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 6917 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 297 disagreed to.
Amendment 298 moved—[Ross Greer].
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Section 34 agreed to.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The question is, that amendment 326 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 326 disagreed to.
Amendments 327 and 269 to 271 not moved.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
I appreciate that.
I call Emma Harper to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 273.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
If you would like to take the intervention, that is fine.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 90 disagreed to.
Amendment 91 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments, but amendment 338 already highlights some of the issues that you say need to be discussed in the future. There are standards and certification in place for shell cleaning and processing, and there will always be record keeping and traceability requirements, which are mentioned in the amendment.
If there are no contamination issues with clean shells—the amendment is specifically about clean shells—finding workarounds to the waste management and animal by-product regulations will add cost, such as consultancy costs, waste management licence consultations and licence costs. Amendment 338 would take that away in a situation in which there is no issue with clean shells, and, again, the amendment makes it quite clear that the shells have to be clean. I am concerned that we would have a workaround rather than a perfectly simple, acceptable and inexpensive forever solution that would mean that companies would not have to deal with licensing or engage with SEPA or whatever. If they had a product that complied with the provisions in amendment 338, they could avoid the cost of putting that shell in the market.
I am not minded to withdraw amendment 338. If there are any technical issues that relate to the regulations that are in place, we could look to amend the provision at stage 3, but I would like to put down a marker that this is the right way forward. It would be good for a fishing industry that, as I have said, is facing ever-increasing pressures on its ability to fish as widely as possible, and it would maximise the full benefit of the scallop and its shell as a product. As I say, I am not minded to withdraw the amendment. I will press it to a vote as a marker, and we will work out any technical issues before stage 3.
The question is, that amendment 338 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 December 2025
Finlay Carson
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 338 agreed to.
Before section 34
Amendment 35 moved—[Gillian Martin].
Amendment 35A moved—[Rachael Hamilton].