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 609 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
The drivers for reviewing national park legislation were the strategic framework for biodiversity and recognition of the role of national parks in tackling the twin crises. However, many stakeholders have described the changes that are proposed in the bill as “modest”. What impact will Part 3 of the bill have on national parks’ ability to contribute to addressing those big societal challenges?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Do you think that our national parks have been delivering up till now?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
I am simply reflecting what people have said to me, which is that the people who were looking to build a consensus on a national park were not necessarily people who had a community focus. There were groups that were keen on having a national park that had aims and objectives that the community was aware of but that the community felt did not reflect their views. I think that that did not help.
Will a look be taken at having a mechanism that allows communities to come together to discuss a national park proposal very openly without feeling that they are in a yes or no position, which immediately forces them to pick a side, depending on their level of trust or mistrust of the organisation that is promoting the proposal? It seemed to me that it was almost a no-go area for many people from the outset, because of the way in which the putting forward of proposals was being handled.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
I am afraid to say that I remember the process of the original legislation, and I guess that the four aims were hard fought for in trying to get the balance right. There is an additional focus on different areas through the priorities that are set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of the proposed new section 1(2) of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, but paragraph (f) is the only one that really looks at people’s wellbeing. All the others look at the area, tourism or climate change—nothing really to do with the wellbeing of people. Could that skew the balance of those aims? Previously, we had four equally balanced aims in which, obviously, the natural environment was a priority. I am wondering whether the new sub-aims could skew the balance.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Given that both national parks raised the issue of housing, do you not think that we should be looking specifically at housing for the local community?
09:15Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
To slightly turn this on its head, what are you hoping to gain with the new sub-aims?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
There is an opportunity to make amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. What lessons can be learned from the national park process that we might be able to reflect in the bill?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
I was thinking more about lessons in relation to building local support. Obviously, there was not local support in Galloway, but, in the early stages of the process, I was aware that there were several areas of the Highlands and Islands where people tried to build support for a national park designation, and I was surprised at the pushback against that. When we were considering legislating and people were talking about future national parks, there seemed to be a head of steam in favour of national parks, but, suddenly, there was quite a big pushback whereby people in areas where I thought that national park status might have been wanted said that they did not want it.
How should we approach the issue of building local support? Maybe we should also think about how to deal with local concerns, because people have told me that the board would not listen to them. Is that a reflection of how the two boards that we have at the moment are working? How do we make the process more open, get people involved and make them feel that they have a voice on whether they want a national park?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
I think that there was community engagement, but it was about who was carrying out that engagement. Where were the trusted voices? People felt that, the moment someone was consulting them, it was a done deal and that that was the aim of the exercise. Therefore, people either took fright and said no or they were very positive about it. Views became entrenched very early on, and it felt as though there was no open and honest conversation about what the proposal could be, how we could shape it and what input we would have if it went ahead. It almost felt as though we missed a stage at the very start, before having the wider consultation.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Yes. Other members will know more about the Galloway situation, but I was very aware of what was happening in relation to the areas in the Highlands and Islands that were putting forward nominations. I felt that people were becoming very entrenched in their views very quickly, rather than being given the opportunity to explore, without any pressure, the nomination and what it would mean for them. Having a stage earlier in the process would give people ownership of it rather than make them feel that they had to make a decision early on.