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 2049 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
I am sorry to cut across you, but I probably did not articulate my question sufficiently well. Some witnesses’ written evidence said that it might be burdensome to do community consultation, to consider biodiversity and net zero and to undertake the cost of preparing a land management plan. More things could be included in the plans, and I generally support what you are saying, but others might contend that the more we ask people to do, the more burdensome and costly the process could become. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
Do you think that there is scope within land management plan regulations to say that that consultation process is an opportunity to discuss with communities what their rights actually are, because not every community will be aware of what their rights are or will have organised in such a fashion. Should that be part of the discourse during that consultation process?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for supporting our evidence taking on the bill. I will start with large-scale landholdings and land management plans. Last week, I noted to the Scottish Land Commission that its recommendation was for land management plans to start at 1,000 hectares, with 3,000 hectares being at the upper end of where it might start. The Scottish Government has gone for 3,000 hectares. As a city boy, I do not really know what a hectare is, but 3,000 hectares is 30 million square metres, which seems quite big: several thousand football pitches—Euro 2024 is on at the moment. Is 3,000 hectares maybe a wee bit high for starting with land management plans? I would like an initial view from each witness.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
Thank you. My question was just to get on record an initial viewpoint from witnesses. We will move on to other related questions.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
To a lot of people who are watching this session, 3,000 hectares will just be a random number; 4,000 or 5,000 football pitches is a meaningful amount, and 30 million square metres signifies a lot to people.
I am not even saying what my view is, Mr Macleod—it is just a wee starter for 10, if you like. Is it too high, too low or about right?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
Likewise—that is why I am trying to elicit evidence from people with expertise in order to work out how I feel about it.
Does Gail Watt want to come in?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
So there is consistency in that respect.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
Do you think that it provides a strong enough incentive to comply? Are there any affordability concerns?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
I think that we have had written and other evidence on that, so we have a spectrum of evidence in that regard.
We heard from the Land Commission about the possibility of cross-compliance, which I have mentioned. In that respect, we might not just be talking about £5,000, but, for the sake of precision, I want to read out the question that I have in front of me.
The consultation on the bill proposed that the outcome of any investigation into a breach could be taken into account in any subsequent public interest test and that additional conditions could be attached to the receipt of public funds, such as registration in the land register and, if in receipt of subsidies, registration and liability for UK or European Union tax. However, none of those proposals has been brought forward in the bill.
I am now going to roll a couple of questions together, convener, given the time constraints. First, why do you think those proposals have not been included, and would there be any legal difficulties in doing so? Secondly, would those proposals provide a greater range of remedies to ensure compliance? Last week, we heard that cross-compliance penalties could be a lot more substantial than £5,000.
I know that I have thrown a lot of things together there. Mr Macleod, if you would like to comment first, that would be really helpful.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 18 June 2024
Bob Doris
Does Mr Colquhoun have anything to add?