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 3978 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Ultimately, the levy will be paid by house buyers, will it not? For example, if there are 10,000 houses in a year that qualify, the levy will effectively put up the price of those houses by £3,000. Developers will not take the cost out of their profits; they will pass it on to house buyers.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
How tied is the Government to the figure of £30 million a year? Will there be flexibility in the amount of the levy? If only 7,500 houses are built in a year, does that mean that the levy might be £4,000, or will it stick at £3,000—or whatever the figure happens to be? If it sticks at £3,000, for example, you would get only £22.5 million. Where are we in relation to flexibility?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
You have talked about 77 per cent being the benchmark, and it was at 76 per cent last year. Roughly, where do you think that you are now? You have said that you cannot be too specific.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
That is a politician’s answer, is it not?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
The directorate for internal audit and assurance has pointed out that the
“culture within Revenue Scotland continues to be open to audit and assurance”.
However, it has said that two items were highlighted for attention as part of the 2023-24 audit, namely
“the risk that the related party disclosure may be incomplete or inaccurate”
and
“the scope for medium-term financial planning arrangements to be developed further to highlight and ensure financial sustainability.”
It notes that
“Action to address these matters is underway and is expected to be completed”
during 2025-26. I wonder whether you can touch on that for a wee minute.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Are you talking about a total exemption or a discount? If it is a discount, what percentage are you talking about?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Looking at the evidence, we see everyone talking about exemptions. If all the exemptions were in place, there would not be any money to collect. Anna Gardiner, in your submission, you said:
“we would suggest that an exemption in the region of 50 units would provide a more meaningful degree of protection in rural Scotland.”
I do not know how many developments of more than 50 units there are in rural Scotland—I cannot imagine that there are many. Surely developers would just build 49-unit developments, to avoid the tax.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Go on—tell us all!
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
That appears to have exhausted the questions from the committee.
I would make an appeal to you, minister. You have mentioned flexibility, and you have talked about the outcomes of most impact. On the credibility of the budget and the portfolios that we discuss and debate as we go through the three stages of the budget, we are dealing with stuff like investment in the integration of health boards and social care, costing £257.2 million this year, a transfer of £79.2 million from housing to local government within the finance and local government portfolio for discretionary housing payments and a transfer of £49.3 million from health and social care to the education and skills portfolio to pay the teaching grant for nursery and midwifery students. Given that such transfers are happening every single year at this point, would it not be much better to have such funds in the budgets where delivery will take place? I do not see how that would adversely affect outcomes, although it might affect how some budget portfolios look, in the context of the public presentation of the budget. There is perhaps an element of that in Government thinking.
I wonder how many more years we will have those continuing transfers for, given that they happen every single year. As the Parliament has to vote for a budget every year, the more the budget reflects actual expenditure, the better it will be.
10:30Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
The Supreme Court ruling is also mentioned in paragraph 9 of your submission.
Fionna Kell, you said in your submission that the Government is pursuing
“a £30m funding target that is not based on accurate estimate of the work required or funding gap.”