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 706 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
As part of the panel of advisers, NatureScot would obviously be giving advice, but anybody else on that panel would know that, at the end of the day, it is the regulator. That would create a bit of an imbalance on the panels, because the gamekeeper, who will be making sure that everybody else complies with whatever comes out of that panel’s advice, will also be sitting on the panel. It just seems that that would set an imbalance for people.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
I guess that the conflict lies in the fact that an advisory panel gives advice and it is up to Government whether it takes that advice. If the advice was different from the decision that was made, NatureScot would still have to police compliance with that, even though the panel obviously did not agree with the decision or want it to be implemented.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Yes, but if its advice is different from the action that is taken, how can you then say that it is an impartial enforcer?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
It is just that they can do that on land that they tenant, not on land where excess numbers of deer are having an impact. I am not saying that properly—what I mean is that the deer move about and, if they are not caught in the act, the occupier cannot do anything.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Having a separation of powers is a well-known way of working—the person in charge of policing something does not make the regulation. If someone does not agree with what is being proposed in discussions that have been carried out in an open forum, how can people trust them to regulate the implementation of that in a transparent way? You say that the NatureScot members on the panels are public officials and they are bound not to work in a detrimental way, but they are still human beings. That is why we tend to have that separation of powers, whereas it feels like there is a real conflict in the proposal that is before us. It is fine if everything is working and everyone is in agreement, but you would not need those panels if everyone was in full agreement. How do you prevent the conflict?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
This is off the top of my head—I know that we do not have a great deal of time, convener. Let us say that the advisory panel says that we need to get deer numbers down to five per hectare and NatureScot says that 10 per hectare would be fine. NatureScot would have to police getting that number down to five. What confidence could people have that NatureScot would police that when everyone knows that it thinks that 10 is the right number?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Would the bill benefit from the inclusion of a collection of target-setting criteria such as those that were included in the climate legislation, which could set the parameters for those targets? That was suggested by Open Seas.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
So, it is about co-ordinating the other pieces of legislation.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
If we bear in mind that delegated powers already exist in this area, why is a new, single, overarching power needed to enable Scottish ministers to modify Scottish EIA legislation and the habitats regulations?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 3 June 2025
Rhoda Grant
Amendment 339 would make land management plans subject to a public interest test, requiring landowners to consider the public interest when pursuing such plans. Owning large areas of land is a privilege and therefore large landowners need to consider the impact of their activities on the wider public when drawing up their land management plans.
Amendment 342 seeks to expand the definition of land that is subject to obligations under proposed new section 44A of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 to include public interest determinations. It would also add public interest criteria for applying land management obligations and would allow the Government to impose public goods obligations on large landowners. Too often, we hear of communities that cannot access land for vital community interests such as housing and food production. The amendment would empower the Government to step in where community efforts have failed.
Amendment 348 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendment 342 and would include proposed new section 44D to the 2016 act in the list of relevant sections.
I support other amendments in the group from Mercedes Villalba, Michael Matheson and Ariane Burgess. It is clear that we need a public interest test for many aspects of the bill for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has laid out, which I will not repeat. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on which amendments would best do that.
