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 1422 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
What about in rural areas?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
With regard to putting a bit of an extra tax on hotels, is there a danger—it may be an unintended consequence of Mr Mason’s amendment—of harming the tourist trade, which is already struggling?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
I thank the minister for amendments 3, 5 and 6, which will introduce further consultation with the sector. I have absolutely no concerns about that.
It will be no surprise to members to learn that I lodged amendment 46 because I am keen to have super-affirmative procedures to ensure that, when ministers seek to amend regulations that modify the types of building involved and the tax exemptions, we have as much scrutiny as possible. The clear outcome of our stage 1 scrutiny and report was that there is a need for better quality data to provide information that allows us to understand the impact of the levy. That is why I mentioned behavioural changes earlier. As a result of this process, the housing market will have significant changes placed on it. I want to ensure that additional scrutiny is in place through the super-affirmative procedure. That is why, in due course, I will move amendment 46.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
Yes, of course.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
Yes, I do. If I remember correctly, the minister and several witnesses made that point to the committee. However, it is impossible to legislate on that, given that we will not know what will be uncovered until the cladding remediation actually takes place. It is difficult for an amendment to deal with that eventuality, because we do not know what the circumstances might be. With my amendments, I am simply trying to reflect what the committee decided on the basis of the evidence that we took.
Moreover, when you
“intervene in the market, to stimulate or speed up delivery where build-out is not progressing at pace”,
to use the Government’s wording, charging the levy at a higher level if a development is not built to an agreed timeframe will rather cut across the purpose of a bill that, in our consideration, we have been assured will put in place a tax for meeting any building safety expenditure. That is the reason for amendments 34 to 36.
I move amendment 34.
12:45
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
The minister and I talked about that when we met to discuss the issue. Will he give a commitment that, prior to stage 3, he will work with me to ensure that we sort out the definitions and address the sector’s concerns that there might be some mission creep?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
I have nothing further to say, except that I am grateful to the minister. We can discuss the issue further in order to find something that suits everybody’s intentions and which will ensure that some of the unintended consequences that might occur do not.
Amendment 34, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 35 and 36 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 to 16 agreed to.
Section 17—Cancellation of registration for levy
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
Amendments 62 and 66 are about an extension of the provisions in the bill. For the reasons that Craig Hoy has just given, we need to try to give the sector some certainty and a commitment that we will not let things go further down the road without holding to account the delivery of the building work that is being undertaken. If we were to allow that to happen, we would be in a circumstance of considerable uncertainty. That would be a difficult situation that none of us wants to get into.
Some of the witnesses that we heard from at stage 1 were very much in favour of sunset clauses to ensure that the situation cannot go on for ever or be shifted down the line without such a commitment being made.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
Can you explain what that specific issue is?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
Liz Smith
My amendment 20 seeks to exempt from the levy the conversion of historic buildings, mainly because projects of that nature are not really speculative. They tend to be a more expensive way of producing new homes, and, most importantly, through the conversion of historic buildings into new homes, they deliver a wider public benefit, which the Parliament has discussed in other ways regarding historic buildings. It is important that we encourage the bringing back of vacant or underused buildings into productive use. If the levy were to be applied, that would risk discouraging the reuse and investment that aligns closely with the preservation of our heritage, and amendment 20 is designed to try to avoid that.
My amendment 41 is a straightforward consequential amendment to amendment 20, as it provides a definition of “historic building” by reference to existing statutory designations.