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 1194 contributions
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Thank you. With that, I will bring in the deputy convener, Michelle Thomson.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Similarly, there is also the concept of immutability. We heard from Professor Fox that the bill may not require absolute immutability. In the most fundamental sense, we are talking about virtual things that exist as electrons in hard disk memory banks and in a distributed way, so they are not, therefore, in an absolute sense, immutable at all.
Is it problematic that we are talking about hard immutability, either physically or conceptually? Professor Fox said that absolute immutability may not be required—as a practical approach, if these things are operating as they should be, they are unchangeable. Is the problem that there is a fuzzy margin in the concept of immutability with regard to the bill?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Thank you very much, minister. What are your and your team’s reflections on that evidence? To summarise the evidence, there has been broad agreement that we must incorporate digital assets into Scots law. The framing of the bill has received broad support, but there have been questions, in broad terms, about the clarity, and what may or may not be captured at the margins, of the definitions. I note that that is not necessarily a universal view.
Those are some of the points that have been raised. What are your broad reflections on the evidence that the committee has heard?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
I will probe some of those points, especially around the fundamental definitions. The bill is framed in terms of things that arise from electronic systems that are “rivalrous” and “immutable”. The legal witnesses said that those last two concepts were clear but that they are not long-standing features of Scots law.
When I look at how other jurisdictions have sought to capture similar concepts, I see that they have gone about it in a slightly different way. That is notwithstanding the other elements, which are part of the wider scope of that legislation. Just in terms of the narrow definitions, the Australian bill, for example—the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025—talks about
“an electronic record that one or more persons are capable of factually controlling”.
The bill goes on to describe that “factually controlling” an electronic record means that those people, either solely or jointly, are capable of transferring the electronic record. That captures a similar concept to rivalrousness, but it perhaps does so in plainer language.
Is there a potential issue in relation to using concepts such as rivalrousness and immutability, which are maybe less clear in terms of everyday speech, even if legal experts would claim that they are clear—especially if those terms are novel in Scots law?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Great. I have a final question. We have heard that law reform is urgently needed in other areas of Scots law, such as private international law and debt enforcement, to accommodate digital assets. That stands to reason. We might be talking about two people who are resident in Scotland exchanging an asset or being in dispute, but they are just as likely to be in different jurisdictions.
Private international law in and of itself might be at the frontiers of what we need to establish, but could the minister outline what the Government is thinking about how that work might be taken forward and what consideration is being given to it?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Was there a particular reason why it was more appropriate to use the terms in the bill, as opposed to language similar to that used in the Australian bill? Was there a specific reason why Scots law needed those discrete terms rather than a broader description of what rivalrousness or exclusive control might look like?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Minister, Emma Phillips wants to come in. Would you like to bring her in?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
I think that Greg McLardie was also hoping to come in.
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Professor Schafer, for the sake of completeness, have you any thoughts on the things that we might be capturing inadvertently? What safeguards might we need to guard against that?
Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Daniel Johnson
Right at the beginning, you hit on something that caused me concern. If someone creates a document that has some sort of version control mechanism that shows whose hands it has passed through, are they inadvertently creating something that will be captured by the bill? I am just checking that we are in the same terrain.