the availability of skilled labour, yet the SNP has made Scotland’s income tax rates the highest in the UK, limiting industry access to skilled workers and undermining investment and economic growth. Economic growth should be front and centre of the policy agenda, and tone matters when investors are looking at where to put their capital.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 27 February 2025
Sue Webber
Apologies—I have only four minutes.
We were promised that that lifeline road would be dualled all the way to Inverness by 2025, yet here we are in February 2025 and the promise has been repeatedly broken. We must also think about the A9—the backbone of Scotland. The failure to fully dual that key road has tragically resulted in far too many serious injuries and deaths.
More locally, simple improvements to rail infrastructure would bring obvious economic benefits. I am talking about improvements such as building a train station at Winchburgh to put a booming town of more than 3,400 new homes on the main Edinburgh to Glasgow line, and building the short Almond chord link to turn the Edinburgh Gateway station from a white elephant into a hub for the new west town that would be as busy as Haymarket.
As usual, the Scottish Conservatives are the party of common sense, which was clear from our budget proposals to cut taxes for workers and businesses. We believe that every penny of taxpayers’ money must be spent carefully to address the real concerns and needs of people up and down Scotland.
16:13Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Sue Webber
No—sorry. We are short of time.
Unsurprisingly, only one fifth of passengers think that ScotRail delivers good value for money. Polling found that 46.4 per cent of Scots thought that rail fares were too expensive.
The SNP’s nationalisation of ScotRail has been a failure by any and every measure. Nicola Sturgeon promised passengers that Scotland’s rail service would improve with Government ownership, yet things are manifestly worse than they were when ScotRail was under Abellio. Taxpayer subsidies, ticket prices and complaints have all soared while the number of services and the number of passengers using them have plummeted.
The just transition paper looks like another ploy to make the SNP look as if it is doing something while doing little—except squandering more public money. There are no projects, no priorities, no timescales and certainly no costings. The Scottish Government receives more money per capita for public services than the rest of the UK. It is high time that the SNP showed more common sense and used that money to give the public the vital services that they deserve at a cost that they can afford.
I move amendment S6M-16572.1, to insert at end:
“; notes that the operation of ScotRail has cost £600 million more compared to when it was in private hands, and that rail fares also increased by 8.7% in the 2024-25 financial year; calls on the Scottish Government to deliver value for money for taxpayers, which is a significant concern for rail users; urges the Scottish Government to increase access to ScotRail by opening new railway stations, in areas such as Winchburgh, Cove and Newtonhill, and calls on the Scottish Government to consider how a nationalised rail service can provide for all people in Scotland.”
16:16Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Sue Webber
Will the member take an intervention?
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Sue Webber
I am certain that, if we had fair and less expensive fares, passenger numbers would be even greater.
Despite the reduced number of passenger journeys, ScotRail is increasing its ticket prices by almost 4 per cent in the forthcoming financial year. That is on the back of an 8.7 per cent increase last year, which means that there will be a more than 12 per cent increase over two years. The price rise will affect all services that are operated by ScotRail, and it will mean that an any-time return ticket from Glasgow to Edinburgh will now cost £32.60. We heard that a flexipass might reduce the cost to £21, but that is still an eye-watering price.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 26 February 2025
Sue Webber
We know that an efficient transport network that delivers value for money for taxpayers is essential for economic and social development across Scotland. However, under the Scottish National Party, public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Unless considerable action is taken, our public transport network will only continue to decline.
Given the topic of the debate, we would be forgiven for thinking that the Scottish Greens had pushed for cheaper rail fares in their budget negotiations with the SNP. However, a few seconds ago, the cabinet secretary assured us that those discussions did not take place, so it is notable that rail fares were not mentioned in the negotiations. In return for supporting the SNP’s Scottish budget, the Greens secured a number of transport concessions—such as a year-long regional trial of bus fares being capped at £2 and free interisland ferry travel for young island residents—that fail to deliver for hard-working Scots and allow the Greens to continue their attack on road users.
I think that we can all agree that cheaper rail fares in Scotland would contribute to net zero goals, provide better connectivity and help the ailing economy. In the cabinet secretary’s recent draft transport plan, there are boasts that ScotRail has been brought into public ownership and that
“6 new stations have opened up across Scotland since 2020.”
However, there were 34 per cent fewer passenger journeys in 2022-23 than there were in 2019, which suggests that many people have shunned ScotRail.
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Sue Webber
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the housing minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what action is being taken to tackle homelessness in relation to care experienced individuals. (S6O-04338)
Meeting of the Parliament
Meeting date: 20 February 2025
Sue Webber
Despite the activity that the minister outlined in his response, a constituent has contacted me to express their anger at the state of homelessness among care-experienced individuals in Scotland. He said:
“I retired seven years ago from working in the field of housing and homelessness, to read after all this time that so many are still slipping through the net on leaving care is depressing: and particularly that the underlying issues—lack of affordable housing; insufficient planning in advance of leaving care; not enough support once someone has left—remain unaddressed.”
He found the statement from the Scottish Government that current action is sufficient as “particularly self-damning”. My constituent has clearly identified areas that need to be addressed, yet the Government does not seem to see homelessness among the group as a priority. When will we see direct action being taken to tackle the issue?