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 772 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Emma Roddick
It is on the topic of who is responsible for what and where responsibilities lie. I am curious about where there are clear assigned responsibilities for who is supposed to oversee certain aspects of food supply—for example, there is the groceries code adjudicator. I am thinking about how much power lies with the supermarkets in the sense of what is actually going through processing down to abattoir level. I have certainly heard a lot of anecdotal evidence that supermarkets, rather than UK or Scottish regulations, are driving much of what ends up on our shelves. Does anybody have anything to add on that?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Emma Roddick
Were there obvious missed opportunities to involve young people in the plan?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Emma Roddick
I was thinking about the draft plans, but you can comment on the wider consultation process, too.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Emma Roddick
How would you consult the pigs?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Emma Roddick
Does it have enough teeth?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 September 2025
Emma Roddick
I want to ask for the witnesses’ views on the overall consultation process, particularly on whether it met the requirement to be inclusive of children and young people.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
I was just about to ask you the question that you have just asked yourself. I am glad that you have enjoyed the evidence sessions so far—I have, too. As we have already heard, there are many concerns about the regional list element in particular, and there is a lot of conflicting evidence on what is the best way forward. I am sure that, initially, you had to weigh up those concerns. How did you come to the process for removal that is laid out in the bill?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
You keep talking about fairness and parity between the two types of member. I go back to the answer that you gave to Sue Webber—there is something interesting about the idea that we are trying to force a first-past-the-post system on to the regional list. Did you think about doing it the other way and retaining the proportionality that came through in the election? What about replacing a recalled constituency MSP with somebody on their party list?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
If you want to measure the strength of feeling and test what constituents want, surely we need a yes or no process. It could be that 20 per cent of constituents sign the recall petition but 40 per cent of constituents are against it.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 19 June 2025
Emma Roddick
I think that people will conflate the two because, whichever way you go about it, comparisons will be made. One suggestion that was made to the committee was that a full regional by-election be held. It was pointed out to us that if somebody is upset with the conduct of an individual MSP, they might also want to hold the relevant party to account—although that is not the primary objective of your bill, of course. Although people have that opportunity in a constituency by-election, they do not have it on the regional side, where the party directly replaces the individual concerned. Do you have concerns about that disparity?