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 5863 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Finlay Carson
It appeared right from the outset that the timescales for the designation of the Galloway national park were going to be incredibly difficult to meet. The only work that had been done for quite some time was by the Galloway National Park Association, which was done before I was an MSP, and although it was very commendable, it became clear quite early on in the consultation process that it was deeply flawed. Almost £350,000 was spent on that failed process. Should you not have considered halting the process earlier, given that it was so clear, even back in December and January at the turn of this year, that the process was ultimately doomed and would be very polarising?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Finlay Carson
We have heard that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee recommended that there should be an independent review of national parks to inform future decisions. We heard that suggestion throughout the consultation, and you have touched on it yourself. There was misinformation around some of the challenges that the current national parks have. Would it not be sensible to have an independent review of national parks? We know that they have annual reviews, but, effectively, the park authorities mark their own homework. Although the Government has oversight of that process, there is a lack of confidence that the reports reflect the true situation in national parks. There are still questions about whether parks deliver on their nature targets and for local communities.
Would you consider an independent review? If one had been in place prior to the Galloway national park proposal, the arguments would not have been quite so polarised and there would not have been accusations that misinformation led people to their conclusions about whether there should be a new park.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Finlay Carson
Yes. Ultimately, the decision of the people in Galloway appeared to be based on the idea that national parks are not delivering and that they are actually curtailing the ability for areas to be economically sustainable. Again, the view was that national parks just exacerbate problems with the low-wage economy, low-skilled jobs, higher house prices and restrictions on agriculture. If that is not the case, why did that misinformation effectively succeed in persuading the majority of people in Galloway not to back a national park?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Finlay Carson
There has been some concern about what the definition of cultural development is. Some have suggested that you should have considered alternative words such as “creative” or “creative arts”. Was there a reason, or much discussion around, why the term “cultural development” was used?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Finlay Carson
Following on from Mark Ruskell’s question, I have one on the period for which these plans are in place and how often they are reviewed. Do you think that there is the potential for conflict? Local authorities have an electoral cycle and there are national plans such as the United Kingdom forestry standard, but we have a forestry industry that needs to plan 25, 30 or 35 years in advance. How can you ensure that the national park plans are flexible enough to deal with that?
Commercial forestry might not be a huge consideration in Sitka spruce scenarios and in the Cairngorms, but when the Government considers other areas—for example, the Galloway and Ayrshire national park—how can we be sure that the national park plans recognise the electoral cycles of local authorities and national plans such as the UK forestry standard? How can the park plans interact with those to ensure that they are flexible enough that they do not put off or divert investment away from local authorities when it comes to election and budget-setting scenarios?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Finlay Carson
Thank you.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Finlay Carson
Thank you. You just rang a bell in my head. Why does the bill refer to the “prosperity of individuals”? That raised a few eyebrows among stakeholders. What is your definition of “prosperity of individuals”?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Finlay Carson
That is exactly the point.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Finlay Carson
That is useful, because the Welsh legislation is fairly fresh, and I am sure that you will need to look at it in a bit more detail. It would be helpful to get information on any amendments that you are considering lodging to reflect some of the good stuff from that bill.
You touched on the PAG advice that you received relating to the target topics. Could you share that?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 June 2025
Finlay Carson
You are talking about flexibility, The fact is that having “regard to” the code suggests that, in some circumstances, NatureScot might not have to follow the regulations set out in that code.